Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago
Just got caught up on some of the discussion here for the last few days and wanted to comment on some Chicago observations and Dearborn Park specifically. . .
By the mid-1960s Chicago was on it's way down. . . everything surrounding downtown, including parts of downtown, were basically heavy industry or rail yards - no residential to speak of. . . there was a serious concern that Chicago's population would empty out like similar cities in the midwest. . . in the spirit of urban salvation there were projects such as Marina City, Sandburg Village, Outer Drive East, Presidential Towers and yes. . . Dearborn Park. . . by the late 1970s Chicago was a rough town and not just out in the 'hood parts either, it was rough all over. . . Dearborn Park was - in part - a reaction to that, a development that would keep families in the city center (on a former rail terminus I might add). . . and for the most part it worked. . . all through the 1980s and 1990s there was very little activity in the South Loop and DP served as an anchor for future development. . .
That it turns inward on itself is a product of the times and would not have been developed any other way. . . it's essentially a low rise version of London's Barbican. . .
Back to the regular discussion. . .
. . .
|
I'm fully informed that this is the story behind DP and I get it.
But times have changed, and the citizens living in DP have put up quite a resistance to recognizing that. Obviously the city around DP is a much more desirable place than when it was first built. I think we can find a reasonable compromise between keeping it family friendly while still "opening the doors" a bit to the reality that there is a huge, bustling city around you.
Threaded Mode