SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   CHICAGO | One Central (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=239273)

galleyfox Sep 23, 2021 7:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro (Post 9405112)
No singular event or accolade will raise a cities profile. But taking every opportunity to get in front of the world and showcase the beauty of the city does, over time, make an impact. Right now the ONLY things Chicago is known for among the masses are crime and cold weather. Chicago does nothing to change that. Keeping the focus on the amount of industrial SF leased in the region or a new call center on the south side is not going to change the narrative on its own.0

Soldier Field had already hosted the World Cup with the opening ceremony in 1994.

The city’s local basketball team with Michael Jordan made that entire World Cup a complete afterthought in world sporting history.

Mass immigration from Mexico to the lowly food processing and logistics warehouses completely changed the fortune of Chicago vs. most other rust belt cities.

Many of the teens who attend Lollapalooza eventually decide to live in Chicago full time which is more than what most foreign tourists will do

It would be incredible to have a festivity like the 1893 World’s Fair, but that was the culmination not the cause of a golden age. There were endless expositions that followed in other cities that had minimal impact. St. Louis hosted the first American Olympics and that went nowhere

It’s ridiculous to hanker after a one-off event where Chicago would be a sideshow from the start when there’s a good chance the call center will have the more profound real world impact.

Mr Downtown Sep 23, 2021 8:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 9405182)
This rendering is actually not on The 78 site but on Dearborn Park I and II site...

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

I don't recall ever seeing this rendering, though in 1985 I was very much in the middle of the neighborhood debate over a White Sox stadium at Clark & Roosevelt. But look more carefully: the rendering shows the area from Harrison to 16th west of Clark—not Dearborn Park.

BuildThemTaller Sep 23, 2021 8:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 9405182)
This one definitely is The 78 site though...

https://i.imgur.com/n0wCC0R.jpg

Didn't realize Vancouver stole Chicago's plans.

https://objects.artspan.com/member/h...00/2635759.jpg

ardecila Sep 24, 2021 2:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 9405315)
I don't recall ever seeing this rendering, though in 1985 I was very much in the middle of the neighborhood debate over a White Sox stadium at Clark & Roosevelt. But look more carefully: the rendering shows the area from Harrison to 16th west of Clark—not Dearborn Park.

Apparently this rendering is from 1967, so long before the 1985 proposal you debated: https://www.southsidesox.com/2012/11...south-loop-sox

This would have been shortly after the UIC plan for the railyard site died, and Daley tore down Little Italy instead. But that still left the railyards undeveloped, so this was Daley's Plan B. (Somehow Del Webb was involved?)

Dearborn Park I would not be proposed for another decade, and the railyards were very much up for grabs if a deal could be struck with the railroads.

west-town-brad Sep 24, 2021 2:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by southoftheloop (Post 9404798)
If Chicago values itself as a global capital, it should be a host for the world's most watched event. New York, LA, DC are hosting – and also cities like Nashville, Kansas City, Orlando, Baltimore....

yes, Chicago does not have the name recognition that KANSAS CITY will soon have.... hilarious....

nomarandlee Sep 24, 2021 4:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 9405159)
While I don't share the strong distaste for Soldier Field, on this we can agree - that is a phenomenal stadium. And it should be, as I just saw the estimated development cost, and even given sky-high expectations, I'm flabbergasted.

I agree. Probably still over half the of the stadiums, other than the newer stadiums (Atlanta, Minneapolis, LA, Dallas, Vegas, Seattle, Houston) look shlocky aesthetically, both inside and outside compared to Soldier. Many look totally utilitarian, uninspired, unoriginal, and formulaic (Nashville, Charlotte, Tampa, Denver etc). I think the sweep of the lux boxes on the east side of SF actually set it apart as one of the better-looking stadiums. Also while the colonnades and bowl are awkward as hell they still give the stadium a unique and interesting character which is far more than one could say about half the stadiums.

It is simply too small and owned by someone else. That is really the fault of the Bears because their demands were that it be on the lakefront and outdoors. It was not the city that demand they build under 62k. They set the parameters and now they know that those parameters suck.

nomarandlee Sep 24, 2021 4:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 9405315)
I don't recall ever seeing this rendering, though in 1985 I was very much in the middle of the neighborhood debate over a White Sox stadium at Clark & Roosevelt. But look more carefully: the rendering shows the area from Harrison to 16th west of Clark—not Dearborn Park.

The Sox forever blew that one not moving to the South Loop and getting the after-work crowd from downtown.

Mr Downtown Sep 24, 2021 6:20 PM

Ironically, it was the desire for a new Bears stadium that made possible Dearborn Park. George Halas had taken an option on the C&WI/Dearborn Station railyards to possibly build a Bears stadium there, but Da Mare apparently wasn't in favor. The option was still in effect, however, when downtown business leaders formed the Century 21 Corporation to actually build the new-town-in-town proposed in the 1973 Chicago 21 plan.

southoftheloop Sep 24, 2021 7:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by west-town-brad (Post 9406021)
yes, Chicago does not have the name recognition that KANSAS CITY will soon have.... hilarious....

Maybe next time you'll catch the argument, because that clearly wasn't it...

left of center Sep 29, 2021 4:24 AM

Bears have signed a purchase agreement for the Arlington International Racecourse

https://theathletic.com/news/bears-s...e/QTJyEXELsaMt

If they do move, this probably torpedoes One Central, which seemed like a real long shot anyway.

CaptainJilliams Sep 29, 2021 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center (Post 9410129)
Bears have signed a purchase agreement for the Arlington International Racecourse

https://theathletic.com/news/bears-s...e/QTJyEXELsaMt

If they do move, this probably torpedoes One Central, which seemed like a real long shot anyway.

Agreed, having the station and connection to Soldier Field was a central point in their pitch. I don't think the soccer team or any concerts are going to have enough draw to justify the bill of this plan.

I don't foresee this plan going forward.

the urban politician Sep 29, 2021 12:39 PM

I think this is a huge message to Lightfoot. Get on the ball or lose it.

glowrock Sep 29, 2021 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9410271)
I think this is a huge message to Lightfoot. Get on the ball or lose it.

It's time to leave it in that case. Screw the Bears. I understand making enhancements/expansions to Soldier Field, even finding a way of building a new stadium on/adjacent to the current stadium, but there's no way in hell the Bears shouldn't be paying for the majority of the costs involved. I'm actually more than a little sick and tired of NFL stadia becoming these absolute beasts already. I used to think the "new" Mile High Stadium in Denver had a massive footprint, but these new ones (L.A./L.V, Arlington, etc... are absolute mammoths that are completely reliant on being nowhere near the center of cities. Fuck 'em.

Aaron (Glowrock)

sentinel Sep 29, 2021 1:21 PM

Proof that the Bears are just a business (like any other NFL team or major league sports team, for that matter), and don't give two shits about where they're located..as long as those sweet, sweet concession monies still keep coming, they really don't give a shit if they win, either.

I highly suspect that current Bears fan base is mostly suburban anyway, so in a way, a move to a shitty, car-oriented suburb makes sense..

the urban politician Sep 29, 2021 1:43 PM

..

Chisouthside Sep 29, 2021 1:52 PM

That view of downtown during games is gonna be replaced by views of sprawl.:shrug:
As if it worked for the 49rs moving almost 40 miles to Santa Clara im sure it'll work for the Bears.

marothisu Sep 29, 2021 1:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisouthside (Post 9410333)
That view of downtown during games is gonna be replaced by views of sprawl.:shrug:
As if it worked for the 49rs moving almost 40 miles to Santa Clara im sure it'll work for the Bears.

It is funny how many pro sports teams think that changing a location or building a new stadium is going to fix their organization and poor coaching.

Didn't the Bears pull this in the mid 90s? I wouldn't say they're lost to AH just yet.

bnk Sep 29, 2021 2:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisouthside (Post 9410333)
That view of downtown during games is gonna be replaced by views of sprawl.:shrug:
As if it worked for the 49rs moving almost 40 miles to Santa Clara im sure it'll work for the Bears.

If they move they will still have the shots scanning the skyline from the lake via drones. Even now most of the skyline on TV and other shots of the city, do not include the stadium. Expect that to continue.

nomarandlee Sep 29, 2021 2:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowrock (Post 9410278)
It's time to leave it in that case. Screw the Bears. I understand making enhancements/expansions to Soldier Field, even finding a way of building a new stadium on/adjacent to the current stadium, but there's no way in hell the Bears shouldn't be paying for the majority of the costs involved. I'm actually more than a little sick and tired of NFL stadia becoming these absolute beasts already. I used to think the "new" Mile High Stadium in Denver had a massive footprint, but these new ones (L.A./L.V, Arlington, etc... are absolute mammoths that are completely reliant on being nowhere near the center of cities. Fuck 'em.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Absolutely on all accounts. If the Bears want to build a new stadium south of McCormick Place or they want to build south of the Amtrak yards on Roosevelt etc. give them the blessing. Otherwise, it's time to bid farewell. The Bears had one shot in 2000 to get taxpayer help with a stadium and they obviously blew it in not foreseeing their own requirements 20 years on. They are the ones who knew they would be hemmed in on the lakefront. They knew they would have the smallest stadium in the league and they wanted it open air. A new stadium in A.H. will never have quite the cache or draw that the same stadium would have near the lakefront downtown.

And even though public tax financing will be DOA for the Bears in A.H. how have we not passed laws as a society against taxpayer financing of professional sports stadiums yet It's about damn time.

Handro Sep 29, 2021 2:58 PM

I'm pretty ambivalent on a move, on the one hand SF is iconic and having the skyline as a backdrop cannot be beat. Less superficially though, the stadium itself sucks, is miserable to access whether on foot or by car, and the size, layout, and exposure to the elements are extremely limiting from a programming perspective (for both the city and the Bears.)

But I do think that a few days after one of the most horrible performances in NFL history, continuing a tradition of mediocrity to downright embarrassing putridness, it seems gallingly arrogant to pursue a multi-billion dollar state-of-the-art stadium for one of the two or three teams that can be counted among the annual laughingstocks of the league.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.