CHICAGO | 300 North LaSalle | 785 FT / 239 M | 60 FLOORS - Page 119

vpauzuolis · #**2361** Posted **Mar 16, 2009, 8:09 PM**

When will it be officially opened?

denizen467 · #**2362** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 1:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by george

George that is so good it's scary.

Seriously though, send that on to Hines or Pickard (or Kamin) and you could get famous, or at least get taken out to dinner.

10023 · #**2363** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 3:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467

George that is so good it's scary.

Seriously though, send that on to Hines or Pickard (or Kamin) and you could get famous, or at least get taken out to dinner.

How does "Parking" sound as a name for a restaurant? Hmmm...

cbotnyse · #**2364** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 12:32 PM**

I still cant believe the developer build a wall on the riverwalk. What were they possibly thinking? I thought that was against the law?

Now its going to cost tax dollars to eventually build around it. Its so irritating.

nomarandlee · #**2365** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 12:40 PM**

I agree, in fact that whole riverwalk area there is a terrible disappointment. Luckily it is the type of thing that in twenty or thirty years I think they can make some topical improvements on that will not not be obscenely expensive but would further the aesthetics.

Also though it was bone headed to build the wall no need to build around it, just tear it down. Some day it will happen, it looks so completely artificial and nonsensical to have there in the first place.

the urban politician · #**2366** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 1:45 PM**

^ Was the north side of the main branch of the river supposed to be a designated riverwalk?

cbotnyse · #**2367** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 2:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Was the north side of the main branch of the river supposed to be a designated riverwalk?

who gives a shit. There is no point of a wall to cut off its neighbors and the continuity of the river.

I don't think the north side is planned, but if it ever is, taxes will have to pay for it, instead of common sense planning from the beginning.

ethereal_reality · #**2368** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 4:14 PM**

george....that is SO COOL with the parking sign and all.

Did you do that with photoshop or some other program?

george · #**2369** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 4:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ethereal_reality

george....that is SO COOL with the parking sign and all.

Did you do that with photoshop or some other program?

Thanks harry, denizen & ethereal_reality. Yes, this was done in photoshop, very simple, really. And thanks to harry for the idea. I like the idea of "parking" as the name for the restaurant.

Chicago Shawn · #**2370** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 5:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

who gives a shit. There is no point of a wall to cut off its neighbors and the continuity of the river.

I don't think the north side is planned, but if it ever is, taxes will have to pay for it, instead of common sense planning from the beginning.

All property along the river that has been redeveloped since 1986 must provide at least 30 feet of landscaped space that is open for public use at minimum during daylight hours. That is all river frontage, anywhere within the city.

George, nice job with the montage.

cbotnyse · #**2371** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 5:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

All property along the river that has been redeveloped since 1986 must provide at least 30 feet of landscaped space that is open for public use at minimum during daylight hours. That is all river frontage, anywhere within the city.

I guess continuity and restrictions for doing exactly what 300N did was overlooked?

I havent been over there yet, but maybe harry can explain how the new design is. How does one move west walking along the river?

denizen467 · #**2372** Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 5:28 AM**

I would think it is a given there will never be a northern side riverwalk. The river has already been narrowed enough on the south side, and you've got the non-negotiable interruption at Marina City.

And if, in the distant future, someone decides a riverwalk should be built along parts of the northern bank, it would be a huge undertaking given the way most of the properties currently front the river. In that case, any alterations required at 300 N LaSalle would be comparatively minimal.

cbotnyse · #**2373** Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 12:28 PM**

Riverwalk or not the wall makes absolutely no sense and all it does it cut off pedestrian access to the river. Dumbass designing like this needs to be outlawed.

Taft · #**2374** Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 3:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

Riverwalk or not the wall makes absolutely no sense and all it does it cut off pedestrian access to the river. Dumbass designing like this needs to be outlawed.

I really disagree that this is that bad. You couldn't get anywhere before and you can't get anywhere now. Plus, there looks to be a gap between 300 N LaSalle and the building immediately to the west and I can't quite tell if there is river or ground underneath it. Doesn't seem like a layup to me and more importantly it doesn't seem to buy anything.

cbotnyse · #**2375** Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 7:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taft

I really disagree that this is that bad. You couldn't get anywhere before and you can't get anywhere now. Plus, there looks to be a gap between 300 N LaSalle and the building immediately to the west and I can't quite tell if there is river or ground underneath it. Doesn't seem like a layup to me and more importantly it doesn't seem to buy anything.

you really don't think they could have made a continous walk if they wanted to?

please.

Taft · #**2376** Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 7:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

you really don't think they could have made a continous walk if they wanted to?

please.

Did you read my argument before posting your snarky response? They COULD have made a continuous walk if they had wanted to (or had permission to), but what purpose would it have served?

There is no access from the upper level of wells down to the river. The area in front of the building to the west of 300 N LaSalle is only accessible through that building, IIRC. Even if they had built a crosswalk between buildings to link the two areas, YOU CAN'T GO ANYWHERE.

Finally--and this is what you are overlooking most in all of your fuming and swearing, IMO--we are talking about a freaking WALL here. If they ever decide to create a riverwalk on the north side of the river, how hard would it be to tear down a wall? And if they did decide to do that, the city would pick up the tab for any walks between buildings which would have to be built, which makes the developers decision not to do it that much more reasonable.

Honestly, you are making way too big a deal over a very small (and IMO logical) decision.

cbotnyse · #**2377** Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 7:56 PM**

how is a the wall logical?

Taft · #**2378** Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

how is a the wall logical?

Let's put it this way: where's the logic in footing the bill to create a walkway over a gap between buildings when that walkway would lead to what is essentially a private area of an adjacent building?

Sure, if there was currently a way to get into the neighboring building's riverfront area, this walkway would make sense (go from public area A to public area B through a river front walkway). However, as things stand, there is just no reason to justify the expense when throwing up a wall is much cleaner, easier and cheaper for the developer.

Nowhereman1280 · #**2379** Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 9:14 PM**

Yeah, I think that gap between the buildings is just a hole, full of junk and stuff, why not put up a wall so as to block the view of what is probably a big garbage trap?

cbotnyse · #**2380** Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 9:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taft

Let's put it this way: where's the logic in footing the bill to create a walkway over a gap between buildings when that walkway would lead to what is essentially a private area of an adjacent building?

from the neighboring building, can you access Wells St? If yes the wall makes no sense, if no, then both buildings should have made adjustments to open it up.