Man that picture... I thought the Roosevelt Bridge was a big no-man's land now... it was way more so back then!

The new site plan is definitely a huge improvement over what was proposed before in that the buildings align to a grid and will allow future bridge connections etc. But, seriously, still no east-west connection to wells anywhere between 9th and 15th? Anyone stuck in the inevitable traffic jam on wells will undoubtedly feel hopelessly trapped. Why couldn't they put a connection on 13th? Sure there are probably some concerns about steep grade in this location, but I don't see why they couldn't be overcome by sinking the Lasalle/13th intersection slightly and by lengthening the new 13th connection by having it be curved as I've drawn.

https://i.imgur.com/kzP6NdV.jpg

I don't think demolishing parts of DP2 for EW traffic is in the cards, unfortunately. However there should really be a crossing of the RI line somewhere between Polk and Roosevelt even if just for pedestrians, which would help a little bit with connectivity.

Polk is the only spot i think you could add a bridge that would make sense. Tracks are just so wide west of this site i just do not see a crossing happening.

Shorter blocks have the effect of mitigating speeding cars.

Really don’t care for what Daley did to the Roosevelt/Canal intersection years ago. Did that guy ever think about anything other than the car?

Taylor would work too.

No. Too many parks create too many dead spaces.

Don't forget that the 78 will have 10,000 units and 24,000 jobs. That's not including the amount of people that will visit the site on a given day. The parks here will definitely get used

True, i did not say Taylor because i can not really tell how far east they can push it through. But Taylor does go west further than Polk so i guess it is whichever you would prefer.

Supposedly the TIF spending for The 78 will include a new, operable river bridge at Taylor Street, but will not extend Taylor any further east under the Rock Island tracks.

I'm not sure why they didn't include a street connection to Wells at 13th... possibly because the grades would be too steep?

U wot m8

Nonsense.

Yes, there will be an connection that allows (eventually) a continuous walk from the lake along the river to Ping Tom Park (once the Riverline river walk is complete).

Anyone who's read any of Jane Jacob's works knows that the grandmother of new urbanism was no fan of parks. I don't think I can do her arguments about them justice, but anyone interested in urban design should probably read her works if for no other reason than so many other urbanists have read them and they inform a lot of contemporary opinions.

I like parks, but I also feel that it is absolutely possible to have too many parks, or parks that are too big for the area they serve. Cities exist for commerce, and while residents and visitors do need some open space to stretch their legs or have a break from the hustle of the city, a poorly planned and/or implemented park can do more harm than good. Ultimately, quality is far more important than quantity when it comes to parkland.

Interesting, I'll have to check that out. The one thing I know about her is that her antithetical take on "make no little plans" is a great counter to Burnham's position.

Her view point might be different now than from the early 60's.

Her is her view point and explanation via pod cast.

https://www.thenatureofcities.com/20...erican-cities/

This entire site is going to be developed into large towers, whether they be tall or horizontal with huge floorplates. The layout of the park within that context seems totally appropriate. I can get the complaints about the park if this development were going to be full of townhomes or 3 story buildings, but that is not the case.

Jane Jacobs was great for the context of where she lived—Greenwich Village. But her views are just not the final say on good planning. I agree that Burnham was better. Jane Jacobs was good at making cute places. But we don’t want cute places, we want great places where great ideas and commerce is happening. The 78 is supposed to be that kind of place.

My problem is not with the park, it’s with the big plazas between all of the buildings. Walk around the blocks bounded by Wacker/Randolph/Michigan/Columbus—I used to live in Lakeshore East, that area was abandoned and windswept most of the time.

This will probably be built with a better pedestrian experience in mind (different era) but I think it’s a fair criticism that arcdedlia(?) made about too much open space. I’d prefer to see shorter buildings if it meant a more contiguous street wall.

Is this not just the evolution of corporate office park meets urban infill?

Im not sure about you, but I personally have never seen an office park with heavy public transit within (or, in this case, under) it. Furthermore, I cant think of any suburban developments with road connections to its surroundings, as is the case with this. This development could definitely use a couple infrastructure refinements, but overall it is very well integrated with existing infrastructure.

If this is an office park, then what is Chicago south of Polk, north of 18th, east of Clark, and west of State? In my opinion theyre enormous tracts of underutilized land that shouldve followed this developments guidelines. To a cross degree at least...