Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 7557617)

On another note, what do you guys think about the Water Taxi adding another stop at Riverline in a few years? Not only are there a few thousand people near there already, but there will be thousands more with Riverline, 801 S Financial, etc. Would be pretty cool to add another stop between Union Station and Chinatown for the Water Taxi.

Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 7557617)

On another note, what do you guys think about the Water Taxi adding another stop at Riverline in a few years? Not only are there a few thousand people near there already, but there will be thousands more with Riverline, 801 S Financial, etc. Would be pretty cool to add another stop between Union Station and Chinatown for the Water Taxi.

Originally Posted by BrinChi (Post 7557241)

Ok trying to determine the population density...

13 acres = 0.0203 square miles;
3700 units. Let's conservatively say 1.5 residents per unit. That's 5,550 residents.
5,550/0.0203 = 274,000 people per square mile.

Assuming my math is correct... isn't this plenty dense?

Originally Posted by HowardL (Post 7557683)

Yeah, definitely. A friend and I attempted to go to Chinatown using the water taxi at the Wrigley Building only to find that the frequent service to the Northwestern Station dock evaporates if you want to go further south.

We waited for the Chinatown transfer until hunger drove us to Little Goat instead of dim sum. More frequent service south of Madison buoyed by this project would completely rock.

Because I want some dim sum.

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 7557263)

developers in general don't capitalize on the idea that many people want units close to the CBD or in the CBD

Originally Posted by spyguy (Post 7557459)

The article still mentions that Phase 1 will be the 29 story apartment building, 18 story condo building, and 62 townhomes.

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7557282)

^ You can't apply a New York lens to Chicago. It's a very different market, there is not a bottomless well of demand for highrise living with zero lake views. CMK has been operating here for decades, and in the South Loop specifically.

Let's compare two previous mega-developments in Chicago, Lakeshore East and Central Station. Both are on the lakefront, both are similar size, and both are Loop-adjacent. Central Station embraced a mix of housing types, with highrises alongside townhouse developments and a few midrises thrown in. Lakeshore East went all-in on highrises.

Today, Central Station is pretty much complete while Lakeshore East will not be finished for another decade or two. Each project that Magellan does at Lakeshore East is a whole new battle with community groups, lenders, investors, etc. If a recession hits, you're not gonna build more highrises, period. On the other hand, if your master plan includes some lower-density phases, you might be able to get those off the ground even during lean times and keep your company in business.

Let's say in Chicago there are X number of people looking to buy a highrise condo, Y number of people looking to rent an apartment, and Z people looking to buy a townhouse. If you build only highrises, then your pool of customers is limited to only X+Y. If you mix up the housing types and include townhouses, your pool of customers just increased to include Z as well. Diversifying the housing types (and lowering overall density somewhat) raises your total pool of customers and, to some extent, insulates you against various kinds of risk.

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7558252)

Adding together the two PDs (225 + 1298), I get 14.74 acres.



This very developer did a project (235 W Van Buren) much closer to the financial district that gave him a lot of sleepless nights about whether he was ever going to sell enough units to get out from under his construction loan.

He's out on a long limb here (though Lend Lease is holding a net nearby), but you think he should climb out on thin air. On a site that has no transit access of any kind, and is served by only one 66-foot-wide street. Once the Great Recession's backlog in new household formation has cleared, where do you think this endless procession of millennial purchasers will come from?

Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 7558244)

Funny, but you do know you guys could have just walked a few blocks to the Red Line and gotten to Chinatown faster/just as easily right?

Originally Posted by HowardL (Post 7558517)

Of course. That was how we intended to come back up north because the late evening water taxi schedule was even worse than the early evening schedule. We had wanted to do the water taxi because of how cool it would have been to have gone to Chinatown on the river.

And to keep this on topic, all of the activity on the river helps explain why this project is so river focused and isn't so much worried about views way over there of the Lake.

Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 7558599)

Haha, good. I love taking the water taxi to and from Chinatown. I've shown some of my friends visiting town and some friends I made who just moved to Chicago a handful of months ago. They all loved it and way preferred it to taking the train.

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 7558713)

They included an image of the 29 story building from the Wells St side, and boy...that base needs to cover up

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 7558205)

where did you get the 13 acres from? i got 15 acres for the site when i measured in google earth (and i left out the parcel at harrison/wells).

it doesn't change the math much, but 15 acres equals .023 sq. miles, so with 3700 units x 1.5 residents, that would equal 241,000 ppsm.

anyone who thinks that 241,000 ppsm isn't dense enough for this parcel simply has no idea what they're talking about.

Originally Posted by BrinChi (Post 7561929)

While we're on the topic, does anyone know of good studies or reading on residential density in terms of infrastructure cost and livability? I feel like numbers and research would be a good thing to have on hand when talking to the anti-density crowd (i.e. NIMBYs).

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 7558713)

DNAInfo is reporting Riverline is breaking ground today. They included an image of the 29 story building from the Wells St side, and boy...that base needs to cover up

Massive Riverline Development To Break Ground Monday
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...-ground-monday

https://assets.dnainfo.com/photo/201...extralarge.jpg

Originally Posted by sentinel (Post 7587259)

Incidentally, that site plan is the first time that the vacant lot on the NE corner of this development has really stood out for me. I don't recall seeing anything or reading anything about that parcel....unless I've missed something.

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7586811)

Building D is under construction. It will look like this:

http://i.imgur.com/vMP4LQj.jpg

I think most of the riverwalk is to be part of the initial construction, but obviously all the new public space can't be completed until other buildings are in place.

http://i.imgur.com/3CdO3BL.jpg

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 7589058)

Mr D - (or anyone else)

The elevation and the site plan you posted of the southern portion of Riverline (River City-South to Roosevelt)....I'm confused - in the elevation I see Building G. It doesn't appear in the site plan though......? It looks to be where Townhomes 1 in the site plan are located.....any idea what's going on there?

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 7590173)

So this is pretty interesting from Perkins + Will. Just conceptual at this point but they say "it could potentially be realized by the time of the masterplan’s final phases."

http://www.archdaily.com/796649/the-...er-beech-tower

http://images.adsttc.com/media/image...w/overall2.jpg
http://images.adsttc.com/media/image...or_atrium2.jpg
[img]
http://images.adsttc.com/media/image...t_-_atrium.jpg
http://images.adsttc.com/media/image..._balconies.jpg
http://images.adsttc.com/media/image...or_atrium2.jpg