^ 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?).

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.

[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?

^ 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:

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).

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.

^ 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.

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".

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.

^ 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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

^ 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.

^ 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

Here's part of the map if you're interested in debating this further :)
 

^ 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

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.

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.

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.

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!)

^ 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....

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.

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.

^ 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?

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.

^ 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.

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

Roosevelt Road
 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

A new plan for a DoubleTree hotel called 'Wit' was just announced.
http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/2006/...te-street.html

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.