CHICAGO | General Discussions

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

And I was there on Sunday... Makes The 78 feel underwhelming.

I'm there 5 days/week In terms of size, Hudson Yards is 28 acres. The 78 is 62 acres. It's much bigger in actual physical area than Hudson Yards. In terms of square footage, Hudson Yards is 18 million to the 78's planned 13 million.

I don't think that's underwhelming at all. In terms of overall area, it's bigger and 13 million square feet is huge. In terms of extending an urban area, I actually find the 78 much more important. That big empty space is 62 acres just sitting there next to downtown. Previous to HY going up, there were buildings there and exposed rail yard that contributed to an urban landscape. Not like it is now, but still something. The current site of the 78 has nothing in it. It just drops literally all urbanity right then and there which is why I find it more important if they can do it well.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I'm there 5 days/week In terms of size, Hudson Yards is 28 acres. The 78 is 62 acres. It's much bigger in actual physical area than Hudson Yards. In terms of square footage, Hudson Yards is 18 million to the 78's planned 13 million.

I don't think that's underwhelming at all. In terms of overall area, it's bigger and 13 million square feet is huge. In terms of extending an urban area, I actually find the 78 much more important. That big empty space is 62 acres just sitting there next to downtown. Previous to HY going up, there were buildings there and exposed rail yard that contributed to an urban landscape. Not like it is now, but still something. The current site of the 78 has nothing in it. It just drops literally all urbanity right then and there which is why I find it more important if they can do it well.

Chicago's last two mega developments have gotten several density increases as they got built out. Magellan's been playing this game at LSE where they shift FAR from one site to another, then they go back and ask for additional FAR to replace what got shifted.

Central Station has a similar thing going on, but PDNA and other community groups down there are a lot more adversarial - at least LSE residents acknowledge they live in a vertical neighborhood and are somewhat motivated to support new buildings by the eyesore of vacant lots and unbuilt infrastructure...

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by gebs

Yeah, we've built a brand new small city in just that 5 square-block area of Wolf Point and the north corner of Wacker. It's amazing to see such an incredible change in just five years.

It's amazing to me how well Chicago has absorbed the huge and numerous buildings from this cycle. Other than NYC, any other skyline in the US would have been completely changed by what Chicago has done these past few years.

[Steely Dan]

^ chicago will have built more towers over 800' this cycle than any US city not named new york even has in total.

once salesforce kicks off, that will make a total of 7 800+ footers for chicago this cycle.



here's how many 800+ footers there are in the US (including U/C):

NYC: 44 (includes 1 in jersey city)
chicago: 19 (+ salesforce very soon)
philly: 4
SF: 4
LA: 3
atlanta: 3
houston: 3
seattle: 2
dallas: 2
miami:2
cleveland: 1
charlotte: 1
oklahoma city: 1
pittsburgh: 1

TOTAL: 90



so yes, the skyline of any US city not named new york would have been RADICALLY changed by what chicago has built during this cycle.

[gebs]

If anything, Lincoln Yards and/or The 78 might end up being more analogous to Hudson Yards if they're fully built out as envisioned (and I realize that's a huge IF).

[KWillChicago]

I get new york is the empire and we will never catch up but 40 to 19? Feels like like Netflix vs. blockbuster. Whata we got to do get some highlines asking for building space here?

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

I get new york is the empire and we will never catch up but 40 to 19? Feels like like Netflix vs. blockbuster. Whata we got to do get some highlines asking for building space here?

Perhaps but who knows what the future holds..nothing is impossible...Perhaps 20 years from now Chicago becomes one of the safest big cities in America...goes through a dramatic growth spurt in population .. a major company like Amazon is founded in Chicago and gobbles up tons of office space..and we get the biggest building boom (ala toronto) we have seen in history and catch up to NYC in that category... One can dream right ... but not impossible

[BrinChi]

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

I get new york is the empire and we will never catch up but 40 to 19? Feels like like Netflix vs. blockbuster. Whata we got to do get some highlines asking for building space here?

I actually thought the opposite. If you look at it from a ratio of # of 800-footers to city population, then Chicago continues to punch WAY above its weight. For NYC to match Chicago's ratio, it should have close to 60 buildings over 800. Of course this metric is silly and just for fun. In the end, I am continually impressed by the tall construction boom in Chicago given the amount of buildable land available.

[Chi-Sky21]

I choose to look at it as we are almost 5x better than anyone else...as for HY. It is still being built over an active train yard on one of the busiest places on earth...THAT is what is impressive. Not taking anything away from the importance of 78 and it will be impressive in its own right

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

I choose to look at it as we are almost 5x better than anyone else...as for HY. It is still being built over an active train yard on one of the busiest places on earth...THAT is what is impressive. Not taking anything away from the importance of 78 and it will be impressive in its own right

The 78 will still be over 1 (or 2, depending on how you count) active train tracks. I haven't seen HY in person yet, but from descriptions and pictures, it seems much more like an exclusively finance and big business district, whereas the 78 might end up being more diverse overall. If that is what happens, I'd take the 78 over HY anytime.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by emathias

The 78 will still be over 1 (or 2, depending on how you count) active train tracks. I haven't seen HY in person yet, but from descriptions and pictures, it seems much more like an exclusively finance and big business district, whereas the 78 might end up being more diverse overall. If that is what happens, I'd take the 78 over HY anytime.

Yes - it's right now very big business oriented and is going to be that way. The mall there is mostly luxury stuff like Chanel, Patek Philippe, etc with some more regular stuff sprinkled in like Muji and Uniqlo.

It's not an exciting area and as someone who's worked in that area in some capacity since December 2015, it's still boring as hell. I actually enjoyed working in FiDi more than this and most people at my office would agree.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

I choose to look at it as we are almost 5x better than anyone else...

yeah, that's my take away too.

NYC is in another universe these days in terms of skyscraper construction, and given the radical imbalance in size, economy, and urbanism, combined with astronomically higher land values due to its island geography, only a fool would expect that chicago is going to "catch-up" to new york in terms of skyline anytime in the foreseeable future.

but NYC is such a national outlier on so many levels that it's not always a terribly useful point of comparison. compared to all of the rest of the "normal" US cities, chicago really does stand head and shoulders above the crowd in terms of skyscraper construction.

[SIGSEGV]

Does anybody know what the process is to get the city to consider a new crosswalk?
I cross here fairly often:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7915...7i16384!8i8192
but it's a quite harrowing experience with cars coming from 4 directions.

[ardecila]

It can be a bewildering process, there's not a 311 number... you could just write directly to CDOT, but they get lots of these requests with very limited funding to address them. Going the political route is usually more effective. Ideally, you would find a transportation-focused group in the community, or an influential institution (DuSable maybe) and team up with them to support your crosswalk request. Then you and that group would go persuade the alderman to use his/her discretionary "menu money" to fund the crosswalk, ideally with signatures on a petition, data on crashes/safety, etc. CDOT will provide an estimated price for the project and the project will go into a short list of neighborhood projects that the alderman can pick and choose from in any given year. The alderman here is Jeannette Taylor - I can't speak to her specifically, but I know many of the South Side aldermen have pro-car attitudes so they won't be inclined to spend money on pedestrian projects without some heavy hitters (again, DuSable?) backing the request. Oboi Reed also runs a group called Equiticity in that community which advocates for bike/ped projects, you could try reaching out to him.

It helps to know the jurisdiction of the road in question... Looks like Morgan Drive here is a CDOT roadway (blue), but if it was an IDOT roadway then additional state approvals would be required.

Also, given the high traffic volumes and complicated intersections at this particular site, CDOT engineers may decide it is too dangerous to install a crosswalk here. I'm guessing that was the decision logic in the past, since it looks like there used to be a crosswalk at this location. Putting the crosswalk back would open the city up to liability for dangerous road design, at least without a much more elaborate and expensive re-working of the roadways. Sometimes this can just be done with paint and posts, but they might decide it requires a traffic signal or something to really be safe.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It can be a bewildering process, there's not a 311 number... you could just write directly to CDOT, but they get lots of these requests with very limited funding to address them. Going the political route is usually more effective. Ideally, you would find a transportation-focused group in the community, or an influential institution (DuSable maybe) and team up with them to support your crosswalk request. Then you and that group would go persuade the alderman to use his/her discretionary "menu money" to fund the crosswalk, ideally with signatures on a petition, data on crashes/safety, etc. CDOT will provide an estimated price for the project and the project will go into a short list of neighborhood projects that the alderman can pick and choose from in any given year. The alderman here is Jeannette Taylor - I can't speak to her specifically, but I know many of the South Side aldermen have pro-car attitudes so they won't be inclined to spend money on pedestrian projects without some heavy hitters (again, DuSable?) backing the request. Oboi Reed also runs a group called Equiticity in that community which advocates for bike/ped projects, you could try reaching out to him.

It helps to know the jurisdiction of the road in question... Looks like Morgan Drive here is a CDOT roadway (blue), but if it was an IDOT roadway then additional state approvals would be required.

Also, given the high traffic volumes and complicated intersections at this particular site, CDOT engineers may decide it is too dangerous to install a crosswalk here. I'm guessing that was the decision logic in the past, since it looks like there used to be a crosswalk at this location. Putting the crosswalk back would open the city up to liability for dangerous road design, at least without a much more elaborate and expensive re-working of the roadways. Sometimes this can just be done with paint and posts, but they might decide it requires a traffic signal or something to really be safe.

This is the primary walking (and Divvy, for that matter) path between UChicago and the Garfield Green Line, so maybe it would be easier to see if I can get the university to care .

[bhawk66]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think my point is that Chicago is only getting wealthier (and yes, poorer) than it was decades ago. That may surprise people, but we are seeing even more investment in the core of the city than we were when the Hancock, Standard Oil, and Sears Tower were built.

So the notion that a supertall can’t be financed when places on earth with much lower GDPs and per capita incomes are able to build them just speaks to lack of will, not lack of money.

Related may have a lot of vested interest in Chicago, but I don’t think their “heart” is in it. I think they have an obligation to build something really special here, and fine they decided to not go with a supertall—but does anyone here honestly think they will go with a high quality design and follow through with good materials?

If we don’t get height, then it’s very likely that we won’t get anything, because they probably aren’t going to build something that hasn’t been VE’d to death.

This is Reilly’s fault. Blair Kamin called him out correctly. Reilly didn’t oppose the height, but whatever he did made Related have to shake up their previous plans and now we are getting something much less inspiring, IMO.

Chicago's fortunes as far as economy are always on a slippery slope. Also, to say it has more investment than when Hancock, Sears, Standard Oil was built is a little misleading, imo. The core of the cities doing fine right now, but I wont hold my breath. It's not invulnerable.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Chicago's fortunes as far as economy are always on a slippery slope. Also, to say it has more investment than when Hancock, Sears, Standard Oil was built is a little misleading, imo. The core of the cities doing fine right now, but I wont hold my breath. It's not invulnerable.

A very common misconception is that only the core is doing well. Between 2010 and 2018, 44 of 77 CAs in the city have gained population. Let's disregard the usual suspects from this that are downtown + Lincoln Park, Lincoln Square, Lakeview, West Town (Wicker Park, Ukrainian Village), North Center, etc. Let's look at the other CAs of the city that have grown in population between 2010 and 2018. Keep in mind that I'm comparing the 2010 ACS to the 2018 ACS as the US Census Department told me a few years ago personally to not compare decennial census to ACS because they're completely different studies with different methodologies:

West Ridge: +5143 people
Avondale: +4879 people
Bridgeport: +2293 people
Uptown: +2084 people
South Lawndale: +2041 people
Humboldt Park: +1762 people
Douglas: +1744 people
Clearing: +1670 people
Hyde Park: +1639 people
Ashburn: +1604 people
Woodlawn: +1471 people
West Elsdon: +1429 people
Dunning: +1391 people
Riverdale: +1374 people
Grand Boulevard: +1319 people
Portage Park: +1317 people
Jefferson Park: +1279 people
Oakland: +1015 people
Garfield Ridge: +1012 people
Washington Park: +877 people
Brighton Park: +871 people
Mount Greenwood: +845 people
Montclare: +740 people
Edison Park: +597 people
O'Hare: +564 people
Morgan Park: +499 people
Belmont Cragin: +495 people
Gage Park: +452 people
South Shore: +320 people
McKinley Park: +294 people
Forest Glen: +259 people
Armour Square: +124 people
Archer Heights: +123 people

Of these 33 areas, 21 of them are situated south of Roosevelt. Now looking on the flip side, all the CAs that lost population between 2010 and 2018 add up to -86,976 people, which were in 34 CAs. Of those, 12 areas alone account for just over 75% of all of the loss of those areas. It's obviously a huge problem in those areas, do not get me wrong. However, saying that only the central area is OK and nowhere else is doing OK is factually false. Obviously population isn't the end-all-be-all either, but this is just the starting point. A lot of parts of the city are actually growing, not just the center contrary to popular belief.

[Mimol742]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think my point is that Chicago is only getting wealthier (and yes, poorer) than it was decades ago. That may surprise people, but we are seeing even more investment in the core of the city than we were when the Hancock, Standard Oil, and Sears Tower were
.

Why do you say the city is also getting poorer? I disagree with that statement. Minimum wage is now the highest it’s been for years and the city is booming economically.

[Darude_Sandstorm]

Originally Posted by Mimol742

Why do you say the city is also getting poorer? I disagree with that statement. Minimum wage is now the highest it’s been for years and the city is booming economically.

If there was no such thing as cost-of-living you would be correct

[Mimol742]

Originally Posted by Darude_Sandstorm

If there was no such thing as cost-of-living you would be correct

Of course cost of living Has a lot to do with poverty rates. That being said, the minimum wage was not changed for a long time and cost of living was going up every year. Now that the minimum wage gas gotten a big bump, the poverty rate should continue to decrease specially since it will be adjusted to inflation year over a year once it reaches $15 an hour.

The below article mentions how poverty rates in Chicago have been decreasing for the past five years:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicago...al-demographer