CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 1399

lu9 · #**27961** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

ughhh can we just torpedo this whole times square envy...

state street and the Loop is beautiful on its own. it doesnt need cheap gimmicks to be a dynamic place. NY, Hong Kong, and Vegas can have it.

and London

ChiTownWonder · #**27962** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 6:17 PM**

And Toronto^

Via Chicago · #**27963** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 6:19 PM**

does anyone know whats beneath that awful tacked-on facade of the Mens Warehouse building? anything worth saving?

SamInTheLoop · #**27964** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 6:25 PM**

Actually,

The latest we'd heard - at least publicly, in the media - was that Sterling Bay was not going to be redeveloping this property at all. Rather, they were going to sell it (obviously to a developer that will redevelop it).

Anyone hear - or have good reason to suspect - that Sterling Bay has since changed its mind?

wierdaaron · #**27965** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 6:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Actually,

The latest we'd heard - at least publicly, in the media - was that Sterling Bay was not going to be redeveloping this property at all. Rather, they were going to sell it (obviously to a developer that will redevelop it).

Anyone hear - or have good reason to suspect - that Sterling Bay has since changed its mind?

Oh, I don't remember that. I haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Curiously, the windows for the former Walgreens have "For Lease" signs in them, I'd thought/hoped that was to try to sell space in the new building, not the current one. That building has a few floors of commercial but I'm pretty sure it's all vacant. The building is old and in poor condition, same story as the old 200NMA building. Probably full of asbestos. If SB can't make that thing work, someone will come along.

LouisVanDerWright · #**27966** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 8:03 PM**

They don't even need to bury the train line, they just need to do a giant LSE style development here and punch through ONE road to the East. One simple access point would make a world of difference here. I would love to see an LSE that faces the River rather than itself. They didn't really have that choice at LSE because of Wacker, but here they could create a giant "C" of highrises instead of a big "O" of highrises like LSE. Just build over the top of the rail so you don't know it's even there, just create one point where you can pass through to the East, that's all we need.

the urban politician · #**27967** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 8:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

They don't even need to bury the train line, they just need to do a giant LSE style development here and punch through ONE road to the East. One simple access point would make a world of difference here. I would love to see an LSE that faces the River rather than itself. They didn't really have that choice at LSE because of Wacker, but here they could create a giant "C" of highrises instead of a big "O" of highrises like LSE. Just build over the top of the rail so you don't know it's even there, just create one point where you can pass through to the East, that's all we need.

^ Oooo...the Dearborn Park crowd will get real riled up if something that intense were proposed....

wierdaaron · #**27968** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 8:41 PM**

I haven't seen South Loop people get huffy about heights before. It's mostly street parking and water flooding that I hear them griping about with new constructions.

LouisVanDerWright · #**27969** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 9:01 PM**

And shadows, don't forget the shadow menace...

Ryanrule · #**27970** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 9:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

ughhh can we just torpedo this whole times square envy...

state street and the Loop is beautiful on its own. it doesnt need cheap gimmicks to be a dynamic place. NY, Hong Kong, and Vegas can have it.

its good to have a place to keep all the tourists and performers and media pukes and shit that the city depends on, but those who live in the city dont like to deal with

Ryanrule · #**27971** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 9:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

They don't even need to bury the train line, they just need to do a giant LSE style development here and punch through ONE road to the East. One simple access point would make a world of difference here. I would love to see an LSE that faces the River rather than itself. They didn't really have that choice at LSE because of Wacker, but here they could create a giant "C" of highrises instead of a big "O" of highrises like LSE. Just build over the top of the rail so you don't know it's even there, just create one point where you can pass through to the East, that's all we need.

well then you have to cap the massive train yard across the river, no one wants retail hell + railyard as a view.

Randomguy34 · #**27972** Posted **Mar 26, 2015, 10:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Oooo...the Dearborn Park crowd will get real riled up if something that intense were proposed....

In that case, line Clark Street with only supertalls. That will annoy the NIMBYs so much that they will all leave Dearborn Park, which can then be completely redeveloped so that it will be dense and aligned with the grid system. Seems like a Win/Win situation...except for the NIMBYs of course

wierdaaron · #**27973** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 12:45 AM**

I got a uh-no-comment from another party about P+W's involvement in the south wells thing, so that's looking pretty solid.

BWChicago · #**27974** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 1:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

does anyone know whats beneath that awful tacked-on facade of the Mens Warehouse building? anything worth saving?

And before that,

Mr Downtown · #**27975** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 2:30 AM**

I wonder if there's some confusion about what land CMK now owns. It's only the 5 acres immediately south of River City, not the 62 acres south of Roosevelt. There's really no need for any new streets.

I would think there's room for three towers, possibly four, though if I were pondering the market over the next decade I might do two loft-product midrises, and a few years down the road put a good-size tower at the Roosevelt Road end.

I don't know much about P+W as planners. I admire Ralph Johnson's work as an architect quite a bit, but I don't find much reassuring about the site plan and urban design at Skybridge.

Ryanrule · #**27976** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 2:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWChicago

And before that,

wierdaaron · #**27977** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 2:46 AM**

We were talking about both sites at once, CMK's in practical terms and the Rezko lot in hypothetical.

I think something I'm most curious about with the CMK project is what they'll choose to do with their Roosevelt frontage. Or rather, what elevation they'll choose as "ground level".

Ryanrule · #**27978** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 2:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I wonder if there's some confusion about what land CMK now owns. It's only the 5 acres immediately south of River City, not the 62 acres south of Roosevelt. There's really no need for any new streets.

we know that debbie downer.

The Pimp · #**27979** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 2:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gallo

Smaller infill development near Clark/Cornelia by Studio Dwell. 20 units with 16 parking spaces replacing and old wood-frame single-family home:

Holy shit. I love this thing.

HowardL · #**27980** Posted **Mar 27, 2015, 3:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pimp

Holy shit. I love this thing.

I too love granny dresses, jean jackets and L-friendly collapsible strollers but I also love how this building is articulated down the alley elevation.

Lake View needs some action. More action like this.