CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 620

lawfin · #**12381** Posted **Mar 31, 2011, 8:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

Neither of which is a typical neighborhood park.

I suppose my complaint is steered towards my local parks - Welles, Winnemac, Horner, Chase - which are all very sports-oriented.

This city is a bit short on the Union Square/Pioneer Square type of public space, in my opinion.

Some great ones exist they just happen to currently be in fairly — neighborhoods. I think that is slowly changing esp with humbolt park...and maybe garfield park...maybe

I actually think that is one of Chicago's least leveraged realestate charms...I mean the whole boulevard systmen and the parks it attaches the home near these parks and along the boulevard should be ...oh I don't know....its frustrating

denizen467 · #**12382** Posted **Mar 31, 2011, 8:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawfin

I actually think that is one of Chicago's least leveraged realestate charms...I mean the whole boulevard systmen and the parks it attaches

So true.

One day, a long time from now, those should boom in a big way...

lawfin · #**12383** Posted **Mar 31, 2011, 8:14 AM**

I forget does the Admiral....think that is what it is called.....no not that Admiral....get your mind out of the gutter.....the development in Edgewater / Uptown have its own thread....or is this the place for updates...

Have not seen or heard any in a while.....though I was walking my dog down that direction not too long ago

SamInTheLoop · #**12384** Posted **Mar 31, 2011, 1:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawfin

^^^Personally I think it looks like downtown Arlington Heights schlock.

I mean this is one of the more affluent urban neigghborhoods in NA....come one .....we have to do better

I agree. I don't think there will be any saving the JDL/Hines development in Old Town, regardless of material selection. It's just bad. By the way, what's with Hines putting their name behind something that looks like this? They usually hold themselves up to a much higher standard than this in terms of the architecture of their development projects....

It does look straight out of the book of all those suburban town center style redevelopments that happened over the last decade. Just cringe-inducing poor form. Why are we building junk like this in downtown Chicago? Designed to appeal to those downtown renters with a suburban sensibility?

SamInTheLoop · #**12385** Posted **Mar 31, 2011, 2:55 PM**

Does anybody know who the architect is for this? Does JDL have some sort of in-house architect (seems like that type of work, ala skyline junk purveyor Sedgwick Properties), or is it a 'schlock-shop' such as Antunovich, Haylock, etc?

I remember a few years back JDL also had a proposal for a rental tower at LaSalle and Illinois......honestly I hope they've abandoned those plans because JDL is clearly one of those firms that for which all evidence (Elm Tower, Maple Tower, etc) suggest they are incapable or unwilling to do develop with anything approaching half-decent design...

Baronvonellis · #**12386** Posted **Mar 31, 2011, 3:10 PM**

Yeah, Garfield Park is an amazing park especially with the Garfield Conservatory. The field house there is a work of art. I think it's almost on par with Lincoln Park just without the lake. There are beautiful greystone mansions lining the streets around there too. If it was a better neighborhood I would love to live near Garfield Park. It even has it's own L-stop. I hope the area continues to improve.

I found it interesting that in the 2010 census it showed east Garfield Park as adding population. So that is a good sign.

VivaLFuego · #**12387** Posted **Mar 31, 2011, 3:14 PM**

The design presented at one of the community meetings was definitely much glassier --- not spectacular by any means, but much, much better than the new/current rendering. I think the schlockification was probably a combination of a concession to the complaining neighbors (the standard "it doesn't fit in with our neighborhood!" was aired) and probably some VE.

emathias · #**12388** Posted **Mar 31, 2011, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

extreme example, but you get the point

Wow, that's a nice one! The ones I was thinking of were simpler, but still the same general idea.

The other place I think they would be useful/appropriate are Wacker at some or all of Jackson/Adams/Monroe/Madison/Washington, and Randolph/Michigan. I'm sure there'd be view concerns, especially for any Michigan ones, but it seems like the Wacker ones could be integrated in a visually interesting way, and greatly aid commuter rail pedestrian traffic flow.

Nowhereman1280 · #**12389** Posted **Mar 31, 2011, 6:55 PM**

^^^ That raises an interesting idea in my mind. This is radical, but bear with me:

At some point the Loop will need major reconstruction or maintenance. We all know its coming eventually. What if, instead of restoring it for trains in a costly and delay-ridden move, we were to just replace it with a subway and then restore the elevated structure to the less-engineering stringent requirements of a massive high-line like pedway system? Then we'd get to retain the historic El structure, bury the noisy trains, give bikes and people a grade separated expressway, and everyone wins?

lawfin · #**12390** Posted **Mar 31, 2011, 7:04 PM**

Wasn't there already a plan to replace the L with a subway back in the 1970's? I don't think it included maintaining the L in situ though

the urban politician · #**12391** Posted **Mar 31, 2011, 7:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ That raises an interesting idea in my mind. This is radical, but bear with me:

At some point the Loop will need major reconstruction or maintenance. We all know its coming eventually. What if, instead of restoring it for trains in a costly and delay-ridden move, we were to just replace it with a subway and then restore the elevated structure to the less-engineering stringent requirements of a massive high-line like pedway system? Then we'd get to retain the historic El structure, bury the noisy trains, give bikes and people a grade separated expressway, and everyone wins?

^ That's actually not a bad idea.

...call me strange, though--but I actually like the rumble of the trains above when walking through the Loop. It really punctuates the fact that you're in the heart of a major city, not in some shithole like Scottsdale, Arizona or something..

emathias · #**12392** Posted **Mar 31, 2011, 7:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawfin

Wasn't there already a plan to replace the L with a subway back in the 1970's? I don't think it included maintaining the L in situ though

Yeah, the Chicago Central Area Transit Plan called for that. There were a number of possible alternatives, but the general idea was to replace the elevated loop with a subway one.

That also included my favorite unbuilt transportation proposal, the Distributor Subway, which was quite prescient and would have fit many of downtown's most pressing current needs very well, in that it would have linked the McCormick Place, the South Loop, Michigan Avenue, the Loop, the West Loop, and the UIC areas. Where have we had the most growth over the past 20 years, both residentially and in commercial space? Exactly in those areas. I think it's terribly unfortunate that that subway wasn't built, and I wish the City would take a fresh look at the idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ That raises an interesting idea in my mind. This is radical, but bear with me:

At some point the Loop will need major reconstruction or maintenance. We all know its coming eventually. What if, instead of restoring it for trains in a costly and delay-ridden move, we were to just replace it with a subway and then restore the elevated structure to the less-engineering stringent requirements of a massive high-line like pedway system? Then we'd get to retain the historic El structure, bury the noisy trains, give bikes and people a grade separated expressway, and everyone wins?

I'd be okay with that in general, especially if the focus was more on providing a "bike highway" and less on providing a pedestrian path, since I think removing pedestrians from the street is bad for commerce and bad for the "feel" of the city. Bikes, on the other hand, often both threaten pedestrians and interfere with vehicle traffic. It would be pretty cool, though, either way.

the urban politician · #**12393** Posted **Mar 31, 2011, 8:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias

Distributor Subway

^ Wow, what an interesting link.

It gets one thinking--if Chicago had built the large subway network that had been proposed so many decades ago, how different of a city it may have been. If Chicago had been making these proposals only 50 or 60 years earlier, like New York did (1890's to 1910's--the golden era of urban rail construction--instead of 1950's and 60's) it would have made so much of a difference on the future cityscape.

emathias · #**12394** Posted **Mar 31, 2011, 8:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Wow, what an interesting link.

It gets one thinking--if Chicago had built the large subway network that had been proposed so many decades ago, how different of a city it may have been. If Chicago had been making these proposals only 50 or 60 years earlier, like New York did (1890's to 1910's--the golden era of urban rail construction--instead of 1950's and 60's) it would have made so much of a difference on the future cityscape.

Here's an even better link. The green portion on the map on the right side of that page is what I wish had been built. The rest would have been interesting, but wouldn't have been nearly as big a change over the "L" we currently have.