CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[r18tdi]

^^^ ooph

[Via Chicago]

and btw thats a fraction of the sins U of C has committed in recent years, which all the urbanists on this forum seem to give a universal pass

but tell me again how we've evolved past the mistakes of 70s era urban renewal as a city?

[the urban politician]

^ To be fair, the pic you showed is one of the worse examples of how this process plays out. Many have been better than this.

[TimeAgain]

You guys do realize that that is a pic of the new ED/ Level 1 Trauma Center?
The same Trauma Center that the south side has needed for decades. I understand it's not retail space and has a parking garage atop it (gasp!), but it's for medical purposes and will likely save hundreds of lives. In that case, I'm OK with some houses being lost, even if it does look less appealing.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

I love how they "broke ground" on this thing in March...

I went back again today to check, the site I saw the cassion rig on is the Hoxton site, so they still aren't under way on the vendor village. Here's a shot:



Here's the Hoxton Site:

Also, bKL's SCIO tower for Ashland and Taylor:


via Curbed

Beautiful, lot's of changes going on in IMD.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Beautiful, lot's of changes going on in IMD.

Has anyone been near Gateway IMD recently? It seemed like there was some activity when I rode past it recently, but couldn't tell if it was genuinely under construction.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

while LSE and some of these other developments are going up on currently vacant land, that dosent mean theyre approaching or tying together their connection to the urban fabric any better.

Yes, because LSE can be blamed for being cut off by the rest of the city by some of the biggest office buildings in the world. I thought we were past this argument.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by ithakas

Has anyone been near Gateway IMD recently? It seemed like there was some activity when I rode past it recently, but couldn't tell if it was genuinely under construction.

Nope no activity to speak of, drive by it several times a week as I have property over there. The new medical tower across the street is cooking right along however and they added a much needed pedestrian island on Ogden by the Jesse Brown building. I REALLY want to see gateway move forward, Tri Taylor would become so much less of an island and it would be one step closer to tying the pocket by Cinespace and Lagunitas to the rest of the city and even growth by United Center in the West Loop. I view the pending changes in the IMD as possibly the most pivotal developments in the city in terms of the potential to connect multiple pockets of growth together.

[the urban politician]

^ And herein lies the problem with having a master developer.

It often can be an all or nothing affair.

Compare that to small property owners building things up lot by lot.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by TimeAgain

You guys do realize that that is a pic of the new ED/ Level 1 Trauma Center?
The same Trauma Center that the south side has needed for decades. I understand it's not retail space and has a parking garage atop it (gasp!), but it's for medical purposes and will likely save hundreds of lives. In that case, I'm OK with some houses being lost, even if it does look less appealing.

as TUP said, i dont think this should be an all or nothing affair. yes a trauma center on the SS was badly needed. that shouldnt mean we have to demolish a small in tact pre-war neighborhood to get one. U of C's brutish land use policies are nothing new.

the same argument youre making could be used for anything ("you realize this is Class A office space? you realize this is a university? you realize this is a major sporting arena? you realize this is an expressway?). all those things are good to have but losing irreplaceable fine grained neighborhoods is not the answer and given sufficient time is almost always universally viewed poorly by history.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

as TUP said, i dont think this should be an all or nothing affair. yes a trauma center on the SS was badly needed. that shouldnt mean we have to demolish a small in tact pre-war neighborhood to get one. U of C's brutish land use policies are nothing new.

the same argument youre making could be used for anything ("you realize this is Class A office space? you realize this is a university? you realize this is a major sporting arena? you realize this is an expressway?). all those things are good to have but losing irreplaceable fine grained neighborhoods is not the answer and given sufficient time is almost always universally viewed poorly by history.

While in a perfect world I totally agree with you, it's become exceedingly clear that these giant institutions steamroll everything they want to including any adjacent neighborhood fabric they can get their hands on. Northwestern does it, U of C does it, Loyola does it, Rush would do it (kinda did with their historic hospital building) if they weren't in a giant crater of urbanity, UIC literally wiped out an entire quarter of the city in the process of it's inception. It's an unfortunate reality of having massive, loaded, clouted, institutions. The row of greystone two flats stands no chance in the face of an institution with $12 billion endowment which used to employ the former president of the United States.

[TimeAgain]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

as TUP said, i dont think this should be an all or nothing affair. yes a trauma center on the SS was badly needed. that shouldnt mean we have to demolish a small in tact pre-war neighborhood to get one. U of C's brutish land use policies are nothing new.

the same argument youre making could be used for anything ("you realize this is Class A office space? you realize this is a university? you realize this is a major sporting arena? you realize this is an expressway?). all those things are good to have but losing irreplaceable fine grained neighborhoods is not the answer and given sufficient time is almost always universally viewed poorly by history.

I don't think that's fair in this case. The U of C Medicine campus is incredibly compact considering all that's there. The fact that they used an existing parking garage to build a brand new ED and trauma center instead of just taking over more land should be commended. The simple truth is if not there, then where? The rest of the medical campus is essentially 100% in use.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

Dude, you clearly don't understand the target audience of LSE. The people that live there are not exactly those trying to live in a big bar scene, and there are a few nice restaurants in LSE so I feel like you just haven't been there recently. You clearly aren't the target audience of LSE, so stop complaining that it doesn't fit your wants and wishes. The place is for retirees and small families, not bachelors trying to party, eat at a new restaurant every night, and then pick up chicks.

I don't know how you get off with me advocating for a "big party area" - you obviously read one thing and extrapolated complete and utter BS. I stated that there should be more places to eat there and maybe some more bars. This in no way entails some "big bar scene". If you think that's what I said, then you need to probably stop assuming things. There are almost no restaurants in LSE relative to the number of people who not only live there, but also stay there in the handful of hotels. There is no reason why they couldn't have more, or shouldn't have more places to eat somewhere around there. This is not advocating for a "big party scene" - I don't even know how you get off with thinking I was advocating for that, seriously. I loved living in my area of Gold Coast because it was quiet - it was around things, but the louder stuff was a handful of blocks away. I currently live near Central Park - there's no business within an avenue of me and it's nice. There are many people living here in their 40s through 60s. I picked this on purpose because I have a buffer - and even then there's a lot of restaurants and some bars an avenue or so away, and they're the exact opposite of "rowdy bar area" or whatever. You obviously know nothing about me, and tried to act like you did by interpreting incorrectly about something I said. I have or had numerous friends who lived there. It's a boring area - and I've had friends who were in their 50s who completely agreed and shat on LSE all the time (no, they were not old hipsters or anything remotely close to that).


Also, there are many family areas around the city with a lot of places to eat, and some bars, that are nowhere close to bachelor atmospheres or "big party scenes" or whatever. Having a number of places to eat around and some bars doesn't equate to some big party, bachelor area. If you honestly think that, then you need to get out more and experience more cities and even more areas of town. Areas like Lincoln Square, Andersonville, and Lakeview East are good.They are low key, quiet, but also have a number of places to eat, a few to drink at, and some retail too.


Someone also stated that LSE 's average age is probably 55+. The median age is actually 40, as of 2015, but over just over 35% of the census tract there was between the ages of 20 and 34 compared to a little over 30% who were aged 55+. Fairly even, but still skews 5% more. Actually the largest age bracket there is 25 to 34 years olds, maybe surprisingly but not really. As someone who spent a lot of time there, I noticed just how many people who were definitely under the age of 35 lived in some of my friends' buildings. Not sure what that has to do with anything either. Do people magically stop going out to eat at an age like 50 or 55? Could have fooled me in all those years I lived in Gold Coast, spent time in areas like Lincoln Square and Roscoe Village, and my current neighborhood in NYC.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

...
I guarantee the average resident is probably 55+ in LSE possibly older

Maybe, but there are actually quite a few young, affluent families there, too, hence the school.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by emathias

Maybe, but there are actually quite a few young, affluent families there, too, hence the school.

As of 2015 (5 year ACS) in LSE's one single census tract, 35.6% of people who live there are aged 20 to 34 as opposed to 30.5% who are aged 55+. There are also 8.8% of people living there under the age of 20 (in 2011, that number was 5.7%, so the amount of families living there is growing as you have indicated). The median age was 40 years old.

16.4% of households made at least $200,000 at the 2015 survey. 52.7% of households had income levels of at least 6 figures. The median household income was nearly $105K per year.

Not sure why LSE can't get a few more places to eat somewhere and maybe another bar or two. There's over 11,000 people living there not counting the number of people staying at the handful of hotels right near there.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ Because retail, particularly hospitality and entertainment, doesn't subsist off of the immediate neighbors for their customer base. These industries need through traffic to make the big bucks which is why they tend to concentrate on major arterials and diagonal streets. LSE may have 11,000 residents, but Milwaukee Ave at Fullerton sees daily vehicle traffic of 16,500 alone not including pedestrians and bikes. I doubt there is any significant thru traffic in LSE at all, so is it really surprising there isn't a booming club scene there?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

^^^ Because retail, particularly hospitality and entertainment, doesn't subsist off of the immediate neighbors for their customer base. These industries need through traffic to make the big bucks which is why they tend to concentrate on major arterials and diagonal streets. LSE may have 11,000 residents, but Milwaukee Ave at Fullerton sees daily vehicle traffic of 16,500 alone not including pedestrians and bikes. I doubt there is any significant thru traffic in LSE at all, so is it really surprising there isn't a booming club scene there?

I'm not sure how or why you are thinking that a handful (I.e 5) new restaurants equals "booming club scene". What am I missing here, and how in the world are people associating "a few new places to eat" with "clubs and bars galore?" This all has to be one of the most asinine interpretations of anything I've seen on these forums. Seems like some people hang out way too much in areas like Wicker Park, River North, etc. You can have a handful of places to eat at and still be low key and quiet. These places exist all over the world, and many in Chicago. Really not sure how people think that it's not possible to have a few more places to eat and not maintain it being quiet.

Are you trying to tell me that LSE seriously couldn't support a small handful of new places to eat at? Not sure why an area like Roscoe Village with less foot traffic and similar demographic makeup could but LSE couldn't. Obviously people want a quiet area, but adding a new coffee shop and a few restaurants is not going to turn it into some loud area like Wicker Park on Milwaukee Ave.

[harryc]

May 30


June 3

[10023]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

^^^ Because retail, particularly hospitality and entertainment, doesn't subsist off of the immediate neighbors for their customer base. These industries need through traffic to make the big bucks which is why they tend to concentrate on major arterials and diagonal streets. LSE may have 11,000 residents, but Milwaukee Ave at Fullerton sees daily vehicle traffic of 16,500 alone not including pedestrians and bikes. I doubt there is any significant thru traffic in LSE at all, so is it really surprising there isn't a booming club scene there?

Are you sure the problem isn't really that there is a single landlord (or few large landlords) and bars aren't particularly desirable tenants?

That's the problem with master planned developments, at least in the US.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I'm not sure how or why you are thinking that a handful (I.e 5) new restaurants equals "booming club scene". What am I missing here, and how in the world are people associating "a few new places to eat" with "clubs and bars galore?" This all has to be one of the most asinine interpretations of anything I've seen on these forums. Seems like some people hang out way too much in areas like Wicker Park, River North, etc. You can have a handful of places to eat at and still be low key and quiet. These places exist all over the world, and many in Chicago. Really not sure how people think that it's not possible to have a few more places to eat and not maintain it being quiet.

Are you trying to tell me that LSE seriously couldn't support a small handful of new places to eat at? Not sure why an area like Roscoe Village with less foot traffic and similar demographic makeup could but LSE couldn't. Obviously people want a quiet area, but adding a new coffee shop and a few restaurants is not going to turn it into some loud area like Wicker Park on Milwaukee Ave.

Well obviously "booming club scene" was totally sarcastic and hyperbolic. But the point still stands, there are already four or five restaurants down there and there really isn't that much traffic. Streeterville is similarly dense and also demonstrates a similar lack of dining options despite lying between Michigan Ave and Navy Pier with a crap ton of tourist traffic between the two. If Streeterville can't support dining retail, then how could the sleepy Hamlet of Lakeshore East?