HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2021, 10:35 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
as i mentioned in the other thread where we talking about the bears, 12 of the NFL's current 30 stadiums (40%) are already located outside of the municipal boundaries of their main cities, so the bears would have plenty of company if they do end up leaving town.
Yeah and many in "city limits" are in outskirts (e.g. Philly, Tampa, Houston, Green Bay, KC), the equivalent of putting it somewhere like here: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6845.../data=!3m1!1e3
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2021, 11:20 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I would love it if the mayor actually came out in support of the move. Feels like it could be mutually beneficial and a great opportunity for the city. The Bears aren't leaving Chicago, they're just moving down the street to a bigger house. It's only an L if you think it is. The 49ers moved out of SF and everyone seemed to think it was a win-win.

Pro football really is the most suburban of sports. Is anybody really happy with the compromise of a tiny, wildly expensive tailgating lot that still takes up a huge chunk of the lakefront? Or a colossal, Frankenstein building on the lakefront that only gets used 8 times a year?

By getting behind the Bears move, Lightfoot can have more time to plan for what comes next. That's more time to plan for public transit to the Arlington site - Lightfoot could support a reduced-fare pilot program on Metra UP-NW or free CTA-Metra transfers. Even if the Fire become Soldier Field's biggest tenant, that's still 3x more home games per year. Their attendance is smaller but I wouldn't be surprised if you get the same economic impact. Also, a Soldier Field without the Bears can host more concerts or other events, and can be renovated with that in mind.

Also, think about what it would take to keep the Bears - even in the rosiest scenario where the team pays for a new domed stadium somewhere, the city is still gonna be on the hook for infrastructure, policing, etc. That's the last thing we need with huge pension liabilities, crumbling existing infrastructure, a failing school system, and rising crime. Get the Bears off the city's books and let the fiscally-stable suburbs deal with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VKChaz View Post
I don't know if there is any good publicly available analysis, but the city should be considering the full revenue and cost impact of the games on the city - which includes subjects like transit shuttles, traffic and policing. And, in event of a move, consider how much of that lost revenue would be recouped by that same money being spent on other forms of entertainment. As well as how much could be retained in the city (e.g., hotel stays in the city by people who ride the train to a game). Offhand, it strikes me that something for which resources need to be amassed 8 days a year might not pencil out to be especially cost effective. I suppose something like "city pride" or image and marketing could be factored into the mix, but if you start down that path, there is no end to the perceived value.

The same degree of analysis should go toward all events, but there is also a distinction to be made between public and private events requiring a ticket. For the city to perform its due diligence is complicated, e.g., can One Central be part of the equation or what is the future of Soldier Field without the Bears. But modern football stadiums and the all-around experience they try to provide lend themselves well to large auto-centric footprints. And the days when a city need feel slighted about a football team playing outside its borders have passed. The city shouldn't take it personally if the team moves, and Lightfood should be gracious in that case.
I’m still rooting for the city, but it would be foolish of me not to agree with you 100%. Ultimately it probably makes the most sense in the burbs. The optics sting, perhaps because the last 25 years of city planning galvanized the public belief that stadiums and arenas belong in urban centers as a tool of revitalization, even though we know that’s not usually the case. For Chicago, it’s a unique situation worth the praise of having a stadium in the park, on the lakefront, not surrounded by seas of parking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2021, 11:36 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,860
Sports can be a tool for urban regeneration, but the problem is not all sports are created equal. Land in a downtown should be intensely used, given the high land values and extensive infrastructure that supports downtowns. That's why arenas are the best fit for a city. Not only are basketball and hockey played on a smaller playing field that makes the buildings themselves fairly compact, but they also have long, intense schedules that guarantee the building is well-used throughout the year. That creates so much potential for businesses and amenities to grow up around an arena - it's criminal how we've allowed the area around the UC to languish.

2nd best is perhaps baseball - a bigger playing field and fewer games, but still quite a bit (~81 home games/year). Medium potential for surrounding development, which is still quite a bit of potential - see Wrigleyville. Also, baseball was born in cities so the dimensions of the playing field are flexible and not fully set in stone - that makes baseball stadiums uniquely able to fit into different urban sites without needing to wipe out their surroundings.

3rd best probably soccer, the playing field size is comparable to football but the attendance at games is not the same as NFL, so the stands can be smaller or more vertical and they don't need to curve so a soccer stadium plays nicely in a rectangular street grid. There's also little to no tailgate culture, so parking lots aren't a must-have. So much of soccer culture is influenced by Euro and Latin countries where it's simply not realistic to drive to a game. And the current MLS season gives teams ~17 home games per season.

Of course, football is the least urban-friendly. Stadiums are large, purpose-built and hard to adapt for other uses, and they are an odd shape that swallows up land. Fans, especially for professional games, demand the ability to drive to a large open-air parking lot to tailgate. And of course, only 8 home games per year.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2021, 7:51 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,826
The Chicago Urban League, Business Leadership Council, and Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce gave their endorsement to One Central. The Tribune has an article on it, along with a new economic opportunity study. They plan to submit their zoning app either this month or next

Economic opportunity study: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1633119932
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2021, 11:28 PM
rivernorthlurker rivernorthlurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
The Chicago Urban League, Business Leadership Council, and Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce gave their endorsement to One Central. The Tribune has an article on it, along with a new economic opportunity study. They plan to submit their zoning app either this month or next

Economic opportunity study: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1633119932
Lol at those Bears flags.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2021, 12:53 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: 8,749
They're very erect, like starched canvas in gale force winds.
__________________
Trumpism is the road to ruin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2021, 7:01 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,038
Really nothing new until we see what's submitted in they application. I don't care how far-fetched it may be, getting zoning approval is key, then any developer could step in...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...81484#nws=true

Massive One Central development plans call for concert venue, retail and restaurants near Soldier Field

By LAUREN ZUMBACH
CHICAGO TRIBUNE |
OCT 18, 2021 AT 11:24 AM


The developer behind the proposed $20 billion One Central development revealed details for the project’s first phase: a transit center surrounded by roughly 1.4 million square feet of retail, dining and entertainment space on a 35-acre site above the train tracks near Soldier Field.

The full plans for One Central, unveiled in 2019, include up to 22.3 million square feet of buildings with as many as 9,050 residential units and 9.45 million square feet of offices. The project still needs city and state approval to proceed, and Landmark president Bob Dunn has said he expects to submit a zoning application by late October or early November.

Quote:
Renderings show the transit center would connect to a roughly 400,000-square-foot “Experiential District,” with a 50,000-square-foot event floor meant to host programs like community celebrations, game-day tailgates, corporate events or exhibitions accompanying conventions at McCormick Place.
Calling the area "underserved" is a stretch...

Quote:
Plans for a 275,000-square-foot “Neighborhood District” north of the transit hub call for shops and restaurants, including a grocery store and public market for the “dramatically underserved” South Loop neighborhood, Dunn said.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2021, 10:06 PM
thegoatman thegoatman is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 566
The South Loop definitely isn't underserved lol. But this seems very ambitious. Looks lovely tho, wonder what they're going to do about soldier field/the bears. Could this get the Bears to stay with a new/renovated stadium on those empty parking lots or elsewhere?

And does this have a good chance of getting pass zoning?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 2:28 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegoatman View Post
The South Loop definitely isn't underserved lol. But this seems very ambitious. Looks lovely tho, wonder what they're going to do about soldier field/the bears. Could this get the Bears to stay with a new/renovated stadium on those empty parking lots or elsewhere?

And does this have a good chance of getting pass zoning?
I have no idea how you could consider the South Loop underserved. The article made it seem like Dunn was talking about grocery stores, which is laughably untrue with a Marianos, TJs, Jewel and Target plus another Jewel across the river.

Its possible that Dunn was talking about entertainment, there does seem to be a relative scarcity of bars and restaurants in the South Loop. But I think that’s how the residents like it. I guess from the standpoint of “stadium adjacent development” it isn’t ideal.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 5:07 PM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I have no idea how you could consider the South Loop underserved. The article made it seem like Dunn was talking about grocery stores, which is laughably untrue with a Marianos, TJs, Jewel and Target plus another Jewel across the river.

Its possible that Dunn was talking about entertainment, there does seem to be a relative scarcity of bars and restaurants in the South Loop. But I think that’s how the residents like it. I guess from the standpoint of “stadium adjacent development” it isn’t ideal.
Dunn didn't call it 'underserved' he called it "Dramatically Underserved". Just more hyperbole from a flim flam man. Also isn't an entertainment district going to compete with the city's long term effort to create the Motor Row district?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 5:21 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I have no idea how you could consider the South Loop underserved. The article made it seem like Dunn was talking about grocery stores, which is laughably untrue with a Marianos, TJs, Jewel and Target plus another Jewel across the river.

Its possible that Dunn was talking about entertainment, there does seem to be a relative scarcity of bars and restaurants in the South Loop. But I think that’s how the residents like it. I guess from the standpoint of “stadium adjacent development” it isn’t ideal.
Yeah it's definitely not even close to underserved LOL. We just moved here not long ago and I've been impressed by how much has been added to some areas here in the last 5 years since we'd moved away from Chicago. It's not like everywhere is optimal - our nearest grocery store is a half mile away but we do have smaller markets nearby which fill some of the need. This isn't any different though than most places in the entire world. It's still more convenient than where we lived in Upper West Side in Manhattan actually (so was when I lived in Gold Coast).
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 5:25 PM
thegoatman thegoatman is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 566
Chances of this actually happening?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 5:49 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 814
how is all this possible yet the Lucas Museum was not?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 5:59 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,372
This whole project is such a boondoggle

There are so many more worthy areas to be getting developed than this. Plus, I doubt that it will go anywhere
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 6:05 PM
CaptainJilliams CaptainJilliams is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegoatman View Post
Chances of this actually happening?
With the Bears likely out of Soldier Field by the end of the decade, I'd say pretty low chances anything happens with this one.

I understand that Museum Campus isn't reliant on the Bears by any means, but it just feels like the original pitch for this project had the Bears as a supporting pillar for the development. I mean, a new transport hub, pedestrian bridge, and entertainment district WITHOUT the Bears would feel kind of strange, seeing as how all those things would make sense if the Bears were staying long term at Soldier Field. And I don't know about you, but the Fire don't have nearly the same draw to justify a development this big.

If something does happen, it certainly won't be as big and grand as the renderings have suggested. I suppose capping the tracks with some sort of infill would be awesome to see, along with another connection to the Lakefront. But again, all that is costly, and without a money-maker like the Bears nearby it's hard to justify.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 6:18 PM
thegoatman thegoatman is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 566
if lori somehow gets the bears to stay, I say this project is likely to come to fruition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 7:07 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegoatman View Post
if lori somehow gets the bears to stay, I say this project is likely to come to fruition.
Probably one of the only ways this thing happens but I'm sure there's other things there too that need to happen.

My money is on - not happening but you never know.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 7:10 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 6,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
how is all this possible yet the Lucas Museum was not?
I'm not sure how they are related at all. One was in a park that's mostly protected and the other is not. The lawsuits against LMNA was due to the fact that they wanted to take a parking lot inside of the already existing park. They argued first (IIRC) about the ordinance, and then they argued that parking lots are vital to having people actually be able to access and enjoy a park. Remember that Lucas just got tired of it all and packed up. Friends of the Parking Lots never actually won the case.

With One Central though, the whole plan is to cap the tracks and build on private land. Considering this isn't actually in the park itself and also on some private land...yeah they aren't similar situations.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 9:47 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,841
We should all be praying that this does not happen as envisioned because that would mean the State of Illinois is blowing $6.5 billion on infrastructure the city doesn't even remotely need. That would be almost as irresponsible as not reforming our pension programs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2021, 12:41 PM
CaptainJilliams CaptainJilliams is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 92
Developer Reveals Updated First Phase Plans For One Central Project

http://chicagoyimby.com/2021/10/deve...l-project.html


Last edited by CaptainJilliams; Oct 20, 2021 at 12:42 PM. Reason: Added image
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 11:28 PM.

     

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