CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7 - Page 197

tintinex · #**3921** Posted **May 12, 2016, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Related Midwest signed a letter of intent in March 2015, but only now concluded the deal with GMH.

The bigger transportation problem for this site will be giving it adequate east-west access. Sixteenth should be continuous from State and go into it, but some guy who lives in a townhouse there had the ear of Mayor Daley and demanded it be broken up with two cul-de-sacs. CDOT will make the perfect the enemy of the good when it looks at the clearance underneath the Metra tracks, where you can only get about 13 feet, and will refuse to construct a substandard underpass. This is the fight worth fighting for the future of the city. Otherwise you end up with a fourth closed-off compound in the South Loop.

I think the cul-de-sacs are on 15th street and not 16th street. Still ridiculous that this was approved

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8619...EWyU3FB2Fw!2e0

maru2501 · #**3922** Posted **May 12, 2016, 5:24 PM**

whatever you do, do not impair wharfage

r18tdi · #**3923** Posted **May 12, 2016, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

I wonder if they replaced Coffey with Goettsch (given their work on Oxford's LondonHouse, which also includes an addition).....from the looks of the rendering, my guess would be so.....

I actually thought the same thing. It's funny how my brain has come to associate glass with vertical patterns with Goettsch.

Jim in Chicago · #**3924** Posted **May 12, 2016, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777

^ agreed connecting Clark and Wabash through Dearborn Park is essential. In it's current form that urban subdivision is a detriment to the south loop.

As much sense as it makes, I think we can park this one in the "snowball's chance in hell" category.

r18tdi · #**3925** Posted **May 12, 2016, 6:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in Chicago

As much sense as it makes, I think we can park this one in the "snowball's chance in hell" category.

I'd settle for a decent bicycle connection through that rats nest of dead ends and speed bumps.

BVictor1 · #**3926** Posted **May 12, 2016, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

I'm sure the Friends of the Parks will intervene at this site and say that they're taking away precious land that could be converted into Chicago's next great park.

Forget them. It's private land and they have no say in the matter.

the urban politician · #**3927** Posted **May 12, 2016, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in Chicago

As much sense as it makes, I think we can park this one in the "snowball's chance in hell" category.

^ It may happen.

If property values rise to the point where it makes sense for a developer to buy out these townhomes and try to upzone. The city will then have leverage by forcing some infrastructure upgrades (ie reconnecting the streetgrid) in return for density.

It may happen, but not for quite a while.

ithakas · #**3928** Posted **May 12, 2016, 6:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It may happen.

If property values rise to the point where it makes sense for a developer to buy out these townhomes and try to upzone. The city will then have leverage by forcing some infrastructure upgrades (ie reconnecting the streetgrid) in return for density.

It may happen, but not for quite a while.

I would love to see Dearborn Park, DP II, and DP III completely transformed into a mile-long neighborhood of mid-rise buildings over narrow streets, no parking decks, blocks split up into at least three parcels and sold to separate developers. Continuing the good example of Printers Row and giving us a Lower Manhattan-like transition from the Loop to Chinatown/Pilsen/Bronzeville.

Kngkyle · #**3929** Posted **May 12, 2016, 6:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It may happen.

If property values rise to the point where it makes sense for a developer to buy out these townhomes and try to upzone. The city will then have leverage by forcing some infrastructure upgrades (ie reconnecting the streetgrid) in return for density.

It may happen, but not for quite a while.

I would go even further and say that not only may it happen, it most likely will happen. It's just not going to be for 20+ years. As the surrounding area becomes developed and more desirable the more valuable that land will become. At some point the condo association will get an offer from a developer that they can't refuse.

SamInTheLoop · #**3930** Posted **May 12, 2016, 6:48 PM**

Well - at least we can say that collective expectations for Related's plan are probably sufficiently dismal, that they just may have a chance of surpassing them!

SamInTheLoop · #**3931** Posted **May 12, 2016, 6:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

It's HKS I believe.

Ahhhh.....HKS......had a couple of the letters right, anyway!

Actually, a quick glance thru HKS' online portfolio makes my earlier statement hold for them as well - this is a step-up from their typical stuff too!

SamInTheLoop · #**3932** Posted **May 12, 2016, 6:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sox102

Architect is Hirsch Associates, along with New World Design.

Ahhh Hirsch. He of the quite modest talent level........but, nice work here....

Speaking of Hirsch, anyone know if there's been any movement on that 2 building office/residential project in the southern part of river north, right along the el?

Mr Downtown · #**3933** Posted **May 12, 2016, 6:53 PM**

Because the Dearborn Park townhouses are organized into several different condo associations, one or another could actually give way to a highrise in the next decade, as soon as the low-hanging fruit of completely vacant land is gone. Were I a developer, I might look at the clusters next to Clark Street pretty soon to see if they pencil out.

What I don't see happening is that making it possible to get any new through streets. The developer of a new building won't have any need or interest in that, and the city hasn't shown any courage at all on the subject.

Jim in Chicago · #**3934** Posted **May 12, 2016, 7:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Because the Dearborn Park townhouses are organized into several different condo associations, one or another could actually give way to a highrise in the next decade, as soon as the low-hanging fruit of completely vacant land is gone. Were I a developer, I might look at the clusters next to Clark Street pretty soon to see if they pencil out.

What I don't see happening is that making it possible to get any new through streets. The developer of a new building won't have any need or interest in that, and the city hasn't shown any courage at all on the subject.

to my understanding there are several different overlapping condo associations - at least for DP1.

I don't recall exact details but I believe it's something like the parking garage, the condos themselves and the open landscaped space are three different associations.

marothisu · #**3935** Posted **May 12, 2016, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

What I don't see happening is that making it possible to get any new through streets. The developer of a new building won't have any need or interest in that, and the city hasn't shown any courage at all on the subject.

Exactly. Which is why I think 16th street is probably the best bet for a new transit stop if they can't make a new subway extension (probably wouldn't happen, but you never know).

Mr Downtown · #**3936** Posted **May 12, 2016, 7:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in Chicago

to my understanding there are several different overlapping condo associations - at least for DP1.

I don't recall exact details but I believe it's something like the parking garage, the condos themselves and the open landscaped space are three different associations.

No, they're pretty simple and straightforward, except for The Terraces (801 S. Plymouth, which has a midrise association, a townhouse association, a garage association, and a master association). The highrises, midrises, and five groupings of townhouses have simple condo associations that take care of everything. For better or worse, Dearborn Park as a community doesn't have a master association. Any landscaping is owned by a particular association, the city, or the park district.

ardecila · #**3937** Posted **May 12, 2016, 7:47 PM**

Aren't the streets through DP-1 public? There's no legal reason the city couldn't tear down the fence between Clark and Park Terrace to create at least a pedestrian connection at Taylor for Target shoppers, angry DP residents be damned.

I don't have much faith in city planners ever solving these problems on their own. We can't even tackle the most basic problems, like making Union Station functional or creating decent transfers between L and subway in the Loop. Forget about solving the transportation problems of newly developed areas. The only way this ever happens is if the area has a single developer with a strong master plan and a developer pays for the new infrastructure incrementally (like Lakeshore East).

With that said...

Depending on who Related hires as architect, the planning could actually be decent at Riverside Park. Somebody of the caliber of SOM or KPF could solve the myriad urban design challenges here in an elegant way, and even convince Related of the value in fighting battles with the adjacent neighborhood, CDOT, Metra et al. As much crap as we give Related, they ARE master planning Hudson Yards...

J_M_Tungsten · #**3938** Posted **May 12, 2016, 11:07 PM**

Today
Van Buren and Aberdeen

Busy Bee · #**3939** Posted **May 12, 2016, 11:16 PM**

I gotta say, that is a creepy picture of Sears right there if you know what I mean...

Randomguy34 · #**3940** Posted **May 12, 2016, 11:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I gotta say, that is a creepy picture of Sears right there if you know what I mean...

It looks like one of those dementors from the Harry Potter series