SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   CHICAGO | The 78 Site (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=233449)

SamInTheLoop Feb 20, 2020 8:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree (Post 8831708)
Now I really don't understand what you're saying! CBD's are a thing of the past. Stop thinking that the loop is the god-given business-only district of this city. THAT is bad planning! As long as new business districts are created along transit lines (that conveniently run through the Loop) it's really not that hard to imagine. Plus, the more business districts we have, the more walkable the city can become, and the more mixed-use and livable it can be. If anything, the 78 is an example of fantastic mixed-use planning. A university, apartment buildings, fitness centers, transit areas, and plenty of parkland in one walkable distance. What's not to like? And, I think we've already argued that there is plenty of transit infrastructure in place to support these office jobs. As was stated before, 2 stations (1 new and Roosevelt) make this project completely feasible transit wise. Do you have property in the Loop that is losing value? Is that why you such a vendetta against business districts outside the Loop? I promise you, it's really not bad planning.


CBD's are a thing of the past? Seems slightly hyperbolic, no?

I'm perfectly fine with appropriately-scaled office nodes and small districts outside of, or as an extension to, the core. What is very poor urban planning is to allow policy to concentrate millions of square feet of space in an area that is not at the nexus of citywide and regional transit - meaning accessible with one train ride to the broadest reach possible of the entire metro population......when there is ample capacity for further densification of office space within the core itself. That's just not planning.

And again, this is not a vendetta, I have zero vested interest of any type in the core/transit nexus zone. Mine is a position that is rooted in sound urban planning principles. Shouldn't be too difficult to follow.

SamInTheLoop Feb 20, 2020 8:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 8831886)
Are people really unfamiliar with this modern transit technology commonly called a "bus"?

In Chicago something like 2/3rds of all trips, including for commuting, are by bus. The Near West Side and West Loop have bus route service. The Morgan station makes for a nice anchor in the middle of an area with relatively less bus service than other downtown-adjacent areas, but even before that existed, most of the growth was an organic extension west along Lake Street, where the Clinton stop was useful. The Halsted bus also provided useful service as buildings got a little further west. And all along the north edge of Fulton Market, walking from the Grand bus stops was not, in any way, particularly difficult. Certainly much easier than walking from West Loop Metra stations to the East Loop or River North, yet thousands of people do that. Also, walking north from Madison covered the south edges of Fulton Market. And even walking from Ogilvie to Fulton or the West Loop west of Halsted. Walking from Ogilvie to where the Morgan station is now is the same distance as walking from Ogilvie to State/Lake or State/Monroe. And more than a few commuters do that daily. For city commuters, the types of companies that first started locating in the Fulton Market area tended to be younger, so a larger-than-normal portion likely rode their bikes or lived not too far away and walked. A good friend of mine bikes from essentially Melrose and Halsted in East Lakeview to Google's headquarters in Fulton Market, and he's not alone. That's a four-mile ride, and anyone else willing to make a ride of that length (which is likely 20-30 minutes most days), creates a huge pool of available workers for the area. And it's not just Millennials - I'm 46, but I walk to work most days from the north part of River North to Dearborn and Washington in the Loop, and another of my coworkers (in an office of 15 people) walks a mile into the Loop from the West Loop. For both of us, our commute almost exactly a mile, walking. So anyone who lives in the West Loop can easily walk to anywhere in the Fulton Market area as a commute.

So, could downtown function if all parts of downtown had transit like Fulton Market does, or especially if it were like Fulton Market pre-Morgan station? No, it couldn't. But fortunately not everywhere downtown has the same moderate transit density of Fulton Market. *Most* people aren't dumb enough to apply for jobs they don't want to do what's needed to commute to. Sure, there are people who do apply for and even accept jobs without considering the commute, but there are apparently also people who tried to eat Tide Pods, so there's that. But most people wouldn't eat Tide Pods, and most people will self-regulate their commutes.

The 78 needs the 15th St Red Line stop, but the CTA can extend the 22/Clark to 18th Street, or run more 24/Wentworth buses and/or route it up the Wells/Wentworth connector instead of up Clark once the W/W connector is done. People can reach a reasonable amount of the 78 from the 12/Roosevelt bus and the Roosevelt Red/Green/Orange station. The CTA may even eventually make an Orange Line station at 18th or Wentworth, helping serve the south end. And the 18th St bus could easily be extended east to Indiana to help pull people to the 78. And let's be real - Clark/15th is equidistant between the Roosevelt Red Line station and the north exit of the Cermak/Chinatown Red Line station, at .6 miles according to Google Maps - a 10-15 minute walk which, while not ideal (I frequently advocate for transit that places people closer than that to major destinations), but, again, is similar to people choosing to walk from the West Loop Metra stations to the East Loop, or people walking from Metra Electric stops in the East Loop to the near West Loop or much of the North Michigan Ave office corridor.

Is transit for the 78 optimal, even with a Red Line 15th St station? No. And I've pointed out the the City and the CTA have dropped the ball by not choosing to route the Orange Line north through the 78 to join the Loop at Wells/Vanburen instead of routing to the Green Line, because that would be a far better solution than only having the extra Red Line station.

As for Lincoln Yards, it is served by a Metra stop that enables commutes for much of the North Shore and NW suburbs and some north and northwest city neighborhoods. And the 73/Armitage bus serves it well and can have increased service. The CTA can resume a Clybourn bus - there used to be one as recently as the 1980s I think. Walking from North Ave to the southern parts of Lincoln Yards is less than a 10 minute walk. Walking from Ashland is doable for the western edges. The 606 will assist with cyclist commuters coming from the west. And the eastern portions of Lincoln Yards are even not that bad of a walk from Armitage Brown Line stop - less than a half mile (less than a ten minute) walk from Armitage Brown to Kingsbury and Cortland, and just over 10 minutes walking to Southport/Cortland. People who live in western Lincoln Park can easily walk to work, as can people in eastern Wicker Park/Bucktown.

Now, are either the 78 or Lincoln Yards excellent commutes for everyone in the entire Chicagoland Region? No. Especially not compared to the western portion of the Loop proper. However, not every office district needs to be. Either of them are more accessible to more people than nearly ANY suburban office park. So what, exactly, is the complaint?



I'm really glad you brought up the bus issue. I don't presently, but I've commuted on a few different bus routes over the years as my go-to transit mode. I've always (granted only talking about maybe a total of 3 or 4 different routes and start-end locations) been very comfortable with this mode of transit and in some instances rather preferred it.

Trust me on this - I'm in the minority here. Bus commuting isn't going to go away for certain, and it will remain popular and a preferred choice for some, but the headwinds for it are absolutely gale force. I perceive a very substantial - and growing - part of the populace that despises it and avoids it like the plague. I'm sure it's in no small part connected to why bus ridership numbers are tanking. Transit times by bus can be brutal. I get this sense that some (again I never have - the polar opposite for me) attach this weird, harmful social stigma to busses, and I think rideshare services have likely further harmed bus transit (in multiple ways, as they also worsen traffic and increase bus transit times).

I'm really with you in theory....in how things should work. I just hold that this is a heavy, heavy lift, and goes completely counter to some fairly entrenched transportation trends.

Handro Feb 20, 2020 9:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 8837239)
I'm really glad you brought up the bus issue. I don't presently, but I've commuted on a few different bus routes over the years as my go-to transit mode. I've always (granted only talking about maybe a total of 3 or 4 different routes and start'end locations) been very comfortable with this mode of transit and in some instances rather preferred it.

Trust me on this - I'm in the minority here. Bus commuting isn't going to go away for certain, and it will remain popular and a preferred choice for some, but the headwinds for it are absolutely gale force. I perceive a very substantial - and growing - part of the populace that despises it and avoids it like the plague. I'm sure it's in no small part connected to why bus ridership numbers are tanking. Transit times by bus can be brutal. I get this sense that some (again I never have - the polar opposite for me) attach this weird, harmful social stigma to busses, and I think rideshare services have likely further harmed bus transit (in multiple ways, as they also worsen traffic increase bus transit times).

I'm really with you in theory....in how things should work. I just hold that this is a heavy, heavy lift, and goes completely counter to some fairly entrenched transportation trends.

I despise the bus. It is slow and unpredictable, and often it's easier to just walk then to wait for and then crawl with a bus.

But the city seems to finally be making some changes to mitigate those problems and I would definitely be open to using hte bus as a main mode of transit the city continues to add (and enforce) bus only lanes. Right now the bus only lanes seem like more of a pilot program than anything else, but the trends are promising.

sentinel Mar 2, 2020 8:45 PM

Don't think this has been posted yet, but the site plan has been updated, perhaps coinciding with the release of the new renderings from last month (omg we're already in March :uhh:):

https://www.78chicago.com/sites/defa...20Download.pdf

SIGSEGV Mar 2, 2020 11:39 PM

^ That is way too much greenspace. Looks like a university campus, not a neighborhood.

the urban politician Mar 3, 2020 1:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 8848583)
^ That is way too much greenspace. Looks like a university campus, not a neighborhood.

Well, it’s not really going to be much of a neighborhood. It’s essentially going to be a University-meet-corporate-world campus with a few apartments and a hotel or two thrown in.

Handro Mar 3, 2020 2:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 8848583)
^ That is way too much greenspace. Looks like a university campus, not a neighborhood.

Agreed, but I don’t think we can expect much from any of these pending mega developments. I’m still pretty psyched for this one for the simply fact that I think that lot could sit empty for another 100 years without it.

sentinel Mar 3, 2020 2:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 8848583)
^ That is way too much greenspace. Looks like a university campus, not a neighborhood.

Uhh, it's a park. Parks are good..or are they not anymore?

ardecila Mar 3, 2020 3:40 AM

Yeah I don’t see the problem.

I’ve mentioned before that the park solves a very specific issue - when the city backfilled the original river channel in the 1920s, they literally filled it with garbage. The soil is terrible quality, poorly compacted and not at all suited to building foundations without a lot of expensive remediation.

This site plan kills two birds with one stone by setting that land aside as park space and building densely in the areas where soil is good.

Also, as a side note, I’m thanking my lucky stars that Tony Rezko was not able to develop this site the way he wanted to, as suburban schlock-fest, Dearborn Park Phase 3 complete with an IKEA and huge parking garages. Say what you will about the Related plan, but it is dense, livable, walkable, and transit-oriented. It prioritizes connectivity to surrounding areas, as much as is possible.

SIGSEGV Mar 3, 2020 3:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel (Post 8848794)
Uhh, it's a park. Parks are good..or are they not anymore?

Parks are good, but they don't have to take up such a large fraction of the land... the proportions are off here IMO. This is like suburban office park greenspace fraction, not middle of the city greenspace fraction. I'm sure it will be a very nice park though, but I'm not sure this level of development justifies a subway station unless those buildings are very tall...

SIGSEGV Mar 3, 2020 3:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8848855)
Yeah I don’t see the problem.

I’ve mentioned before that the park solves a very specific issue - when the city backfilled the original river channel in the 1920s, they literally filled it with garbage. The soil is terrible quality, poorly compacted and not at all suited to building foundations without a lot of expensive remediation.

This site plan kills two birds with one stone by setting that land aside as park space and building densely in the areas where soil is good.

Also, as a side note, I’m thanking my lucky stars that Tony Rezko was not able to develop this site the way he wanted to, as suburban schlock-fest, Dearborn Park Phase 3 complete with an IKEA and huge parking garages. Say what you will about the Related plan, but it is dense, livable, walkable, and transit-oriented. It prioritizes connectivity to surrounding areas, as much as is possible.

ah ok... well that makes more sense why they're giving up so much buildable space.


I wonder if it would make sense to move the Maritime museum from Bridgeport to here?

ardecila Mar 3, 2020 4:03 AM

I agree the site could use a cultural destination. The newest site plan shows something resembling the Culture Shed that Related built at Hudson Yards, but without any further description from Related it’s just a cool-looking blob...

Gedung Tinngi Mar 3, 2020 6:11 AM

Will there be a pedestrian connection to Ping Tom Park?

I can only imagine it being a fantastic feature to someday walk from the Loop to Chinatown along the River.

BuildThemTaller Mar 3, 2020 1:32 PM

^ There appears to be a connection to Ping Tom Park in the PDF Sentinel posted. It's in the bottom right of the drawing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel (Post 8848373)
Don't think this has been posted yet, but the site plan has been updated, perhaps coinciding with the release of the new renderings from last month (omg we're already in March :uhh:):

https://www.78chicago.com/sites/defa...20Download.pdf


sentinel Mar 3, 2020 5:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8848879)
I agree the site could use a cultural destination. The newest site plan shows something resembling the Culture Shed that Related built at Hudson Yards, but without any further description from Related it’s just a cool-looking blob...

Yeah I noticed that too; I think once the plans are fleshed out further, that 'shed' will have some actual purpose, other than a placeholder, rando design feature. You are totally correct that there needs to be a dedicated cultural destination, considering this is being planned as a fully functional neighborhood.

I understand now what you mean, SIGSEGV. Personally, I think allocating a good chunk of green space is always a good idea. My only gripe with the design is why have the Crescent park in the middle? It just seems more logical/natural to have it along the river, and have more than just a riverwalk, but a more diverse and continuous ecosystem, rather than the split-up that the site plan shows. That way, LaSalle street wouldn't have to have that silly job, it could just be a straight shot from Roosevelt to 15th St.

Steely Dan Mar 3, 2020 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel (Post 8849291)
My only gripe with the design is why have the Crescent park in the middle?

reread ardecila's post.

the crescent park is located where it is because that's where the shitty unbuildable back-filled soil from the old river channel is.


Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8848855)
I’ve mentioned before that the park solves a very specific issue - when the city backfilled the original river channel in the 1920s, they literally filled it with garbage. The soil is terrible quality, poorly compacted and not at all suited to building foundations without a lot of expensive remediation.

This site plan kills two birds with one stone by setting that land aside as park space and building densely in the areas where soil is good.



this old picture from the south branch straightening will hopefully let you understand it better.

https://interactive.wttw.com/sites/d...ing-768px.webp
source: https://interactive.wttw.com/chicago...-chicago-river

ardecila Mar 3, 2020 7:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gedung Tinngi (Post 8848952)
Will there be a pedestrian connection to Ping Tom Park?

I can only imagine it being a fantastic feature to someday walk from the Loop to Chinatown along the River.

An riverwalk connection next to the water is probably a later project, but very soon (once Wells-Wentworth opens) you should be able to get to Ping Tom Park via an inland connection. This is important since it will also link the newer Ping Tom fieldhouse to the original eastern side of the park, which are currently split by the railroad.

https://i.imgur.com/VVPmHrG.jpg

sentinel Mar 3, 2020 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8849324)
reread ardecila's post.

the crescent park is located where it is because that's where the shitty unbuildable back-filled soil from the old river channel is.






this old picture from the south branch straightening will hopefully let you understand it better.

https://interactive.wttw.com/sites/d...ing-768px.webp
source: https://interactive.wttw.com/chicago...-chicago-river

Ahh, clearly I did not read that.

bhawk66 Mar 3, 2020 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8849324)
reread ardecila's post.

the crescent park is located where it is because that's where the shitty unbuildable back-filled soil from the old river channel is.






this old picture from the south branch straightening will hopefully let you understand it better.

Actually, are not the buildings right on the infill? It appears that way from the most recent site plan.

If that north/south street in the picture nearest the old river route can be identified that would tell it.

Steely Dan Mar 3, 2020 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhawk66 (Post 8849725)
Actually, are not the buildings right on the infill?

no, it's pretty clear in the recently released site plan that the crescent park closely follows the path of the old back-filled river channel.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.