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)

jpIllInoIs Jun 1, 2018 3:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8207028)
There's nothing to photograph yet. Only a few stakes in the ground.

Wells won't cross the St. Charles Airline at grade; it will use the old C&WI undercrossing (requiring an inelegant jog to nearly the river and back). "Cross Rail" is merely the dream of some foamers. There's no governmental interest in it, and in fact the IC routing has been eliminated as the corridor for HSR to Downstate.

Yes I do understand wentworth will go under the st charles airline bridge but it still needs an at grade crossing of the CN near Ping Tom park.

Mr Downtown Jun 6, 2018 3:47 PM

No, the CN is at +8 or +10 where it would cross. Wentworth will have new underpasses under both railroads.

Suiram Jun 6, 2018 7:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire (Post 8199753)
Mr. Emmanuel, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!

Maybe we will get a violent uprising of urban planning-minded people who will go on a rampage, and raze Dearborn Park to the ground, at least enough to force a street grid back into existance. They could also use the aggregate to contribute a base level for some of the new roads needed...being such a civic-minded mob.

jpIllInoIs Jun 6, 2018 9:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8211663)
No, the CN is at +8 or +10 where it would cross. Wentworth will have new underpasses under both railroads.

That is great to hear.

left of center Jun 6, 2018 9:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs (Post 8212165)
That is great to hear.

I second that. The fewer at grade crossings we can have in this city, the better.

nomarandlee Jun 8, 2018 4:23 AM

..
Quote:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...nstitute-gains

June 07, 2018
With a $500 million boost, South Loop U of I campus gains momentum
Comments Email Print

With a nifty $500 million in "seed money" in hand, Gov. Bruce Rauner's plans to develop a South Loop engineering and research center that could jolt Illinois' economy into the 21st century are beginning to look real. But the plans still face a summer of uncertainties.

Rauner said he expects ground will be broken "within six months" on the proposed Discovery Partners Institute now that an appropriation of up to $500 million has been included in the just-signed fiscal 2019 Illinois budget.......

GREG HINZ ON POLITICS

..

gebs Jun 14, 2018 1:59 PM

South Loop developer aims to fill 4 million square feet of offices

Danny Ecker, Crain's Chicago Business

"Unveiling new details of the vision for "The 78"—named to define itself as next on the city's official list of 77 neighborhoods—Bailey laid out a tentative plan for 1.2 million square feet of offices in the center of the property in so-called "sidescraper" buildings that are relatively short with massive floor plates "that allow for collaboration between floors," he said. Depending on the needs of tenants it is able to land, that development could take various shapes ranging from several 200,000-square-foot office properties to a single structure filled with one or several companies."

That first rendering looks new to me:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/...20180613221428

Baronvonellis Jun 14, 2018 2:53 PM

Looks really cool! I hope they do it like the renderings!

Mr Downtown Jun 14, 2018 4:17 PM

Initially I was quite positive (about everything except the name). Now I'm having second thoughts about the urban design aspects. We know that urbanism works best when big sites are broken into small parcels with a traditional street-and-building framework. What these renderings show is an architectural free-fire zone of objects in an overscaled landscape, à la Pudong or Isle of Dogs. Of course, no buildings have actually been designed, but the master plan should impose more discipline than this one does.

If we want a new Chicago neighborhood, we have to cook with the right ingredients. I think the site needs smaller blocks, and a kit of parts or pattern-book drawn from traditional Chicago urbanism that would guide designers of the buildings.

Kumdogmillionaire Jun 14, 2018 5:06 PM

It'll only be a neighborhood in the same way that Printer's Row or Lakeshore East are neighborhoods, the name is silly. It'll be fine, and since it'll take 20-30 years to be fully executed, I'm sure they'll be able to snuff out any issues well in advance and make adjustments as need be

aphedox Jun 14, 2018 6:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8221035)
Initially I was quite positive (about everything except the name). Now I'm having second thoughts about the urban design aspects. We know that urbanism works best when big sites are broken into small parcels with a traditional street-and-building framework. What these renderings show is an architectural free-fire zone of objects in an overscaled landscape, à la Pudong or Isle of Dogs. Of course, no buildings have actually been designed, but the master plan should impose more discipline than this one does.

If we want a new Chicago neighborhood, we have to cook with the right ingredients. I think the site needs smaller blocks, and a kit of parts or pattern-book drawn from traditional Chicago urbanism that would guide designers of the buildings.

100% this.

Even assuming a highly pedestrian oriented environment, development needs streets to be functional. As it stands, this development just seems like a rehashed version of the same mistakes le corbusier made.

left of center Jun 14, 2018 6:31 PM

The name sucks, but that can be changed. I doubt people will even call it 'The 78' from the get go, since it sounds so awkward to say. The sign outside the Sears Tower says Willis on it, but find me a single Chicagoan who calls it that? ;)

As for the street layout, I'm not sure if they will change that as the development is built out. The LSE streetplan is the exact same layout as the initial plan stated. While the buildings are all radically different from the initial proposal (save for the first few... The Lancaster, the Shoreham, etc) streets are harder to change, especially with all the necesarry infrastructure that needs to be put into place (sewer lines, water mains for hydrants, etc).

I do think (and have mentioned several times) that they need to go back to the drawing board and add several more east-west streets. Not only for the easing of traffic (and in keeping Wells/Wentworth from becoming a mini-autobahn for commuters to/from the Loop), but also to keep the development from having a "superblock" feel. The pedestrian experience is enhanced when there is more variety on the street level, and that includes having smaller buildings on smaller blocks.

sentinel Jun 14, 2018 6:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8221035)
Initially I was quite positive (about everything except the name). Now I'm having second thoughts about the urban design aspects. We know that urbanism works best when big sites are broken into small parcels with a traditional street-and-building framework. What these renderings show is an architectural free-fire zone of objects in an overscaled landscape, à la Pudong or Isle of Dogs. Of course, no buildings have actually been designed, but the master plan should impose more discipline than this one does.

If we want a new Chicago neighborhood, we have to cook with the right ingredients. I think the site needs smaller blocks, and a kit of parts or pattern-book drawn from traditional Chicago urbanism that would guide designers of the buildings.

Small parcels? Smaller blocks? Save that for other parts of the city which currently have less than average density due to a multitude of reasons. For a parcel of land that is literally 1 mile from the Loop AND is considered part of the same, primary CDB, there is no compelling argument that can be made to justify downsizing 62 acres to something other than what was presented. The 'kit of parts...from traditional Chicago urbanism,' may have worked decades ago, but times change, urban design changes and good urban design responds to specific societal, demographic and spatial needs for each specific location - the 'kit of parts' mentality ignores those criteria and assumes a one-size-fits-all philosophy that just doesn't work. If it didn't work for Dearborn Park, what on Earth makes you think that type of philosophy would work here, literally next door to that urban planning disaster?

Mr Downtown Jun 14, 2018 7:56 PM

Dearborn Park's superblocks and big sites is what I'm trying to avoid. Even more relevant is the area just west of DP1, which was planned in the 1990s as "LaSalle Park." With no commitment to a small-block street grid, compromise after compromise was made, and it got parceled out into a series of objects on cul-de-sacs: Amli, some more Amli, a Target store, the antiurban Roosevelt Collection, the isolated British School, an Alta highrise with too much parking and land around it.

Battery Park City is probably the best example we have of how to extend a traditional American city fabric, rather than always thinking we're the generation who can ignore 3000 years of experience and invent urbanism anew.

cmmcnam2 Jun 14, 2018 9:35 PM

delete

aphedox Jun 14, 2018 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel (Post 8221233)
Small parcels? Smaller blocks? Save that for other parts of the city which currently have less than average density due to a multitude of reasons. For a parcel of land that is literally 1 mile from the Loop AND is considered part of the same, primary CDB, there is no compelling argument that can be made to justify downsizing 62 acres to something other than what was presented. The 'kit of parts...from traditional Chicago urbanism,' may have worked decades ago, but times change, urban design changes and good urban design responds to specific societal, demographic and spatial needs for each specific location - the 'kit of parts' mentality ignores those criteria and assumes a one-size-fits-all philosophy that just doesn't work. If it didn't work for Dearborn Park, what on Earth makes you think that type of philosophy would work here, literally next door to that urban planning disaster?

I don't think Mr D. is suggesting a density reduction at all. In fact, it should logically follow that the more dense an area is, the smaller the blocks have to be (up to a limit, of course).

aphedox Jun 14, 2018 11:07 PM

While we're at it:

We need to have alleys as well.

#1: Having a designated place for garbage/infrastructure/service entrances is 90% of what makes Chicago so clean and nice compared to most other cities. The pedestrian should not be exposed to these things when walking down the street. Certainly nobody would find it acceptable for there to be dumpsters in front of stores when walking through a mall (though such things would be behind overhead doors in this case). Surely maximizing street frontage for actual commercial activity should be in the developer's interest as well?

#2: Assuming equivalent density, having regular blocks and alleys with small parcels allows an area to more easily adapt over time. If, for example, the demand for retail space in the area were to go up, structures on smaller parcels are much easier to redevelop to meet demand than single huge buildings taking up the entire block are simply because the required amount of capital is much lower. The current plan is very likely to result in relative stagnation for the area for many years after completion.

#3: Assuming smaller parcels were to be used, it is very desirable for infrastructure to remain in the same common easement an alley can provide. If any of the structures in the current plan were to be later redeveloped, it is likely that whatever replaces them would have to deal with a large amount of otherwise unnecessary utility relocations.

ardecila Jun 14, 2018 11:55 PM

I think the ship has sailed on a street grid here, folks. That was the plan back in the 1910s for the entire South Loop railyards, but today this site has a superblock to the east of it, a river to the west (and then a railyard still), a tangle of rail lines to the south and only one possible connection to the north.

Street grids only make sense if you have something to connect to. I'm just not convinced that all those streets are necessary for purely internal circulation, especially if pedestrian walks already divide the site into smaller parcels.

left of center Jun 15, 2018 12:08 AM

I feel that the city should have the foresight to plan that one day DPI and II will inevitably hit the wrecking ball, as the downtown core continues to grow, vacant land disappears, and the value of the land skyrockets to the point that its feasible to buy out and redevelop the existing low density properties. Creating 13th and 14th Streets, that would currently end at Clark, will eventually be connected to their counterparts east of State St.

Also, there are two connections to the north (Wells & Delano/Lasalle)

10023 Jun 15, 2018 8:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8221035)
Initially I was quite positive (about everything except the name). Now I'm having second thoughts about the urban design aspects. We know that urbanism works best when big sites are broken into small parcels with a traditional street-and-building framework. What these renderings show is an architectural free-fire zone of objects in an overscaled landscape, à la Pudong or Isle of Dogs. Of course, no buildings have actually been designed, but the master plan should impose more discipline than this one does.

If we want a new Chicago neighborhood, we have to cook with the right ingredients. I think the site needs smaller blocks, and a kit of parts or pattern-book drawn from traditional Chicago urbanism that would guide designers of the buildings.

Of course it’s not going to be a real neighborhood, just like Lakeshore East isn’t a real neighborhood. Real neighborhoods are no longer built.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:19 AM.

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