Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn
Downtown's CBD is also can't go farther west because of WLCO's lockdown on everything west of Halsted. 1K Fulton is the obvious exception because the structure was largely already there. Perhaps its possible to develop a corridor along Lake/Fulton/Carroll/Kinzie, but there would need to be zoning changes and tweeks to allowable uses in PMD4.
|
This is simply not a real concern. Let's look at the actual outcome of what would happen in such a scenario where the remaining surface lots near downtown are wiped out by development. The demand for new Class A space is simply never going to just go away and we know the city of Chicago (a city with a reputation for forcing — down people's throats) isn't going to be like "well, too bad, we can't have any more office towers, looks like we are going to — the economy just because WLCO says we have to" so there are three possible outcomes:
1. The CBD growth simply finds other outlets for growth. The massive sites to the south of downtown along the river, PMD's, etc.
2. The very —, 20 floor, office buildings you are complaining about right now will be razed and much much taller buildings will be constructed.
3. The WLCO wall you are talking about really isn't that politically influential and the city will just jam more tall towers down the NIMBY bastards throats.
In no scenario do I see the City of Chicago just giving up and resigning themselves to some absurd situation where no more office towers can be built. It's just absurd to even suggest that we would have a hard time finding more space for new towers. We would either go up or out whether it be into other, previously undevelopable, areas or by ramming growth down the throats of NIMBYs.
Quote:
|
Because we shouldn't be wasting the last prime opportunity sites for office towers in downtown which are practically adjacent to the 2 busiest train stations in the Midwest. This area needs to be built to the highest densities possible to maximize the regional benefits provided through our commuter rail system.
|
This is a much better argument. I would say that 20 floor buildings are a good interim until a future where the number of remaining lots is much lower, especially office towers since they are easier to raze than residential which may go condo and become immovable. I just see us at least 10-15 years away from a reality where the near west loop is out of developable parcels. By that time the junkier econobox office buildings built during the last boom will be ripe for the razing (rather than spending out the — to retrofit them) and will be replaced by much larger building.
However, it's not unreasonable to think that this will simply never be a problem because developers of true Class A towers (i.e. bigger than 30 stories) have shown no hesitation to pursue challenging sites which Chicago has absolutely no shortage of. Who would have thought that the Riverside sites would both be on the short list for massive towers 10 years ago?
When you look at the number of possible sites over railways and shoehorned in along the river (Wolf Point: 2 towers, 2-3 possible towers around Post Office, The entire platform south of Union Station, the entire platform north of Olgavie which is nearly three square blocks, Union Station itself where there have been rumblings of possibly razing the crappy 70's tower there and replacing it as part of a Union Station rebuild, etc) it is hard to imagine there ever being a shortage of sites in that area. The fact of the matter is that, if we ever reach that point, we will be booming on the same scale that NYC is booming on right now and we will simply have the land values necessary to create new office districts simply by building over infrastructure, building higher, or plowing into previously anti-growth areas. Under no circumstance will Chicago stop growing simply because some whiny Naperville transplants live in the West Loop.
Prev
Linear Mode
