CHICAGO | General Developments

[honte]

^ Looks good, I remember seeing that article before. Just curious--does anyone know what this park is replacing?

Hey everyone,

I had no idea this thread existed! Cool stuff. One more reason to love this forum.

TUP, about four years ago this lot contained a beautiful, four-story Romanesque flats building c. 1885. Alderman Tillman, in her infinite wisdom, decided that it should be torn down for this plaza that somehow "honors" jazz musicians - in the city ward with the most vacant lots, of course. :whip: She makes me sick.

[the urban politician]

TUP, about four years ago this lot contained a beautiful, four-story Romanesque flats building c. 1885. Alderman Tillman, in her infinite wisdom, decided that it should be torn down for this plaza that somehow "honors" jazz musicians - in the city ward with the most vacant lots, of course. :whip: She makes me sick.


^ Oh my God, are you serious? That's terrible. Seriously, that bitch needs to get thrown out onto the sidewalk.

That "blues district" she's trying to form on 47nd street is a joke--things like that evolve naturally, not as part of a ridiculous 'master plan'. It's safe to say that she's the biggest obstacle to that part of the south side amounting to anything. As that area slowly gentrifies she'll get ousted, hat first.

[honte]

Especially when she won't lift a finger for the real music or cultural institutions that do (did) exist in her ward - Palm Tavern, Checkerboard Lounge, the old movie theatre on 35th and Michigan, the Forum building at 43rd and King, etc.

I couldn't believe that "Plaza" development when I first saw it. There are lots all over the place there, and it's on one of the city's grandest boulevards. Who needs a plaza, and why do things need to be torn down? Plus, by tearing down that beautiful building, they have exposed the ugly blank rowhouse walls of the building to the south (shown in the rendering), and eroded the urban quality of the corner.

One thing I should mention is that I don't know exactly who started the talk of demolishing the structure. It may well have been the city's fast-track demolition program. But we all know that nothing goes down in her Ward without her control, so I really don't care how it started exactly. Even Landmarks is afraid to suggest things there, lest she start a tantrum.

[the urban politician]

^ Yeah, I posted this article in another thread in response to a question by somebody. I agree with the inconsistency--3500 out of 5700 condos are under contract, which is about 70%. I'm no expert, but why exactly are we saying that sales aren't keeping up with inventory?

[forumly_chgoman]

I say hang her from her Hat and drown her in the River....a fitting end

[museumparktom]

Well Done. Ive been taking pics and posting them on SSC but nothing like this. From what I can see this will be a very dramatic entrance to the Museum Campus and Central Station.

[forumly_chgoman]

^^^^Compleletly agree this is absolutley figgin awesome.....reallly......


Now I realize that this display will never have the immediate visceral impact the bean has, but I think this display is more timeless

[the urban politician]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/114651,CST-FIN-store28.article
Loehmann's likes Loop
Fashion discounter to open store at State & Randolph

October 28, 2006
BY SANDRA GUY Business Reporter
Loehmann's, a discounter of designer fashions, will open its first store in Chicago next fall at the former Walgreen's location on the northeast corner of State and Randolph.
The store will take the first two levels of the Joffrey Tower, which will house the Joffrey Ballet's offices and rehearsal space and high-end condominiums.

Loehmann's chose the downtown site because of State Street's rebirth as a retail and student-housing mecca, and because people living downtown fit the Loehmann's shopper profile of a fashion-savvy woman whose household income is $85,000 or more, a company spokesman said Friday.

A Loehmann's shopper knows that she can get a good buy at $29.99, but she also understands that buying a top-notch, Italian designer handbag for $400 "is a steal," said Fred Forcellati, vice president of advertising for the Bronx, N.Y.-based Loehmann's.

Loehmann's has successfully emerged from a bankruptcy reorganization that saw the retailer reduce its presence in the Chicago market. In the mid-1990s, Loehmann's had stores in Morton Grove, Downers Grove and Orland Hills. The retailer now operates stores in Northbrook, Oak Brook and Morton Grove.

Loehmann's, now owned by an Islamic bank, operates 60 stores and intends to expand to 100 stores by 2010.

Retail expert Howard Davidowitz said Loehmann's will fill a niche because it is a dressier, more mature version of TJ Maxx.

"Loehmann's makes smaller buys [of merchandise] and therefore has a much more interesting inventory of actual designer and branded merchandise, plus private labels," said Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates Inc., a national retail consulting and investment banking firm in New York.

[Wheelingman04]

^ Great news for State Street.

[Frankie]

City could land floating museum
Non-profit group hopes to turn Coast Guard vessel into a riverfront attraction

By William Mullen
Tribune staff reporter
Published October 30, 2006

Long a welcome sight to mariners experiencing trouble on Lake Michigan, the recently retired U.S. Coast Guard cutter Acacia should soon be familiar to strollers and tourists along the banks of the Chicago River.

The decommissioned 180-foot icebreaker and buoy tender was donated to the state of Illinois, which is working with Chicago and the non-profit, locally based American Academy of Industry to make it into a riverfront museum dedicated to the city's rich maritime history.

Moored temporarily at Burns Harbor in Indiana, the 62-year-old Acacia is still outfitted with almost all its working gear--minus machine guns and ammunition.

"The Coast Guard sailed it in here, tied off and left it with us with the engine still running and food in the fridge," academy president Dan Hecker said as he showed off the vessel on a recent Sunday afternoon after the deal was announced.

The boat is to be shifted soon to a Chicago location for the winter. Both the city and the academy would like to have the ship open as a museum by next summer, Hecker said.

Hecker, 46, said he and his brother, Marty, 40, founded the academy in 1995 with the goal of turning a vessel into a maritime museum. Initially, the group boasted more than 200 members. But after years of failed attempts to find a ship, the active number dwindled to "maybe a dozen," he said.

"I was beginning to give the idea up when I got a call last April from a state official asking me if we would be interested in the Acacia," Dan Hecker said.

Plans to sell the ship to an African nation apparently had fallen through, and Coast Guard officials, reviewing their options, pulled a letter from the academy from their files. By law, the Coast Guard could not convey ownership to the academy but arranged to do it through state officials.

City sees benefits

City officials see the Acacia as an asset in their efforts to spruce up the Chicago River's image and are looking at several mooring spots, said Brian Steele, spokesman for the Transportation Department.

Ideally, he said, the ship would go along the river's main branch, perhaps between Clark and Dearborn.

"The concept of the ship becoming a maritime museum is a very appealing one," Steele said. "There are myriad issues that have to be settled in choosing a site for it, including easy public accessibility, making sure the ship does not disturb normal river navigation and incorporating it with city plans for a river walk."

Plans are for much of the ship to be maintained as a time capsule, showing how it worked up to the time of its retirement.

"The initial primary artifact for the museum is the Acacia itself," said Marty Hecker, a Coast Guard naval architect in Maryland. "It is an exceptional ship."......

[the urban politician]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/117552,CST-NWS-lakeforest31.article
Chicago is classroom for Lake Forest kids

October 31, 2006
BY DAVE NEWBART Staff Reporter
Before going to college, Flor Rico spent little time in the city. "I was a suburbs girl,'' she said.



But now she is in the city as often as three times a week -- including taking a tour of Jane Addams' Hull House for a class last week -- and is considering teaching in the inner city when she graduates.

Rico, 21, of Mundelein, doesn't attend DePaul or Columbia or any campus in the city. Rather, she is a student at tiny Lake Forest College, a liberal arts school whose pristine campus is set in the middle of the affluent North Shore suburb.

Yet the college has embraced the city 34 miles to the south as few similar schools have, launching programs and courses to ensure its students take full advantage of all Chicago has to offer.


CITY COURSES IN THE SUBURBS
Some Chicago courses at Lake Forest College:
• • Medical Mysteries in Chicago

• • Chicago and the Global Economy

• • Sculpture of Abraham Lincoln in Chicago

• • The Funding of Public Education in Chicago

• • Educational Reform in Chicago

• • Social Life of Food

• • Exploring Cultural Stereotypes in Context: From Chicago to Paris

• • Religions of Asia in Chicago

• • Cultural Contributions of Chicago's Latino Communities

• • Reading Performance in Chicago

Operas, museums and Pilsen
The college -- which now bills itself as Chicago National Liberal Arts College -- opened the Center for Chicago Programs last year. Within days of setting foot on campus, the 400 new students take a trip downtown. One-third to one-half of required first-year studies courses incorporate Chicago into the curriculum.
Those classes include everything from public education funding in Chicago to Asian religions in the city to sculptures of Abraham Lincoln. Trips include visiting museums, attending operas, touring Pilsen and interviewing shopkeepers on Devon.

And 60 of the school's 1,400 students are doing internships for credit at Chicago institutions or businesses.

The school is also seeking to set up student-mentoring programs with Ethiopian and Cambodian community associations.

Because few students who attend the school come from the city itself, the courses are particularly eye-opening, officials said. About 60 percent of Lake Forest's are from out of state, and many hail from small towns or suburbs.


Visiting the South Side
Professors acknowledge that students are sometimes taken aback by the trips, including one to the former Stateway Gardens public housing complex, where students met tenants and community organizers.
"That completely blows their mind,'' said Paul Fischer, a political science professor. "Even white students from the suburbs, the idea of going to the South Side is a little bit challenging to them.''

But some of the lessons are simpler, like how to use public transportation. The school does not charter buses or drive cars, but puts students on the Metra, L and buses. Professor Michael Ebner -- who takes students to Hull House and Devon Avenue -- said inevitably, new students can't at first figure out how to put a farecard in a CTA turnstyle.

Growing up, Rico said, "I didn't like strangers. I didn't like public transportation. I was scared.''

She now has a completely different attitude, she said.

[brian_b]

Continuing from the downtown student population discussion a few pages ago:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/119117,CST-NWS-loop01.article
Daley calls for more Loop dorms
Mayor Daley said Tuesday he wants to build more downtown "superdorms" -- this time with a "side entrance" for staff and faculty -- to turn the Loop into even more of a college town.
The new dorms would be modeled after University Center, the $151 million dormitory partnership between Columbia College, Roosevelt University and DePaul at State and Congress.

"We hope to explore more options, build more facilities [for] students who want to live in the downtown area. It's a great economic boon for the city," Daley said.

"We should have built a side-entrance for staff, professors and assistant professors. The next one we build, we're going to build an opportunity to keep much of their faculty in the downtown area as well."

Roosevelt President Chuck Middleton said the university is interested in "expanding its residential capacity downtown" by 450 beds. Whether or not it will be in a superdorm or a Roosevelt-only dorm is still under study, he said.

"We're growing, as are other institutions downtown. Everybody needs more beds downtown," he said.

The 18-story University Center opened in 2004 to 1,680 undergraduate, graduate and professional students. It has a laundry room with 75 washers and dryers, a game room and an exercise room.

The amenities don't come cheap. On opening day, a studio apartment with a kitchen and private bath went for $1,139 a month. Students sharing a traditional dorm room paid $723 a month and $2,200 for a meal plan.

[dvidler]

^^Great, great news. I think the city will use that spot at State & Van Buren (the so called park) as the place where they will sell to a developer. Its a perfect location for a dorm plus that park is used by bums and what not.

[SamInTheLoop]

A bit of a misleading article if you check the highlighted portion...

Condo sales fall for 2nd straight quarter
(Crain’s) — While the apartment market remains strong in Chicago and the suburbs, downtown condominium sales fell for a second straight quarter, raising concerns that a number of proposed high-rises may ultimately be scrapped.

Condo sales in new buildings fell to about 700 in the third quarter, down from about 1,200 in the second quarter and 1,600 in the first quarter. Sales this quarter also marked a 26% decline from the same period a year ago, according to a report to be released next month by Appraisal Research Counselors, a Chicago-based real estate consulting firm.

That’s bad news for developers, who generally need contracts for about half of their units to get financing required to begin construction.

“Some projects might not get built,” Gail Lissner, a vice-president at Appraisal Research, said during a presentation Wednesday at the Chicagoland Apartment Assn.’s industry outlook meeting.


Related Article Topics | Related Industry News
Appraisal Research tracks residential sales in the city's core, bounded by North Avenue, the lakefront, Cermak Road and as far west as Ashland Avenue.

Ms. Lissner noted that year-to-date condo sales have fallen only about 5% from last year’s record pace and still remain well above sales in the first nine months of 2004 and 2003.

The more stark figures: About 5,700 new condos are being marketed this year, most of which aren’t yet under construction, compared with just 4,700 that were marketed all of last year.

Of those 5,700 new condos, contracts have been signed on about 3,500 units through the third quarter, according to Appraisal Research data. “Sales aren’t keeping pace with new inventory,” Ms. Lissner said in an interview. Despite the decline in sales, Ms. Lissner said two condo developments that started this year are already under construction: CMK Co.’s 1720 S. Michigan Ave. and Mesa Development Co.’s The Legacy at Millennium Park. The third quarter provided more good news for apartment building owners, who are benefiting from job growth in the region along with tight supply because developers have been converting apartments into condominiums and not building many new apartment complexes.

Net apartment rents in the suburbs rose 5.9% in the third quarter from the year-earlier period, while rents downtown for “Class A” apartment buildings rose 8.9%.

Appraisal Research Vice-president Ron DeVries said he thinks the supply-demand trend will continue and cause rents in the suburbs and city to rise another 5% over the next 12 months.

By the way - I think I figured this one out - it's an error in the article. There have been 3,500 TOTAL new condo sales downtown 1st - 3rd quarter this year, not just units that started marketing this year. So of the 5,700 units that have thus far started marketing in 2006, we do not yet know how many have been sold (hopefully after Appraisal Research releases the report in the coming days, we will find out)...

[SamInTheLoop]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/114651,CST-FIN-store28.article
Loehmann's likes Loop
Fashion discounter to open store at State & Randolph

October 28, 2006
BY SANDRA GUY Business Reporter
Loehmann's, a discounter of designer fashions, will open its first store in Chicago next fall at the former Walgreen's location on the northeast corner of State and Randolph.
The store will take the first two levels of the Joffrey Tower, which will house the Joffrey Ballet's offices and rehearsal space and high-end condominiums.

Loehmann's chose the downtown site because of State Street's rebirth as a retail and student-housing mecca, and because people living downtown fit the Loehmann's shopper profile of a fashion-savvy woman whose household income is $85,000 or more, a company spokesman said Friday.

A Loehmann's shopper knows that she can get a good buy at $29.99, but she also understands that buying a top-notch, Italian designer handbag for $400 "is a steal," said Fred Forcellati, vice president of advertising for the Bronx, N.Y.-based Loehmann's.

Loehmann's has successfully emerged from a bankruptcy reorganization that saw the retailer reduce its presence in the Chicago market. In the mid-1990s, Loehmann's had stores in Morton Grove, Downers Grove and Orland Hills. The retailer now operates stores in Northbrook, Oak Brook and Morton Grove.

Loehmann's, now owned by an Islamic bank, operates 60 stores and intends to expand to 100 stores by 2010.

Retail expert Howard Davidowitz said Loehmann's will fill a niche because it is a dressier, more mature version of TJ Maxx.

"Loehmann's makes smaller buys [of merchandise] and therefore has a much more interesting inventory of actual designer and branded merchandise, plus private labels," said Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates Inc., a national retail consulting and investment banking firm in New York.

Would I love to be a landlord on State Street right now...I think most people have no idea just how strong of a retail market State Street is....People hear news like Carson's closing and they are still caught up in the old mentality that it is struggling - when, in fact, just the opposite is true - the landlords can make so much more money from a wide array of better retailers all clamoring for space on the street, that they are doing everything in their power to kick out the non-performing retailers, whether they be stuffy old department stores or the last of the old "wig" shops from the not-so-pretty days...

[VivaLFuego]

^^Great, great news. I think the city will use that spot at State & Van Buren (the so called park) as the place where they will sell to a developer. Its a perfect location for a dorm plus that park is used by bums and what not.
Who owns the parking lots on the NW and SW corners of Wabash/Van Buren? These are prime sites too. These used to be an ugly parking garage and some interesting 1-2 story buildings just a few years ago, if memory serves. Hope something big is cooking

[SamInTheLoop]

Who owns the parking lots on the NW and SW corners of Wabash/Van Buren? These are prime sites too. These used to be an ugly parking garage and some interesting 1-2 story buildings just a few years ago, if memory serves. Hope something big is cooking

a transaction involving one of them was in the news in the past year or two...didn't there used to be a garage on one that was recently demolished...hhmmm D2? Terrapin? It's coming back to me....

[SamInTheLoop]

^ it might not be one of those but I know an experienced residential developer owns one of them...

[dvidler]

a transaction involving one of them was in the news in the past year or two...didn't there used to be a garage on one that was recently demolished...hhmmm D2? Terrapin? It's coming back to me....

Someone purchased the lot across the street from the Auditorium in plans for student housing. Not sure who or what the plans are.

[Busy Bee]

...the landlords can make so much more money from a wide array of better retailers all clamoring for space on the street, that they are doing everything in their power to kick out the non-performing retailers, whether they be stuffy old department stores...

Your right, nothing says progress like losing iconic bastions like historical department stores that have been embedded in the identity of a place for generations.http://images.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

If even more homogenous corporate chain retailing at the expense of local institutions is heralded as progress, I fear for what we will welcome in the future. And I understand Carson's was owned by a larger corporate parent, but it held of very real regional Chicago image that should have stayed on State Street. I'm crossing my fingers for an announcment to reopen the store in the future.

All the great State Street department stores have been narrowed to one, who would have imagined it would be Sears?http://images.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/haha.gif

[spyguy]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/119117,CST-NWS-loop01.article

Daley calls for more Loop dorms
November 1, 2006

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

Mayor Daley said Tuesday he wants to build more downtown "superdorms" -- this time with a "side entrance" for staff and faculty -- to turn the Loop into even more of a college town.

The new dorms would be modeled after University Center, the $151 million dormitory partnership between Columbia College, Roosevelt University and DePaul at State and Congress.

"We hope to explore more options, build more facilities [for] students who want to live in the downtown area. It's a great economic boon for the city," Daley said.

"We should have built a side-entrance for staff, professors and assistant professors. The next one we build, we're going to build an opportunity to keep much of their faculty in the downtown area as well."

Roosevelt President Chuck Middleton said the university is interested in "expanding its residential capacity downtown" by 450 beds. Whether or not it will be in a superdorm or a Roosevelt-only dorm is still under study, he said.

"We're growing, as are other institutions downtown. Everybody needs more beds downtown," he said.

The 18-story University Center opened in 2004 to 1,680 undergraduate, graduate and professional students. It has a laundry room with 75 washers and dryers, a game room and an exercise room.

The amenities don't come cheap. On opening day, a studio apartment with a kitchen and private bath went for $1,139 a month. Students sharing a traditional dorm room paid $723 a month and $2,200 for a meal plan.

[SamInTheLoop]

Your right, nothing says progress like losing iconic bastions like historical department stores that have been embedded in the identity of a place for generations.http://images.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

If even more homogenous corporate chain retailing at the expense of local institutions is heralded as progress, I fear for what we will welcome in the future. And I understand Carson's was owned by a larger corporate parent, but it held of very real regional Chicago image that should have stayed on State Street. I'm crossing my fingers for an announcment to reopen the store in the future.

All the great State Street department stores have been narrowed to one, who would have imagined it would be Sears?http://images.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/haha.gif

repeat

[SamInTheLoop]

Your right, nothing says progress like losing iconic bastions like historical department stores that have been embedded in the identity of a place for generations.http://images.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

If even more homogenous corporate chain retailing at the expense of local institutions is heralded as progress, I fear for what we will welcome in the future. And I understand Carson's was owned by a larger corporate parent, but it held of very real regional Chicago image that should have stayed on State Street. I'm crossing my fingers for an announcment to reopen the store in the future.

All the great State Street department stores have been narrowed to one, who would have imagined it would be Sears?http://images.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/haha.gif

Because there are just so many people that actually shopped at those "local institutions", right? Who you are really mad at are the 95% of Chicago and American consumers - they voted with their pocketbooks to put the classic department stores out of business. Now, in the case of Carson's, it's an exception, as all I have to say is - GOOD RIDDANCE! That store was an abomination - worst service on the face of the earth, period, and merchandising quality somewhere between Wal-Mart and Family Dollar, but hey, it was a vaunted and proud Chicago institution, right? Wrong – it was a backwater, a poorly-run dump, as retail operations go. (relax people, I’m not talking about the building itself – I’m a huge Sullivan fan, and this is one of my favorite pieces of architecture in the city). Please. And guess what? - there's more - since it is well-publicized that the Sears store is bleeding money like there's no tomorrow, how long before they pack up as well? I, for one, can not wait to see how Joseph Freed re-tenants the property - anything, well, almost anything, would be an improvement...

[honte]

Who owns the parking lots on the NW and SW corners of Wabash/Van Buren? These are prime sites too. These used to be an ugly parking garage and some interesting 1-2 story buildings just a few years ago, if memory serves. Hope something big is cooking

The SW corner is owned now by DePaul University.

The two "interesting" buildings they knocked down were: A church by the cool, kitchy firm of Belli and Belli, and horrifically, the remaining 1/2 of William LeBaron Jenney's Isabella building. It was a remnant, but really worth saving - after all, Jenney was the father of the skyscraper, and this was a steel-framed beauty. The Isabella was the first highrise ever constructed to employ wind bracing. I felt the upper half could have been rebuilt, but it was nice even in its "edited" state; city hall and DePaul didn't care at all about it, and it's now in a landfill.

[Jaroslaw]

I took these two pics in March '04, I think they represent the debacle in question...

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Jaroslaw1/P1110323Large.jpg

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Jaroslaw1/P1110324Large.jpg

[Latoso]

Not sure where to put this, but interesting nonetheless...

http://www.suntimes.com/business/122295,CST-FIN-retail03.article
Sales lag at Macy's
Federated denies shopper anger involved in slowdown at new stores

November 3, 2006
BY SANDRA GUY Business Reporter
The grinch stole holiday buildup from Federated Department Stores' efforts to win over shoppers to Macy's in Chicago and nationwide.

Federated representatives insist that shoppers' anger at Marshall Field's and other regional stores' changeover to Macy's has nothing to do with disappointing sales reported Thursday. The weakness was concentrated in Field's and other department stores formerly owned by May Department Stores, including L.S. Ayres, Famous and Barr, Hecht's, Meier & Frank, Robinsons-May and Strawbridge's.

Federated bought Marshall Field's and the other former May Department Stores for $11.9 billion in August 2005.

Those stores continue to lag in sales, according to Federated, which declines to be more specific or to disclose figures by chain.

In contrast, the original Macy's and Bloomingdale's department store chains showed strong sales results in October from a year ago, with same-store sales jumping 7.7 percent, Federated announced on Thursday. The increase was higher than analysts' forecast for a 6.1 percent gain.

Marshall Field's loyalists have made plans to protest outside Macy's flagship store at 111 N. State St. every Saturday throughout the holidays.

Macy's spokeswoman Jennifer McNamara said Thursday that customers are pleased with the improvements Federated has made to former Marshall Field's and other stores.

She noted that the National Retail Federation on Thursday named Macy's for the first time among the top 10 retailers in the nation for customer service. Macy's brick-and-mortar stores ranked No. 10.

Macy's expects more than 4 million people will view the State Street store's holiday windows theme of Mary Poppins, McNamara said.

Federated's total revenue declined 7.9 percent, to $1.86 billion for the four weeks that ended Oct. 28, because Federated closed 79 stores that were too close together and would have impeded competition after it acquired the May department stores.

Third-quarter sales grew 6 percent to $5.89 billion.

Federated CEO Terry Lundgren remained optimistic about the holidays, saying same-store sales should increase 3 percent to 5 percent in November and during the entire holiday season. But analyst Carol Levenson of Gimme Credit research firm told investors that Federated might find it more difficult than executives expect to issue new bonds in order to back up a tender offer for up to $750 million because of billionaire corporate raider Carl Icahn's increased stake in the company.

Other department stores continued to see strong sales, outperforming discount stores in a reverse of a long-held trend. The stars included J.C. Penney and Nordstrom. Discounters Target and Kohl's same-store sales fell short of analysts' expectations.

Analysts believe shoppers motivated by lower gasoline prices and cold weather will boost retailers' sales by 5 percent nationwide this holiday, slightly below last year's 6.1 percent increase.

[spyguy]

Those stores continue to lag in sales, according to Federated, which declines to be more specific or to disclose figures by chain.

I wonder how bad it really is...

[VivaLFuego]

^ I kind of like the idea of having conventioneers exploring downtown and not just being isolated at McCormick place, so I don't really like the justification for this concept.

[honte]

Exactly what I was thinking. They tout these things for pumping money into the local economy, but then they cannibalize it with hotel rooms and food at the center itself. Sure, the money goes into the overall economy, but hurts the chances of smaller, less connected operators from getting some of the benefit.

McPier should put its money into promoting the city as a whole, into refreshing the adjacent Motor Row Landmark District, and into better mass transit to and from the convention center. Wishful thinking!

I do see the point of doing whatever you can to attract conventions, though. Obviously not every convention attendee will be staying there or eating there either.

[the urban politician]

“Literally, I don’t have to go downtown. I’m going to go right next door and be entertained. That’s what our goal is,” Mr. Caruso said.

^ HAVE to go downtown?

I've never seen going downtown as anything but a fun and exciting experience.

[VivaLFuego]

^ HAVE to go downtown?

I've never seen going downtown as anything but a fun and exciting experience.

McPier is a government entity, Daley should put a stop to this nonsense.

And why isn't there any damn rapid transit from McCormick Place to the Loop and Mag Mile? Turn the busway into bonafide BRT, and/or build a Cermak Green line stop, and/or increase frequency of local trains on the Metra Electric.

[the urban politician]

McPier is a government entity, Daley should put a stop to this nonsense.

And why isn't there any damn rapid transit from McCormick Place to the Loop and Mag Mile? Turn the busway into bonafide BRT, and/or build a Cermak Green line stop, and/or increase frequency of local trains on the Metra Electric.

^ McCormick Place is competing (in a losing battle) with Las Vegas and Orlando, and while the area around MP has a lot of potential, it's going to remain a sea of vacancy and despair for a at least a few more years.

My guess is that Daley is allowing them do what they see fit to survive against these other destinations.

[X-fib]

When I was in Chicago earlier this year for the Pompei exhibit at Field Museum we took a ride to Navy Pier and then back south along Columbus. The southeast corner of East Wacker and Columbus(?) was vacant and looked to be a prime building location. After lurking on this forum for a while I assumed this might be the site of the Aqua or Mandrian, but maybe not... Does anyone know what is planned for this spot? Or for that matter, for the vast empty canyon of east Illinois Center??? It is a rather amazing driving past and seeing it from the lower street level!

[X-fib]

Thanks Lukecuj. The open area I saw next to Columbus is where Aqua is going. :tup:

[Taft]

^ McCormick Place is competing (in a losing battle) with Las Vegas and Orlando, and while the area around MP has a lot of potential, it's going to remain a sea of vacancy and despair for a at least a few more years.

My guess is that Daley is allowing them do what they see fit to survive against these other destinations.

I share this view. We've been hearing for the last few years how much convention business we are losing to places like Vegas and Orlando. And I agree that we will probably continue to shed business for a few years.

I like this idea in that its a move to replicate the Vegas experience. Now normally I would be the first to comment *against* the Vegas-ification of Chicago. Vegas is one of my least favorite cities in the world; a city of obviously manufactured grandeur completely lacking any class. But so long as this "all-in-one" mentality is kept safely in the convention centers of Chicago, I'm not sure I care.

Economically speaking, I would think that any tactic that would boost convention attendance in Chicago would be a net benefit for us. Not everyone is going to want to stay couped up in the sterile McCormick environment and Chicago has a lot to offer.

Sure, ideally the city itself would be the draw and the convention business would be supported by a patchwork of small businesses in a thriving neighborhoods surrounding the convention centers. I think we'll get there as the city core expands and the area around McCormick sees an upswing. Bur for now, moves to shore up the falling convention numbers are probably a good thing for the city. A real, vibrant city will easily compete with the Vegas-style manufactured environments any day. When the city delivers (either by bringing the city to McCormick, so to speak, or by delivering the conventioneers more easily to the city), the need for this will drop.

Taft

[brian_b]

Thoughts on McCormick Place:

First, rapid transit from McCormick Place to the Loop is possible. There's already a Metra Electric station in McCormick Place West (?) in addition to the South Shore station in McCormick Place East. The South Shore stops there on weekends only. They probably also stop during the week during major events.

But the Metra electric could be put to better use. All they need is a smaller train that runs back and forth constantly between the Millenium Park station and McPW. Maybe stop at Van Buren too. Given the amount of trackage there, they should have zero problems with this additional service interfering with existing operations. So why don't they do it? Someone should ask the RTA!

Second, this proposed restaurant city inside the south building has the potential to be good. If they only allow non-chain Chicago-owned restaurants to open there, it will go a long way towards getting out of town guests acquainted with the uniqueness of the city. Right now any convention-goer doesn't have much of an option for eating in the immediate neighborhood except for the bland stuff already sold at McCormick Place. We do also have to understand that no convention-goer wants to spend their entire time right there, so they are going to continue to take taxis downtown and elsewhere. I don't see this as a problem.

[Nowhereman1280]

I was just thinking how sweet it would be if someone were to build a mall on top (or near the top) of a building. For example, how many people would go to a mall that would take up two or three stories on like the 60th or 70th story of the Sears? I would shop there whenever possible!

Has this concept ever been tried? Does anyone know of any examples of this?

It sounds like it would be a sweet marketing techneque because tons of people would go up there just for a free view and end up getting tourist trapped by the stores.

Sorry about the random thought!

[brian_b]

It would be very difficult for the elevator system to handle the customer load.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ That would be a very unsuccessful mall. Apart from the logistical impracticality, retail today is all about convenience. Look at it this way - most vertical malls in the country have not worked very well (there are of course some notable exceptions, a couple of them being in Chicago). The reason? - it is often very difficult to fill retail space above the 2nd or 3rd floor at economic rents (largely because customer traffic suffers due to the inconvenience (or at least perceived inconvenicence) of the location high above street level. Notwithstanding what you say about such a landmark location and the draw-dropping views being the draw, imagine how difficult it would be to lease retail space on the 100th floor of a building when most mall owners struggle to lease up the 4th!

[VivaLFuego]

^ That would be a very unsuccessful mall. Apart from the logistical impracticality, retail today is all about convenience. Look at it this way - most vertical malls in the country have not worked very well (there are of course some notable exceptions, a couple of them being in Chicago). The reason? - it is often very difficult to fill retail space above the 2nd or 3rd floor at economic rents (largely because customer traffic suffers due to the inconvenience (or at least perceived inconvenicence) of the location high above street level. Notwithstanding what you say about such a landmark location and the draw-dropping views being the draw, imagine how difficult it would be to lease retail space on the 100th floor of a building when most mall owners struggle to lease up the 4th!
Well that 4th floor spot wouldn't have the amazing views to help sell it, I think would be his reply.

Supertalls often have skylobbies (Sears does, WTC did, etc.) which have some retail but obviously its specifically geared toward the convenience/sundry side of things for people who work in the buildings.

[Nowhereman1280]

Well I suppose that the elevator load would be the biggest problem. If you had even a free observation deck, it would probably suffer from huge traffic loads. I would like to see a mall (or some retail floor) above the average roof height in the city though, just to see if it would succeed.

They should build a series of big buildings on four differnt corners or something and have the buidlings lean inward across the streets to merge and form some sort of large continuous floorspace for a large retail base, how sweet would that be? However, with a building that large, the NIMBYs would flip out, which would be the fun of it of course!

I'm sure the idea of a skymall is infesable, but I like to think about things that are outside the box like this.

I guess I am just for more public spaces above floor level, like clubs and resturants and, if it could happen a skymall. I think the tops of tall buildings are wasted when they are just a bunch of offices!

[honte]

I guess I am just for more public spaces above floor level, like clubs and resturants and, if it could happen a skymall. I think the tops of tall buildings are wasted when they are just a bunch of offices!

I couldn't agree more. Much of the glory of our built environment is never experienced by the public.

I am very interested in Koolhaas's project for Louisville for this exact reason. In fact, it's probably the only of his projects that I find more than simply interesting.

[Mr Downtown]

Maybe I can add a little information on the big South Loop parcels:

Riverside Park 62 acres bounded by Clark, the river, Roosevelt, and 16th. Access is the big problem. Everyone, including the developer, wanted to find a way to extend the street grid into the site, but couldn’t figure out how to do it because of Metra. The approved PD includes a riverwalk, a new Wells-Wentworth (80-foot ROW) arterial through the site, and a V-shaped drive lined with a town center (topped with residential) at Roosevelt level, atop a three-level parking deck. Except for the townhouses at the south end, it pretty much has to be built in one chunk. When Tony Rezko got into the papers, the city backed away from the TIF financing. General Mediterranean took an ownership position, and DeBartolo announced they would take on the retail part (by now called the Riverside Connection), then they backed out. The property is being shopped around, but some of it may be encumbered by involvement with Rezko’s deals.

LaSalle Park Clark to Wells, Polk to Roosevelt—excluding the Lennar parcel SWC Clark/Polk and a couple of parcels SEC Wells/Polk. LaSalle Park was the name used when PD 523 was approved in 1991, anticipating office buildings along Clark and residential along Wells. Almost nothing is being developed as prescribed by the PD, but it’s all been handled by administrative amendments rather than a true replanning. First the Target, then The Curve, AMLI’s 900 S Clark, and now the Roosevelt Connection have been carved out of this PD. Southgate Market (west of the river) and stuff north of Polk are not part of LaSalle Park.

Roosevelt Connection Metra tracks to Wells, Roosevelt to 9th. The basics of this project are well known. The main parking and delivery entrances are from Wells, which gets treated rather badly, with blank parking garage walls. Developer says they can do no better because they don't know what Cacciatore will do across the street. Steps at the north end cascade down into a new park (2.8 acres as I recall).

Cacciatore property Wells to the river, south of River City to Roosevelt. No plans have been sighted. A 30-foot riverwalk will almost certainly be, ahem, offered.

Franklin Point Wells to the river, north of River City to Harrison. Site of the old Grand Central Station, there’s been no shortage of ambitious plans over the last two decades. I’ve heard that D2 has optioned or purchased a small part near Polk. Frankel & Giles is trying to market the part near Harrison; maybe all of it.

Here's a map showing the various parcels:
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/4180/southloopparcelsij5.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[Wheelingman04]

^ Nice overview and map, Mr Downtown.:)

[honte]

Thanks a lot, Mr. Downtown. I wish I could say that it looks promising...

The main parking and delivery entrances are from Wells, which gets treated rather badly, with blank parking garage walls. Developer says they can do no better because they don't know what Cacciatore will do across the street.

This is the kind of crap that makes me really mad. It is unacceptable, garbage planning that one might expect from Omaha or Des Moines or some smaller city with little or no experience handling major developments. NOT Chicago. As I said a few pages back, this area is screaming out for a modern and exciting, comprehensive master plan. We are not going to have it.

It's rather sad to look back, but Goldberg's River City master plan was by far the most visionary and progressive thing ever proposed for this area. I wish all the parties could simply commit to building it and call it a day.

[VivaLFuego]

^Thanks for the updates Mr Downtown, and welcome to the forum. Did you make that map? Your avatar looks like the logo for Chicago Cartographics....
Sounds like Wells street will basically be a service drive rather than an actual continuation of the street grid.

[jpIllInoIs]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/newhomes/chi-0611180015nov18,1,140323.story?ctrack=1&cset=true


This could be interesting......


By Richard Wronski
Tribune staff reporter
Published November 18, 2006

Acres of parking lots at suburban Metra train stations ought to be used for convenient housing for commuters rather than merely for their cars, according to a study issued Tuesday by a public interest group.

More than 1,100 new residential units and 167,000 square feet of commercial space in mixed developments could be built in nine Cook County suburbs, without a loss of commuter parking spaces, the Chicago-based Center for Neighborhood Technology said.

Development also could provide several hundred thousand dollars in tax revenue for each of the nine communities--more than $4 million total--above the parking revenue generated by the lots, the study said.

The new housing could help meet growing demand for more transit-oriented housing in the Chicago area, said the non-profit organization, which has advocated such development since 1993.

By 2030 the demand for housing near transit in the Chicago region will be 1.6 million households, more than double the 2000 number of 787,000, the study said.

"In their current state, these parking lots are robbing our region of economic value because there is a higher and better use for the land," said Jacky Grimshaw, the group's vice president for policy.

The study was funded with the support of the Joyce, Alphawood and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundations.

Metra officials and leaders of suburbs cited in the study acknowledged the need for transit-oriented development, but said this goal must be balanced against the demands of commuters, who want to park as close as possible to their train stations.

"It's kind of a double-edged sword," said Judy Pardonnet, a Metra spokeswoman.

The new Metra station in Elburn is an example of transit-oriented development, Pardonnet said. Elburn officials have planned offices, stores and apartments around the station and single-family homes in a neighboring subdivision.

Suburban leaders, particularly in more established communities such as Oak Park and La Grange, cite severe shortages of commuter and residential parking.

But the center said existing parking lots could be used more efficiently by building new parking decks into the developments.

Arlington Heights Mayor Arlene Mulder, who is also a Metra board member, said the village has won several awards for its downtown transit-oriented developments. But residents' concerns must also be taken into consideration, she said.

The center's study recommended turning a 1.5-acre Metra lot in Arlington Heights into a mixed-use development with a parking structure and commercial space, topped off with 72 residential units.

Arlington Heights, local schools and its Park District could get $640,000 a year in additional property tax revenue, the study concluded.

"As such, Metra riders who drive to the station cost the town and its taxpayers, but the real costs include the lost opportunity costs of not utilizing the land devoted to parking for a higher use," the study said.

Mulder said the village might favor such a development, but residents are opposed to any multistory project on the site, which is in a historic district.

Mulder said she appreciated the center's recommendation, "but residents have to have their input, too."

In La Grange, the study urged turning three lots totaling 1.5 acres into mixed-use developments.

In Tinley Park, the study identified 19 acres within a quarter-mile of the 80th Avenue Metra station designated for commuter parking.

The study proposes using more than 1,700 parking spaces for a major development of town homes, multifamily buildings and commercial property.

The study also recommended more transit-oriented development in Palatine, Hanover Park, Oak Park, Franklin Park, Homewood and Blue Island.

E-mail this story
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

[Mr Downtown]

Did you make that map? Your avatar looks like the logo for Chicago CartoGraphics....
Yes, the map is my work. As for the avatar, you have good eye.

Sounds like Wells street will basically be a service drive rather than an actual continuation of the street grid.
I'm just relieved to have it in the plans at all. For years, planning staff would dismiss it as unnecessary, and almost let the ROW go in the planning for Ping Tom Park expansion. I had to yell and scream to get more than a 66-foot ROW in the Riverside Park PD.

I think it will end up more like Clark than a service drive, with infrequent access points and moderately high speed and traffic volumes. The Riverside Park plan did some nice things to civilize it, with buildings fronting onto it.

Occasionally I imagine it as "Riverside Drive," but I'm torn about whether it should only have parkland/riverwalk between the road and the river. I now think the approach taken in the Riverside Park plan is better: residential buildings fronting the road but a riverwalk to the west.

I don't know what would be much better for the Roosevelt Collection, unless it was liner townhouses fronting Wells. I just don't know that streetfront retail down at that level would ever be realistic.

[jcchii]

that whole area is a disaster IMO

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown
The main parking and delivery entrances are from Wells, which gets treated rather badly, with blank parking garage walls. Developer says they can do no better because they don't know what Cacciatore will do across the street.

This is the kind of crap that makes me really mad. It is unacceptable, garbage planning that one might expect from Omaha or Des Moines or some smaller city with little or no experience handling major developments. NOT Chicago. As I said a few pages back, this area is screaming out for a modern and exciting, comprehensive master plan. We are not going to have it.

^ Uhh, that's the kind of planning you'll get in Manhattan as well. Walking around Midtown, you'll see plenty of streets treated as garage/delivery access alleys for the major avenues. Nothing new there, and it's definitely not just a Des Moines thing.

Anyway, with an elevated Roosevelt, a walled-off Dearborn Park, and a river, this chunk of land is obviously very challenging to develop. THe more and more I learn about it, the more I realize that extending the streetgrid into this area is scarcely possible, if at all. That said, from the looks of Roosevelt Collection I am not encouraged; it's one thing to have limitations on layout, but I see no reason why the architecture itself has to be so crappy.

[HK Chicago]

^ That's a necessity in Manhattan, not an arbitrary planning decision.

[honte]

^ That's a necessity in Manhattan, not an arbitrary planning decision.

Yeah, that's really what I was getting at. I actually like seeing trucks in the streets and the chaotic activity they bring.

This, "Well, I don't know what's happening over there, so we're going to basically ignore it," or rather, "That's our competition's land, so we're not going to make any improvements" is what is so damn annoying. This is case-in-point for a master plan and some governmental oversight.

Yes, it's complex. But complexity can be the impetus for the best architecture when triumphed. This area calls for something really creative and really bold (Hello, Olympic Stadium?).

[Sir Isaac Newton]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown
The main parking and delivery entrances are from Wells, which gets treated rather badly, with blank parking garage walls. Developer says they can do no better because they don't know what Cacciatore will do across the street.



^ Uhh, that's the kind of planning you'll get in Manhattan as well. Walking around Midtown, you'll see plenty of streets treated as garage/delivery access alleys for the major avenues. Nothing new there, and it's definitely not just a Des Moines thing.

Anyway, with an elevated Roosevelt, a walled-off Dearborn Park, and a river, this chunk of land is obviously very challenging to develop. THe more and more I learn about it, the more I realize that extending the streetgrid into this area is scarcely possible, if at all. That said, from the looks of Roosevelt Collection I am not encouraged; it's one thing to have limitations on layout, but I see no reason why the architecture itself has to be so crappy.


What's so crappy about the architecture? Sure, the architecture in Roosevelt Collection may be no masterpiece, but I fail to see what's so bad about it either. Overall, I think that the Roosevelt Collection as well as the rest of the developments in Lasalle park will be a very welcome addition to the neighborhood.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

[QUOTE=Mr Downtown]Maybe I can add a little information on the big South Loop parcels:

Great map/descriptions! Do you know if there are any plans for the plot of land bounded by 9th street and Polk, and Wells and the Metra tracks?

[the urban politician]

What's so crappy about the architecture? Sure, the architecture in Roosevelt Collection may be no masterpiece, but I fail to see what's so bad about it either. Overall, I think that the Roosevelt Collection as well as the rest of the developments in Lasalle park will be a very welcome addition to the neighborhood.

^ It's totally monotonous. Glass, then brick, then glass, then brick, and so on. No variability at all, not to mention that both sides of the development are essentially reflections of the other. There is nothing of any visual interest--as others have said, this development looks completely like a suburban lifestyle center in Naperville. :yuck:

[Mr Downtown]

any plans for the plot of land bounded by 9th street and Polk, and Wells and the Metra tracks?

That's supposed to be a future phase of Centrum's development, a highrise of yet-undetermined design. As you see from the map, they want to do this weird thing moving Financial Place over to the alley behind 801 S Wells because of some hassle with a utility easement. So I hope that area gets rethought before any construction actually happens.

The building footprint I show is from preliminary plans circulated by the developer. The actual PD amendment doesn't actually contain a site plan, I'm told, though no one at DPD could actually find the amendment when I was there Thursday.

I think the parking lot south of 801 is a different owner (might be Cacciatore).

[Sir Isaac Newton]

^ It's totally monotonous. Glass, then brick, then glass, then brick, and so on. No variability at all, not to mention that both sides of the development are essentially reflections of the other. There is nothing of any visual interest--as others have said, this development looks completely like a suburban lifestyle center in Naperville. :yuck:

Sometimes symmetry works better than just a haphazard mishmash of buildings. I'm also not sure what is wrong with something that is all glass, or all brick. Is the Trump Tower, and numerous other buildings that are all glass "totally monotonous" as well? I'm not claiming that RC is an architectural masterpiece; but at the same time, the buildings seem relatively nice and there are many buildings in Chicago that are far worse/uglier.

Also, all the comparisons of RC to Naperville are absolutely absurd and need to stop. RC will be a great addition to the community - it will bring a lot of things to the South Loop that the South Loop is currently missing....a 16-screen theater while at the moment, the South Loop as NO theatres....a bowling alley, which the South Loop currently lacks....another health club, which the South Loop doesn't have many of yet....a park that will have lots of concerts, fairs, and farmers markets, giving the neighborhood much more vibrancy....TONS of restaurants and retail - something that the South Loop is greatly lacking right now. What's Naperville-ish about this? Is everyone trying to say that only suburbanites like to go out to the movies? That only suburbanites work out at gyms and like to bowl? I realize that some of you may have been really attached to the status quo of that area, which is the oh-so-cosmopolitan parking lots and fields of weeds....but I guess I am one of the few that thinks that the RC is a big step foward over the parking lots and fields of weeds that currently occupy that area. Crazy, I know.

[the urban politician]

^ It's obviously an improvement, but they could have done a lot better job architecturally without having to spend more money. Variety doesn't have to be expensive. If you look at the original plans for Riverside Park (when Ikea was part of the picture), that is an example of a well-designed development with a lot of variety and potential--too bad it never happened.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

^ It's obviously an improvement, but they could have done a lot better job architecturally without having to spend more money. Variety doesn't have to be expensive. If you look at the original plans for Riverside Park (when Ikea was part of the picture), that is an example of a well-designed development with a lot of variety and potential--too bad it never happened.


But there is some variety....some buildings are glass, some are brick. Also, the brick buildings vary in color and the glass buildings look like they vary in color as well.

[Marcu]

^ It's totally monotonous. Glass, then brick, then glass, then brick, and so on. No variability at all, not to mention that both sides of the development are essentially reflections of the other. There is nothing of any visual interest--as others have said, this development looks completely like a suburban lifestyle center in Naperville. :yuck:

Some may argue that the mere existence of such a development would add variety to the otherwise monotonous city grid with a lack of uniformity in building design. I'm certainly not a huge fan of the design but I think it's just a matter of taste. I certainly don't see how it's objectively "bad".

[nomarandlee]

The biggest problam with the RC can be easily summed up in that it looks like when you go there it will feel like a CONCEPT from one end to the other. The more you are going to make look something look like a concept the more the bar is raised in making sure the details of the concept is held to a high standard. It looks like if you pulled out any of these portions of the RC it would be kinda "meh", when you put a bunch of "mehs" together in concept form like RC it can quickly go bad.

[honte]

^ Well, that is a good way to put it. I agree, it feels somewhat contrived, like an "instant town centre," and that may be why it's drawing the Naperville comments (although of course Naperville has quite a nice older downtown).

Architecturally, my main complaint is not with the low-rises, however dull they appear, but with that Loewenbergish tower! It looks decent from East-West, and then from North-South there is all that painted concrete...

[left of center]

Sometimes symmetry works better than just a haphazard mishmash of buildings. I'm also not sure what is wrong with something that is all glass, or all brick. Is the Trump Tower, and numerous other buildings that are all glass "totally monotonous" as well? I'm not claiming that RC is an architectural masterpiece; but at the same time, the buildings seem relatively nice and there are many buildings in Chicago that are far worse/uglier.

Also, all the comparisons of RC to Naperville are absolutely absurd and need to stop. RC will be a great addition to the community - it will bring a lot of things to the South Loop that the South Loop is currently missing....a 16-screen theater while at the moment, the South Loop as NO theatres....a bowling alley, which the South Loop currently lacks....another health club, which the South Loop doesn't have many of yet....a park that will have lots of concerts, fairs, and farmers markets, giving the neighborhood much more vibrancy....TONS of restaurants and retail - something that the South Loop is greatly lacking right now. What's Naperville-ish about this? Is everyone trying to say that only suburbanites like to go out to the movies? That only suburbanites work out at gyms and like to bowl? I realize that some of you may have been really attached to the status quo of that area, which is the oh-so-cosmopolitan parking lots and fields of weeds....but I guess I am one of the few that thinks that the RC is a big step foward over the parking lots and fields of weeds that currently occupy that area. Crazy, I know.

No one disagrees that the South Loop needs movie theatres, retail, bowling alleys... etc. But the design of it is terrible. It promotes car use, does not focus retail on major corridors, rather hides it inside a dead end, allowing only one traffic choking enterance and exit. This in of itself is a suburban mentality.

Your claims of suburbanites being the only ones going to movies or bowling is pretty ludacris. As for the "cosmopolitain fields of weeds" as you call them, yes, i think i would rather hold on to them for a little while longer for a better idea to come around. People dont marry the first person they meet. Chicago deserves better.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

No one disagrees that the South Loop needs movie theatres, retail, bowling alleys... etc. But the design of it is terrible. It promotes car use, does not focus retail on major corridors, rather hides it inside a dead end, allowing only one traffic choking enterance and exit. This in of itself is a suburban mentality.

Your claims of suburbanites being the only ones going to movies or bowling is pretty ludacris. As for the "cosmopolitain fields of weeds" as you call them, yes, i think i would rather hold on to them for a little while longer for a better idea to come around. People dont marry the first person they meet. Chicago deserves better.


a) So you're saying that only people in suburbs drive cars? You're right, I've never seen anyone in a car in NYC, LA, Hong Kong, etc. Many people will walk or take the el when going to the RC. But it is going to be more ideal for some people to drive there. Just like it is more ideal for some people to drive to a Bears game, just like it is more ideal for some people to drive to any sports event/concert/cultural event in any major city in the country. I guess by your logic professional sports teams, big concerts, cultural events, etc. are all part of the suburban mentality too, as some people actually drive their cars to these events. What are these country hicks driving their cars to these events thinking? How unsophisticated can they get?

b) There is more than one entrance/exit in RC, so get your facts straight before you spew off more "ludacris" nonsense.

c) What "major corridors" are even in existence, on the RC property? Are you suggesting that instead of building the RC, we should try to convince businesses to set up shop underneath the Metra tracks? Perhaps you should learn a little bit about the actual location of RC, before you assert that there are much better ways to develop the land that RC will be on.

[left of center]

a) So you're saying that only people in suburbs drive cars? You're right, I've never seen anyone in a car in NYC, LA, Hong Kong, etc. Many people will walk or take the el when going to the RC. But it is going to be more ideal for some people to drive there. Just like it is more ideal for some people to drive to a Bears game, just like it is more ideal for some people to drive to any sports event/concert/cultural event in any major city in the country. I guess by your logic professional sports teams, big concerts, cultural events, etc. are all part of the suburban mentality too, as some people actually drive their cars to these events. What are these country hicks driving their cars to these events thinking? How unsophisticated can they get?

b) There is more than one entrance/exit in RC, so get your facts straight before you spew off more "ludacris" nonsense.

c) What "major corridors" are even in existence, on the RC property? Are you suggesting that instead of building the RC, we should try to convince businesses to set up shop underneath the Metra tracks? Perhaps you should learn a little bit about the actual location of RC, before you assert that there are much better ways to develop the land that RC will be on.


A) I never said only suburbanites drive cars. I never stated my opinion on Bears games, concerts, cultural events, etc. I never called car drivers country hicks. I never made direct connections between not driving and sophistication. With that said, have you observed how successful retail districts work in this city? Good examples would be State St, Michigan Ave, and Lincoln, Clark, Broadway, etc. on the North Side. Key word here is pedestrian presence. Ofcourse some people will choose to drive. The point is the developer should encourage walking. The RC in its current state doesn't really do that.

B) There is only one entrance/exit for vehicle traffic, which is the issue i was alluding to.

C) Uhm.... Roosevelt Rd? I know plenty of the geography of that location, and i think an extension of the street grid would have been a better idea (extending LaSalle and Financial down to Roosevelt, and 9th or 11th west into the property) or atleast a system of roadways that would better connect the retail area with the rest of the neighborhood, since the Metra ROW would be an issue. Ironically, there are plans for retail underneath Metra tracks in the Loop, funny you should mention that.


The fact that you twist my words with such conviction is really interesting. Im merely posting my thoughts here, and you somehow takes offense to what i say, or act as if im personally attacking you. You gotta chill out, guy.

[a chicago bearcat]

I'd like to say that I don't find Roosevelt collection completely ridiculous

I'd just like to see how the wells facade is going to be treated, and how they are going to get pedestrians from the surrounding neighborhood utilizing the town center they've created

I understand it would be expected for pedestrians to traverse the park, and walk up the steps shown in the rendering to access the town center, but if a retail area is that detatched from the rest of the neighborhood it could end up as a purely motor vehicle destination even for those within a 10 minute walk

Such a large portion of this project is parking, and it seems this podium development could feel completely disconnected from the neighborhood if it treats its edges as borders instead of transitions. Working street retail, as in this project needs a real street in order to thrive, I just don't see it.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

A) I never said only suburbanites drive cars. I never stated my opinion on Bears games, concerts, cultural events, etc. I never called car drivers country hicks. I never made direct connections between not driving and sophistication. With that said, have you observed how successful retail districts work in this city? Good examples would be State St, Michigan Ave, and Lincoln, Clark, Broadway, etc. on the North Side. Key word here is pedestrian presence. Ofcourse some people will choose to drive. The point is the developer should encourage walking. The RC in its current state doesn't really do that.

B) There is only one entrance/exit for vehicle traffic, which is the issue i was alluding to.

C) Uhm.... Roosevelt Rd? I know plenty of the geography of that location, and i think an extension of the street grid would have been a better idea (extending LaSalle and Financial down to Roosevelt, and 9th or 11th west into the property) or atleast a system of roadways that would better connect the retail area with the rest of the neighborhood, since the Metra ROW would be an issue. Ironically, there are plans for retail underneath Metra tracks in the Loop, funny you should mention that.


The fact that you twist my words with such conviction is really interesting. Im merely posting my thoughts here, and you somehow takes offense to what i say, or act as if im personally attacking you. You gotta chill out, guy.


To your responses:

A) What exactly is the developer of RC doing to discourage walking? Those who live within walking distance to RC will walk there, no matter what. Those who don't live within walking distance will not walk there, no matter what. It's a pretty simple concept. I'm not sure what the developer could possibly even do to make a big impact on the number of people walking to RC vs. not walking there. I assume you think that because RC has it's own underground parking, walking to RC is somehow being discouraged. As if people who lived in Lakeview or Hyde Park would plan on walking to RC, but once they realize that RC has parking, will drive there instead.

B) There will be an entrance/exit on Roosevelt and an entrance/exit on Wells. I may not be a math prodigy, but I believe that adds up to more than one.

C) Already on all sections of Roosevelt nearby RC, there is tons of retail in existence or sprouting up. However, the section of Roosevelt at RC is a bridge. So I'm not sure what kind of retail you had in mind for Roosevelt in that area. A couple hot dog venders repelling over the Roosevelt Street bridge? The parking garage in RC that you and others on here rip on is in fact creating the ability to connect Roosevelt with the whole plot of land that RC is on, in the first place. And as for the retail underneath the Metra tracks that you refer to, it will be in a preexisting building where the entrance to the Metra is contained in. The Metra track between Polk and Roosevelt is supported by a concrete wall that is maybe 7 or 8 feet high....don't think anyone will be squeezing shops underneath it.

And just to let you know, I take no offense to what I say. I just like messing with people on this site who get all snobbish about their architecture, or get all snobbish in general....especially since it is usually well deserved.

Just curious, what would be your master plan for the RC parcel of land?

[detroitismylove]

It was great! Free booze and they had a dj and go-go dancers. What more could one want.:banana:

Awesome. I recieved an invitation in the mail last week but was unable to travel to Chicago this week. Im glad you had a great time! Looks like an amazing project for the South Loop.

[honte]

Man, this place got pretty nasty all of the sudden. Who would have thought this small development would generate such heated arguments? Maybe we do need that Roosevelt Megaprojects thread?

[alex1]

without having to get ugly, I just wanted to support my belief that if you build lots of parking (if it's FREE), you are in turn supporting increased vehicular dependence.

People want convenience, and FREE parking in bunches undoubtably gives them that. This is one reason why I'm against the parking garage proposed for Wrigley Field. It's not good long term urban policy to dedicate so much space to the car.

[the urban politician]

a) So you're saying that only people in suburbs drive cars? You're right, I've never seen anyone in a car in NYC, LA, Hong Kong, etc. Many people will walk or take the el when going to the RC. But it is going to be more ideal for some people to drive there. Just like it is more ideal for some people to drive to a Bears game, just like it is more ideal for some people to drive to any sports event/concert/cultural event in any major city in the country. I guess by your logic professional sports teams, big concerts, cultural events, etc. are all part of the suburban mentality too, as some people actually drive their cars to these events. What are these country hicks driving their cars to these events thinking? How unsophisticated can they get?

^ That's the second person whose words you put in their mouth. Please stop arguing in this fashion. BTW, I agree that RC does not detract from pedestrians just because it has parking. But this is what gets me, from 9th street all the way to 12th street, if you want to get into this development from Clark St as a pedestrian, how will you do it? Is there even 1 pedestrian entrance to this on its east side between those 2 roads? If not, then that's pretty damn sad, and shows us whom this development caters to (drivers!).

b) There is more than one entrance/exit in RC, so get your facts straight before you spew off more "ludacris" nonsense.

^ It's spelled 'ludicrous'. Also, Wells is just a garage entrance, right? So when it comes to through street traffic, RC has only one entrance and exit.

[the urban politician]

Man, this place got pretty nasty all of the sudden. Who would have thought this small development would generate such heated arguments? Maybe we do need that Roosevelt Megaprojects thread?

^ Well, I think it's worthwile to discuss RC because it's a pretty major development that sets the tone for that part of the city. A lot of people have strong opinions about it because many people believe that the Dept of Planning and Devt went to sleep on this one. I happen to agree

[spyguy]

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/2027/rcsplantu8.jpg

[the urban politician]

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/2027/rcsplantu8.jpg

^ So the only pedestrian access points are Roosevelt and a long staircase at 9th? Boy, I can't wait for those choking traffic bottlenecks to arrive, reminding everyone about the consequences of bad planning

[honte]

Speaking of choking bottlenecks and poor planning, does anyone else see imminent disaster with that tiny, one-lane road they put in at Lakeshore East? There is barely enough room to pass a parked car, and now they are starting to add retail in bizarre places, such as that bank on the lower level of the Shoreham.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

^ That's the second person whose words you put in their mouth. Please stop arguing in this fashion. BTW, I agree that RC does not detract from pedestrians just because it has parking. But this is what gets me, from 9th street all the way to 12th street, if you want to get into this development from Clark St as a pedestrian, how will you do it? Is there even 1 pedestrian entrance to this on its east side between those 2 roads? If not, then that's pretty damn sad, and shows us whom this development caters to (drivers!).



^ It's spelled 'ludicrous'. Also, Wells is just a garage entrance, right? So when it comes to through street traffic, RC has only one entrance and exit.


There are Metra tracks blocking entrance to this parcel of land, between Polk and Roosevelt. It has NOTHING to do with RC: no matter how the land is developed, people trying to get into this area on the east side will either have to enter at Polk or Roosevelt.

As for the ludicrous comment, I was poking fun of Left of Center's misspelling of the word, hence the quotation marks. I apologize if that went over your head.

I am in NO way trying to compare this development to Michigan or 5th avenue. All I am saying is for what the developer was given, he/she did a pretty good job. So many of you on here are going on and on about the area should be developed to have an open space with rows of restaurants, shops, and bars along all the streets....ala Manhattan or some parts of Chicago on the North Side. What all of you are either forgetting (or not even realizing) is that directly to the east, RC is bounded by Metra tracks....directly to the south, RC is bounded by the Roosevelt street bridge - which is greatly elevated over RC's parcel of land....directly to the west is Wells street, which currently is a dirt road heading south of Polk, and then ends even before it makes it to Roosevelt. Even once Wells is built up more, RC will still essentially be bounded/blocked off by the River on it's west side, as the river is just a half a block west of Wells. The most "pedestrian friendly" entrance/boundry of RC is Polk Street, which just happens to dead end at Wells due to the river.

I am huge fan myself of open space corridors full of shops, restaurants, bars, etc. I think that the South Loop will still get a lot of that - particularly at State, Wabash, and Michigan. But it ain't happening here. RC is bounded by train tracks mounted on a concrete wall, a bridge, a river, and a dead-end road on all 4 sides. I've seen many pieces of land in cities in the past along the lines of RC's parcel of land (including in NYC, which so many of you in here seem to strive for Chicago to become more like) and almost in all cases, the land was complete unused/abandoned. The developer should be lauded for still being able to put this land to pretty good use. The South Loop is the largest growing area of Chicago and it doesn't even have a movie theater or bowling alley, and is severely lacking in restaurants, shops, and health clubs. RC will deliver on the area's immediate needs for these things, and can almost serve as an anchor retail area in which smaller, streetside shops/restaurants/businesses will spout off from.

To everyone who is ripping on RC, I really have to ask: what would be your master plan for the area if you were the developer? I'm really not sure that anyone could come up with something that much better, given RC's geographical constraints.

The one thing that I will agree with most people on is that it probably would be to not allow free parking in the RC lots, as it might inspire a few lazy people to drive to RC, who could have otherwise walked. But I'm not even 100% sure if RC has even communicated yet if the parking will be free or not? If they are planning on offering free parking, that would be something that they should reconsider, as paid parking would result in only the people who need to drive actually doing so, and cutting down on veichle traffic.

[honte]

To everyone who is ripping on RC, I really have to ask: what would be your master plan for the area if you were the developer? I'm really not sure that anyone could come up with something that much better, given RC's geographical constraints.

This is the best point you've made so far. From the developer's perspective, there might not be too much more you can do (planning-wise - the architecture still sucks and it's a different story). But that's why I've been complaining all along that the city has failed us from a planning perspective. Much more could be done if all the parties were involved.

As for the Metra tracks on the side of the property, there must be a solution. In my opinion, it would be worth the taxpayer expense to rework this track, or Clark Street.

Could Clark be raised from Polk southward in a way that is respectful of Dearborn Park? (That would really wall them off - just what they want!) Could the tracks be sunken or rerouted? (Sure, it's expensive, but a better use than Daley's stupid idea of rerouting the spur near 16th, which isn't a problem unless you're a yuppie who bought a condo right next to it without thinking that there was a train track outside your window.) To reintegrate all this land with the city, I think it easily would be worth it.

But these are the kinds of things that the city must take on, not the developers, unless they are real visionaries.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

I think that one thing that almost all of us on this board can agree on is that it is pretty funny/ironic that the handful of malcontents from Folio Square, who protested nonstop against Burnham Pointe, are not protesting against RC. One of their main supposed gripes against Burnham Pointe was the traffic that it would create. I think it's safe to say that there are going to be at least a few more cars entering and exiting from RC. Another big gripe of there's was that Burnham Pointe was out of scale compared to the rest of the neighborhood. The high-rise in the 2nd phase of RC is a good 10 stories higher than Burnham Pointe (although I guess it isn't directly blocking their view!)

[a chicago bearcat]

^ burnham pointe and Roosevelt collection are separated by a bit of distance

and I think the prospect of more retail in the area subdues complaints

although I'd still protest the dullness of the RC tower, it seems out of place
as if it should've been built 7 years ago in river north, and I still want to see how wells is being addressed

[Sir Isaac Newton]

^ burnham pointe and Roosevelt collection are separated by a bit of distance

and I think the prospect of more retail in the area subdues complaints

although I'd still protest the dullness of the RC tower, it seems out of place
as if it should've been built 7 years ago in river north, and I still want to see how wells is being addressed

They are roughly 100 yards apart. When you bring up Wells, are you referring to how RC will incorporate Wells into the development or how the city will renovate/develop Wells? I believe the city is planning on paving Wells all the way down to Roosevelt in the next year or two, with plans to possibly develop it further south, later on....

[Latoso]

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/2027/rcsplantu8.jpg

From what I could see from the model, there are going to be about 3 separate retail entrances from wells street, so it won't be as devoid of life as many believe.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Well, that is a good way to put it. I agree, it feels somewhat contrived, like an "instant town centre," and that may be why it's drawing the Naperville comments (although of course Naperville has quite a nice older downtown).

Architecturally, my main complaint is not with the low-rises, however dull they appear, but with that Loewenbergish tower! It looks decent from East-West, and then from North-South there is all that painted concrete...

Totally agree re: the tower's north-south vs. east-west faces... This is Hirsch as well, no? Maybe Centrum should shop for a new design architect for the towers.

[the urban politician]

From what I could see from the model, there are going to be about 3 separate retail entrances from wells street, so it won't be as devoid of life as many believe.

^ That's good news, so that means there will be at least an additional pedestrian entrance.

So will there be elevators from the retail podium down to Wells St? There are so many unanswered questions. For example, I thought this development was going to be bordered by 9th street to the north, with 9th street connecting Wells to Clark. Did anybody take pics of the models at the sales center?

[left of center]

To your responses:

A) What exactly is the developer of RC doing to discourage walking? Those who live within walking distance to RC will walk there, no matter what. Those who don't live within walking distance will not walk there, no matter what. It's a pretty simple concept. I'm not sure what the developer could possibly even do to make a big impact on the number of people walking to RC vs. not walking there. I assume you think that because RC has it's own underground parking, walking to RC is somehow being discouraged. As if people who lived in Lakeview or Hyde Park would plan on walking to RC, but once they realize that RC has parking, will drive there instead.

B) There will be an entrance/exit on Roosevelt and an entrance/exit on Wells. I may not be a math prodigy, but I believe that adds up to more than one.

C) Already on all sections of Roosevelt nearby RC, there is tons of retail in existence or sprouting up. However, the section of Roosevelt at RC is a bridge. So I'm not sure what kind of retail you had in mind for Roosevelt in that area. A couple hot dog venders repelling over the Roosevelt Street bridge? The parking garage in RC that you and others on here rip on is in fact creating the ability to connect Roosevelt with the whole plot of land that RC is on, in the first place. And as for the retail underneath the Metra tracks that you refer to, it will be in a preexisting building where the entrance to the Metra is contained in. The Metra track between Polk and Roosevelt is supported by a concrete wall that is maybe 7 or 8 feet high....don't think anyone will be squeezing shops underneath it.

And just to let you know, I take no offense to what I say. I just like messing with people on this site who get all snobbish about their architecture, or get all snobbish in general....especially since it is usually well deserved.

Just curious, what would be your master plan for the RC parcel of land?

A) People from Lakeview and Hyde Park probably wouldnt walk to RC, considering the distance. They would shop in thier own local retail districts. I dont blame the existance of the parking garage as a detriment to walking, just the project's connectivity to the neighborhood. i understand the RC's geographic limitations, but i think a cul-de-sac retail strip isnt really the best idea out there for this plot. Its too inward focused. If you want to see a similar example of bad planning with an inward focused development, look a few blocks east at Dearborn Park.

B) Last i checked, RC is a dead end which by definition has one exit. I guess you can throw away your dreams of being an English language prodigy, too ;)

C) The Target does an excellent job of fronting Roosevelt with no car access from Roosevelt. Im not ripping on the existance of a car garage, and if you look at my past posts, i never have. I merely criticized the layout of the project, not its intent or its purpose. I really think you have been misinterpreting my point, here.

I'm not getting snobby at all here, if that is what you think i am. I merely want this city to grow in the best way possible. If developments go without criticism, then crap architecture will result. We are on the same team here, no need to lash out.


My master plan for RC? I would just boost its connectivity with the neighborhood, and have it be less "inward". Seeing as how Roosevelt is elevated, which we all understand to be problematic with developing this parcel of land, i wouldnt make a road connection to Roosevelt at all. Roosevelt Rd jams up during rush hour and even during non rush hour times during the day anyway, it doesnt need another choke point. I would have storefronts on Roosevelt, as well as storefronts on Wells St. More retail would go onto 11th street, which would be extended to Wells from Clark (assuming that an on-grade crossing or below-grade crossing could be created with the Metra tracks). Even if crossing the very busy Metra ROW is not feasible, then an extension of Financial Pl south into the project would be a good idea, with Taylor extended east to Clark, which i believe would be possible since at that point, the Metra tracks are elevated above grade. I believe there is also a plan to build a Taylor Street bridge over the river as well, which would further bolster the connectivity of the grid in the area. A pedestrian walkway/stairway would connect Roosevelt Rd. with Financial Pl. I would also consider connecting Wells St. with Roosevelt Rd, if it were possible. My perception of the possibility of my idea actually being viable could be all wrong, seeing as how i am not a civil engineer, but something similar to this would definatly be an improvement over the current design.

Regardless, we dont agree on this project. Going back and forth isnt really going to solve that. I guess we can just agree to disagree, in order to keep this thread from devolving into a name calling match.

[the urban politician]

My master plan for RC? I would just boost its connectivity with the neighborhood, and have it be less "inward". Seeing as how Roosevelt is elevated, which we all understand to be problematic with developing this parcel of land, i wouldnt make a road connection to Roosevelt at all. Roosevelt Rd jams up during rush hour and even during non rush hour times during the day anyway, it doesnt need another choke point. I would have storefronts on Roosevelt, as well as storefronts on Wells St. More retail would go onto 11th street, which would be extended to Wells from Clark (assuming that an on-grade crossing or below-grade crossing could be created with the Metra tracks). Even if crossing the very busy Metra ROW is not feasible, then an extension of Financial Pl south into the project would be a good idea, with Taylor extended east to Clark, which i believe would be possible since at that point, the Metra tracks are elevated above grade. I believe there is also a plan to build a Taylor Street bridge over the river as well, which would further bolster the connectivity of the grid in the area. A pedestrian walkway/stairway would connect Roosevelt Rd. with Financial Pl. I would also consider connecting Wells St. with Roosevelt Rd, if it were possible. My perception of the possibility of my idea actually being viable could be all wrong, seeing as how i am not a civil engineer, but something similar to this would definatly be an improvement over the current design.

^ To tell you the truth, I would rather see something like what you've described above than what is being planned currently at RC. Anyhow, lets all move on

[Sir Isaac Newton]

^ To tell you the truth, I would rather see something like what you've described above than what is being planned currently at RC. Anyhow, lets all move on

Ideally, I would like to see what you described as well. But I personally believe that most of your suggestions are either extremely expensive and the city would not shell that kind of money for it (keep in mind that they are already spending a ton on the Taylor Street extension as is), or they are simply not feasible.

Perhaps they can do something similar to what you described in the enormous parcel of land directly south of Roosevelt....this would be easier to do as well, as the Metra tracks trail off to the east shortly after Roosevelt, and don't bisect this whole area in half. Not to mention, it is not directly across from Dearborn Park, and the development to the east of it is at least a LITTLE bit more open than Dearborn Park.

[a chicago bearcat]

actually the trailing off to the east makes it impossible for access from the east on the southern parcel

because an access to clark needs room to slope up or down to get over or under the tracks

if there was one street underpass north of roosevelt it would dramatically lower the strain that will be put on other east west streets in the area by those trying to access the new neighborhood

[TowerGuy37]

I want to know what happens once Southgate, Home Depot and Best Buy all open early next year. Total gridlock on roosevelt! Of course they have done absolutely nothing to improve traffic flow. Traffic does not improve buy putting a person in a yellow neon vest at every corner. This is the most ludacris solution yet. They FUCK traffic up! I say eliminate the 10 or 15 parking meters on roosevellt between canal and the expressway and make roosevelt three lanes on each side. Why would this be so hard to do? Makes the most sense and gives each side an extra lane!

[VivaLFuego]

I want to know what happens once Southgate, Home Depot and Best Buy all open early next year. Total gridlock on roosevelt! Of course they have done absolutely nothing to improve traffic flow. Traffic does not improve buy putting a person in a yellow neon vest at every corner. This is the most ludacris solution yet. They FUCK traffic up! I say eliminate the 10 or 15 parking meters on roosevellt between canal and the expressway and make roosevelt three lanes on each side. Why would this be so hard to do? Makes the most sense and gives each side an extra lane!
A high-speed 6-lane wide road? Yeah that'll just be awesome for pedestrian activity.

[Mr Downtown]

Remember the new 9th street underpass. That will be built by the city with TIF money, so it's not dependent on a particular project. Presumably the way folks will walk from Printers Row and adjacent blocks to the Roosevelt Collection will be via the new 9th Street and through the new park.

I'd love to see a pedestrian connection over the Metra tracks at 11th Street, connecting the retail part of The Curve with the Roosevelt Collection, but no one else has shown any interest.

Folks who keep talking about extending the street grid into either of these areas need to come to grips with the actual site conditions. Roosevelt is 30 feet above Wells, and the Metra tracks are rising from ground level to +12 at Polk, meaning you can't easily get under them OR over them. This ain't Armitage and Halsted, folks.

[TowerGuy37]

Hey I'm all for pedestrian street activity, the m ore the merrier. I think everyone forgets that the south loop and the kind of retail it is attracting is not the north side of chicago. We do not have storefront after storefront development down here like lincoln park or these days wicker park. Those kinds of neighborhoods attract pedestrian traffic, where as the kind of retail emerging in the south loop is car dependent retail. Unfortanetely its not a walking kind of neighborhood nor will it ever be. The majority of most people do not walk to Home Depot or Best Buy to shop, they drive. This is the same kind of development that happened to Clybourn and look at the gridlock now because of HORRID planning. Theres not too many people walking around over there but a hell of a lot of cars and no added lanes, turning signals or much of anything to keep that flowing. Its too bad Chicago is not more condensed in scale like Manhattan where you want to walk and its inviting to walk. Here its very different

[the urban politician]

Hey I'm all for pedestrian street activity, the m ore the merrier. I think everyone forgets that the south loop and the kind of retail it is attracting is not the north side of chicago. We do not have storefront after storefront development down here like lincoln park or these days wicker park. Those kinds of neighborhoods attract pedestrian traffic, where as the kind of retail emerging in the south loop is car dependent retail. Unfortanetely its not a walking kind of neighborhood nor will it ever be. The majority of most people do not walk to Home Depot or Best Buy to shop, they drive. This is the same kind of development that happened to Clybourn and look at the gridlock now because of HORRID planning. Theres not too many people walking around over there but a hell of a lot of cars and no added lanes, turning signals or much of anything to keep that flowing. Its too bad Chicago is not more condensed in scale like Manhattan where you want to walk and its inviting to walk. Here its very different

^ That doesn't mean that every effort shouldn't be made to make the south loop or North/Clybourn as urban and pedestrian-friendly as posssible. To me, it's perfectly possible to have retail that accommodates the auto but is urban and pedestrian-oriented at the same time. That's what is happening with some of the newer developments at North/Clybourn, and that should happen in the south loop as well.

I have never viewed all-out car dependence as anything more than a transient state of affairs. When all is said and done and people become forced to use transit again, places like the south loop should be easily poised to make that transition. I view Roosevelt Collection as a development that shouldn't have any problem with that, although its configuration is quite odd.

[forumly_chgoman]

I was walking down adams today and as I was passing the parking garage btw franklin and wells....near the Sears tower.....I thought had there ever been a serious proposal for a tower at the parking gagrage sight.....I mean kit wold seem to make sense....hell its right of the quincy L stop and not that nad a walk to oglivie

....any ever hear anything



second question....just north of the L at lake and state there is a parcel that looks to be in demo.....I was unawre of anthing at this site.....is there soemthing going on there?

[honte]

^ There is a hotel proposed for that site at State / Lake. Check the first page of the Boom Rundown.

[forumly_chgoman]

thanks honte yeah here it is

though I didn't see a rendering....no doubt because of my slow internet connection

Official name Marriott Hotel
Emporis Building Number 260228

Location
Address *
Bordering street #1 East Lake Street*
Bordering street #2 North State Street*
Postcode *
Neighborhood Loop
District Downtown
City Chicago
State Illinois
Country U.S.A.

Technical Data
Floors (OG) 29


Building in General
Type of construction high-rise building
Main usages
*
Architectural style *
Status approved

[trvlr70]

^ There is a hotel proposed for that site at State / Lake. Check the first page of the Boom Rundown.
But, but that parcel has been really quiet for a while now. I don't know what's going on at the moment.

[Chicago Shawn]

I was walking down adams today and as I was passing the parking garage btw franklin and wells....near the Sears tower.....I thought had there ever been a serious proposal for a tower at the parking gagrage sight.....I mean kit wold seem to make sense....hell its right of the quincy L stop and not that nad a walk to oglivie

....any ever hear anything



second question....just north of the L at lake and state there is a parcel that looks to be in demo.....I was unawre of anthing at this site.....is there soemthing going on there?


I believe a 60 story office building was proposed for the sears tower garage site bak in the late '80s. It was killed in the glut and crash of commercial real estate in the late 80's-early 90's due to overbuilding and the start of the first gulf war. As was the Skyneedle, and a couple other large towers for the West Loop.

[honte]

But, but that parcel has been really quiet for a while now. I don't know what's going on at the moment.

That's fine with me if something else happens there... I thought the design was Grade-A Tacky.

[BWChicago]

But, but that parcel has been really quiet for a while now. I don't know what's going on at the moment.

A new plan for a DoubleTree hotel called 'Wit' was just announced.
http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/2006/11/whats-wit-gaping-hole-on-state-street.html

[spyguy]

Friends of Downtown celebrates its 25th anniversary with a look back and a look forward at downtown Chicago.

Wednesday, November 29th
Registration 5:00 pm, Program at 5:30, Reception at 6:45
Offices of Gardner Carton & Douglas
191 North Wacker – 37th Floor

Speaker: Thomas A. Corfman, Senior Reporter, Crain’s Chicago Business

This program is free for Friends of Downtown members. You may join online or at the door.