HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2021, 10:39 PM
Klippenstein's Avatar
Klippenstein Klippenstein is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 290
My assumption was that one of the components of this project would be to connect the Metra Electric line to Union Station. I’m now looking closer at the proposal and it’s a lot more convoluted than I realized.

Here’s what I thought their intention was/was hoping to see. Move the 18th street a little further north. Use the current CN tracks or build a second level to add service connecting to Union Station. Add a transfer stop at the new 16th street red line station when that is built.

What do you all think?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2021, 10:40 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 8,500
^That sounds like a great idea, but no that's not what they were even remotely thinking of.
__________________
Only if you're looking can it find you

No, it's not pronounced "Keeve."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2021, 2:09 AM
RockfordSoxFan's Avatar
RockfordSoxFan RockfordSoxFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 109
^^ I like that idea. Tunnel it right under Clinton @Union Station & build the 2nd loop. Call it the Gray Line. Convert Metra along the south shore later. Tie three solid proposals all into one. $$$
__________________
Chicago Blackhawks, Stanley Cup Champs 2010, 2013, 2015.
Chicago White Sox, World Series Champs 2005.
Chicago Bulls, World Champs 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998.
Chicago Bears, Super Bowl Champs 1985.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2021, 1:55 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockfordSoxFan View Post
^^ I like that idea. Tunnel it right under Clinton @Union Station & build the 2nd loop. Call it the Gray Line. Convert Metra along the south shore later. Tie three solid proposals all into one. $$$
Nice
__________________
1. 111 W 57 - Manhattan, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. The Smith Center - Las Vegas, Nevada - David M. Schwarz Architects - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2021, 2:00 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is online now
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,662
Yeah I tried explaining the CrossRail idea to the lead urban planner (direct O'Hare access!) at a public meeting a few years ago, his eyes just glazed over and I knew the whole transit thing was window dressing. They were neither interested in building useful transit nor qualified to plan/propose it.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2021, 7:19 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Transit facilities aren't profitable outside of Asia (Hong Kong/Singapore/Japan etc). You need hyper-density PLUS a critical mass of population which is not feasible for Landmark to build even in their wildest dreams. And to truly be like an Asian city, they'd have to cut the lanes on LSD in half and charge steep tolls to force people onto public transit.

This still doesn't make any sense. They need to drop the transit center charade and just focus on building a vertical residential community like Lakeshore East using only private funding. Surely there is some density figure at which the cost of the rail deck pencils out. If they can do some kind of entertainment district for Soldier Field and rebuild the Metra stop (as a regular stop, not a "hub"), that's just gravy.

What you're stating re the project having to be massive/dense enough to justify the huge upfront infrastructure costs makes sense. However, my point (which I didn't articulate nearly well enough earlier) is that there is legitimate reason to be skeptical that the private market will be there to support the unit numbers and price points that will be required to make this thing pencil out. Now, perhaps I'm not thinking long-term enough here - as in a 25-30 year buildout? If the time horizon is long enough, I suppose, the demand should inevitably be there.

Something else to consider in terms of the feasibility of something this ambitious - and I think I've brought up before - what has Dunn/Landmark verifiably developed in terms of truly large scale stuff? It's nearly impossible for me to tell, as they've been involved in lots of projects in various capacities - but to my eyes a lot of that at least appears to be providing a variety of development related services - what have they been the actual operating developer on? Moreover, who are their actual operating developer partners on this project (not to mention equity partners)?

And, completely agree on your take re transit hub. That's a fever dream.
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; Jun 15, 2021 at 4:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2021, 3:01 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,331
Don't make no sense.

If a developer can buy all the dirt he wants in the South Loop for around $40m per highrise . . . why would he pay $300m per building to get a platform he can build on? The views aren't going to be that much better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2021, 10:37 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,709
Lol Streetsblog covered the full meeting and apparently it was an even bigger mess than what I saw in the first 30 minutes

With new details emerging, state funding for One Central makes even less sense
https://chi.streetsblog.org/2021/07/...en-less-sense/

- Illinois is legally required to follow through with state funding and cannot back out unless a new bill undoes it
- The bus system they're building is going to be an "autonomous vehicle" network
- One Central is partnering with a Chicago Bears to allow them to run several establishments. So the Bears are probably bluffing about moving to Arlington Heights
- They're looking into brining manufacturing back to the U.S. Steel site
- The ignored questions about why they new state funding if the project is already financed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2021, 5:55 PM
SteelMonkey SteelMonkey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 323
"...partnering with the Bears to allow them to run several restaurants and memorabilia and gift shop for attendees and tourists"

I wouldnt read too much into that. The CBs will undoubtedly be in discussions with many people about future agreements. A retail shop and a few branded restaurants mean zippo in terms of possible relo. You will always want a presence in the city especially close to McCormick and the convention/expo crowds. These "agreements" are probably easy outs for the CBs anyway even if this thing moves forward. Just like breaking their lease at SF. Chump change in the grander scheme. OC people prob offered them a sweetheart proposal just so they could promote it at these meetings IMO
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2021, 1:12 AM
Mikelacey45's Avatar
Mikelacey45 Mikelacey45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 92
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2021, 8:59 PM
galleyfox galleyfox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 603
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2021, 9:06 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is online now
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleyfox View Post


This thing is silly.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2021, 9:14 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
This thing is silly.

Indeed. Beyond laughable.

I'd vote to immediately and permanently close this thread. This thing is, and always has been, a joke.

About as "serious" a proposal as Bill Davies' Post Office towers.


This guy is claiming that his firm has spent tens of millions already on this. Good God. Would love to see those receipts. And if they exist - Good God.

Also, one of the tentative equity partners is listed as Johnson Controls. Huh?
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; Sep 2, 2021 at 9:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2021, 10:40 PM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,169
Not to go too OT - Promoting a connection to Soldier Field makes me hate this even more. Now is not the time to sink more $$ in that mess on the lakefront. While the Bears may not be successful in their attempt to locate to Arlington Hts it is a reality that could come to pass. Either way SF is the smallest NFL stadium and Chicago needs different location for its' NFL team. Preferably around Sox Park or UC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2021, 12:58 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 8,500
Things that make you go hmm...
__________________
Only if you're looking can it find you

No, it's not pronounced "Keeve."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2021, 3:26 AM
oakesd88's Avatar
oakesd88 oakesd88 is offline
Avid Observer
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8
I'll step out as the lone voice crying, "I like it," and hope it continues to gain momentum and land endorsements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2021, 12:52 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakesd88 View Post
I'll step out as the lone voice crying, "I like it," and hope it continues to gain momentum and land endorsements.
I actually don't hate the idea either, though I wonder how much traction it really has. I can't quite discern it yet as this guy is clearly a promoter.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2021, 2:10 PM
moorhosj1 moorhosj1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
I actually don't hate the idea either, though I wonder how much traction it really has. I can't quite discern it yet as this guy is clearly a promoter.
I find it interesting that Hinz added this update to the article. Makes it seem a little more "real".

Quote:
UPDATE—CTA now is out with a statement. It says that while “many additional considerations need to be measured and evaluated by the CTA before any decision is made,” the project includes enough “potential opportunities” for the CTA that it has entered into a preliminary engineering agreement to more fully evaluate what’s on the table.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2021, 3:03 PM
Barrelfish Barrelfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
I actually don't hate the idea either, though I wonder how much traction it really has. I can't quite discern it yet as this guy is clearly a promoter.
This is my take as well. But the funding sources make me think this is a potential boondoggle.

If a Related was behind this, you'd think "they know what they are doing on super complex developments like this - if they are putting their money into it, it probably has legs". A quick perusal of the websites for the 3 private funders (Ullico, Loop Capital, and Johnson Controls) does not give the same feeling. Instead, my interpretation is "these guys probably got taken in by a good story and are in over their head".

Reminds me a bit of Theranos. Supposedly a super innovative biotech company, but none of the big biotech investors would touch them. Instead, their whole board was former generals and secretaries of state who didn't know anything about biotech, but bought the story.

Not saying that this project will turn out to be a pure fraud and vaporware like Theranos. But if it was, Johnson Controls won't be able to sniff it out the way that a Related could.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2021, 8:03 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrelfish View Post
This is my take as well. But the funding sources make me think this is a potential boondoggle.

If a Related was behind this, you'd think "they know what they are doing on super complex developments like this - if they are putting their money into it, it probably has legs". A quick perusal of the websites for the 3 private funders (Ullico, Loop Capital, and Johnson Controls) does not give the same feeling. Instead, my interpretation is "these guys probably got taken in by a good story and are in over their head".

Reminds me a bit of Theranos. Supposedly a super innovative biotech company, but none of the big biotech investors would touch them. Instead, their whole board was former generals and secretaries of state who didn't know anything about biotech, but bought the story.

Not saying that this project will turn out to be a pure fraud and vaporware like Theranos. But if it was, Johnson Controls won't be able to sniff it out the way that a Related could.
I agree - I thought it was "whatever" until reading that they actually have some legitimate backers they're willing to name. Not only that, but a few transit agencies have talked about it which indicates they've probably realistically done some studies.

Johnson Controls is also huge and does much more revenue per year than Related. They're profitable too with at least a few billion in cash on hand. As far as someone putting up money goes, they're totally a viable company.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:51 AM.

     

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