HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2018, 3:44 PM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2018, 3:47 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,103
No, the CN is at +8 or +10 where it would cross. Wentworth will have new underpasses under both railroads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2018, 7:52 PM
Suiram Suiram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2018, 9:00 PM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2018, 9:35 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 1,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs View Post
That is great to hear.
I second that. The fewer at grade crossings we can have in this city, the better.
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2018, 4:23 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is online now
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,009
..
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

..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 1:59 PM
gebs's Avatar
gebs gebs is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: South Loop
Posts: 574
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:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 2:53 PM
Baronvonellis Baronvonellis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 872
Looks really cool! I hope they do it like the renderings!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 4:17 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,103
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 5:06 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,022
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
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 6:10 PM
aphedox aphedox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 6:31 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 1,909
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.
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 6:46 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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?
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 7:56 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,103
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 9:35 PM
cmmcnam2 cmmcnam2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 21
delete

Last edited by cmmcnam2; Jun 15, 2018 at 2:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 10:33 PM
aphedox aphedox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 11:07 PM
aphedox aphedox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 9
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 11:55 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,920
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.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2018, 12:08 AM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 1,909
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)
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2018, 8:49 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 17,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
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 8:08 PM.

     

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