HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1001  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2024, 4:08 PM
intrepidDesign's Avatar
intrepidDesign intrepidDesign is offline
Windy City Dan
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
Praise be.
Amen. God what an awful design. Maybe it was a placeholder?? Why would you ever wrap a park with parking garages, and with a view of the river? Sure what's on the west bank of the river isn't great but it won't always be there I would imagine. Naw, the base of whatever gets built there should be like the Cooper, parking wrapped in townhomes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1002  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2024, 3:12 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,512
New info and images of Riverline "Building G," via Urbanize Chicago:

https://chicago.urbanize.city/post/s...ding-riverline
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1003  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2024, 3:50 PM
gebs's Avatar
gebs gebs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: South Loop
Posts: 802
Yessss, keep building up the South Loop.
__________________
Raise your horns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1004  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2024, 11:25 PM
lakeshoredrive lakeshoredrive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 415
Wasted opportunity
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1005  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2024, 12:09 AM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakeshoredrive View Post
Wasted opportunity
Don't forget that much of the site is landfill, so the southern site can't build as many highrises as the northern half. Plus the southern half will still have Manhattan level densities of >100k ppl/sq mi, even with the townhomes
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1006  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2024, 6:47 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,475
CDOT is FINALLY moving forward with the Taylor St bridge





https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...idge_Patel.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1007  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2024, 6:57 PM
munchymunch's Avatar
munchymunch munchymunch is offline
MPLSXCHI
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Omicron Persei 8
Posts: 1,094
That’s awesome, curious how the design will look, hopefully it’ll complement our cities many great bridges.
__________________
"I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." -Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1008  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2024, 7:24 PM
moorhosj1 moorhosj1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 453
It was always on this timeline. It has been a line item in the TIF funding plan for years. You can see the money allocated for study/design in 2024, then the money for construction in 2026-2027.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1009  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2024, 4:13 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 2,621
Wouldn't a Polk St. bridge make more sense? Polk street goes further into the South Loop, terminating at State Street. Taylor would terminate immediately after crossing the river at Wells.

I imagine CDOT's reasoning is that Taylor would help shuttle more cars to 90/94, whereas neighborhood connectivity is more of an afterthought. The fact that Roosevelt is an absolute sh*tshow during rush hour means they probably have a point in that regard.

In an ideal world with infinite resources, we would get both bridges built.
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1010  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2024, 4:36 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
Wouldn't a Polk St. bridge make more sense? Polk street goes further into the South Loop, terminating at State Street. Taylor would terminate immediately after crossing the river at Wells.

I imagine CDOT's reasoning is that Taylor would help shuttle more cars to 90/94, whereas neighborhood connectivity is more of an afterthought. The fact that Roosevelt is an absolute sh*tshow during rush hour means they probably have a point in that regard.

In an ideal world with infinite resources, we would get both bridges built.
Polk has some challenges, too. On the West side of the river, it terminates into a heavily trafficked multilane loading ramp for the massive USPS facility there. On the east side, the street is narrow and serves primarily as a dead-end access for The Reed at Southbank. I believe a pier and water taxi stop are planned here as well. I'm not saying it's impossible, but the current conditions/use would need to be addressed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1011  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2024, 5:08 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 992
If feasible, I think the city should tunnel under the Metra tracks at 9th to connect it with Clark and create another east-west connection between Polk and Roosevelt (since Roosevelt is elevated, there won't be another east-west connection from Wells until you go south to maybe 15th Street?).

The city needs to slow down traffic at Clark and Polk anyway—Clark was designed as a feeder decades ago but now has a walkable dense neighborhood around it, and drivers are too aggressive here—so adding a traffic light at 9th & Clark would also help with that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:02 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.