CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Yeah, I get the feeling that both the developer and Perkins+Will are in over their heads here.

First, the solution to creating lots more vehicular trips isn't to have everything come and go via Roosevelt and Lake Shore Drive like some suburban pod off Higgins Road. It should be to put in four modest connecting streets that share the load and would actually connect this new group of buildings to the existing urban fabric, and connect the South Loop to Lake Shore Drive.

Second, the Orange Line extension makes no sense. Are they intending that alternate trips would go east to the lakefront instead of to the Loop? Or certain trips on game days like in Philly? Or what? (They didn't say.) Now what might work would be to extend the Pink Line (via the Wells and Van Buren sides of the Loop) down the Alley L and St Charles Air Line to a terminal station here at 16th & Indiana. That offers about the right level of service and connections from the North and West Sides.

As for the Chi-Line, connecting this to Navy Pier via buses on surface streets, that's just goofy. If there were really a market for much McCormick Place-to-Navy Pier ridership, there are lots of better ideas—including a subsidy-free water taxi.

This seems pretty conceptual, I wouldn't take it literally. I'm sure the transit plans will be refined once they realize they can't afford an elevated stub, the city won't let them put LSD in a tunnel and Metra won't let them reroute the BNSF. Ideally they hire a real transit planner somewhere along the way...

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ well dollar bill is dead, service has been restored to the paulina connector, and an intelligent, forward-thinking city would prioritize building a VERY easily added rapid transit stop adjacent to a 20,000 capacity arena that hosts over 200 events a year instead of getting bogged down in finger-pointing at history's mistakes.

but this is chicago we're talking about.......

As a regular rider of the Pink Line, I've pondered this question... I have to believe it has something to do with capacity limits in the system. The Pink Line only has a big enough fleet to run 4 car trains right now. The stations themselves are all long enough for a full 8-car train, but potentially upgrading the Pink Line to 6 or 8-car trains might gum up the various rail junctions that those trains pass through. I believe Tower 18 on the Loop is already at capacity, and since it's all a flat junction every train has to wait their turn.

If CTA did build a station on the Pink Line at Madison, there's a potential for Red-Line-at-Addison levels of crowding that would overwhelm the 4 car trains.

They figure it's easier to just put stadium-goers on the Green Line at a new Damen stop, where 6 car trains provide a little more wiggle room. The distance from the stadium (and the sad sidewalks on Damen) mean that the new Damen stop probably won't attract huge crowds anyway, just like the Blue Line stop at IMD. But, with two nearby L stops, the Wirtz Organization might finally decide there are enough driving alternatives to start developing their parking lots.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Okay. So say I buy a warehouse to rehab. And my client demands wrap around floor to ceiling windows. So I strip the building down to columns and floor slabs and reskin it as a boring blue glass box. I get credit for tons of resource reuse, and LEED rating to boot. But my finished building looks absolutely nothing like an historic Chicago food storage warehouse.
Is that okay or not?

Seeing as merchandise Mart, one of the biggest warehouses ever built, managed to achieve leed gold certification without obliterating it's historic character, I'd suggest your firm should probably evolve it's practice if that's the sensitivity you approach historic buildings

Beyond that, leed is simply an arbitrary definition. The most efficient thing anyone can do is to use and consume less today.

[the urban politician]

^ I think you and Aaron are both a bit too one-sided in your approach.

Preservation is important, and I think the city, working with developers, should strongly encourage it as long as it's feasible and can be profitable.

But I also agree that Chicago wouldn't have its skyline if every single structure that is old was preserved. There are some areas where property values and demand are so high that a 3-4 structure just won't do the job.

Either way, a lot of structures in this district are either landmarked or being rehabbed anyhow, so I'm not really sad to see this go given what will be replacing it.

The West Loop has quickly gone from being a neighborhood that really irritated me (in the early 2000s when all you would see is schlocky condo buildings and a very powerful group of NIMBYs who wanted to turn it into a faux Lincoln Park) into one of the hottest neighborhoods in America. A nice balance of historic preservation and a shit ton of dense construction, two new L stops, and very little "master community" type development. Each lot is separately owned and separately developed, and many of those lots are fairly narrow by modern standards. This is Chicago's latest (hopefully not last) chance to build a great place organically, lot by lot, like we used to do long, long ago.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4

I get what you are saying, but the fact remains that "groundscrapers" are a growing trend right now. I'm honestly not surprised that so many megaplans feature these nowadays

What makes Chicago great is that it has something better than any "growing trend"

Let worthless shitholes like the Sunbelt worry about building the "latest trend" thing next to their 12 lane highway interchanges.

What we have is something that will never get built again, as long as we don't destroy it:

A streetgrid, relatively smaller lots, and transit.

We have so much of that stuff still laying undeveloped that I think it's ridiculous to think that we need to build on top of the Metra just to create more land for skyscrapers, and in a manner that is totally disconnected from anything.

Perhaps in 30-50 years when we build out those other spaces, a project like this might make sense. But right now it's a pipe dream (or nightmare) and I think it should remain so.

[gebs]

Um, guys:

Ten New Skyscrapers Proposed For Chicago’s South Loop

https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/...os-south-loop/

[Via Chicago]

If you support lot by lot development, that really dosent jive with a proposed building that gobbles up an entire city block, which currently houses fine grained buildings suited for reuse

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by gebs

Um, guys:

Ten New Skyscrapers Proposed For Chicago’s South Loop

https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/...os-south-loop/

And speaking of pie in the sky master developments...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

If you support lot by lot development, that really dosent jive with a proposed building that gobbles up an entire city block, which currently houses buildings suited for reuse

I know, but we can't get narrow lots in every single situation.

But the West Loop is doing fairly well in this regard, by modern standards, at least. When a neighborhood starts going vertical, you are inevitably going to see the loss of 25' wide lots, obviously.

[gebs]

Two more renderings from that meeting:

[gebs]

And one more:

[XIII]

I'm just waiting for Juanita Irizarry to resurface to work to protect the sacred views parking parks that would be affected by the south loop development

What, economic development? Friends of the Parking Lots to the rescue! Keep Chicago vacant and blighted! Don't activate those parks! Where will all the cars go? Keep people off Chicago's lawn!

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by aaron38

^^^ Define historic and better.

I could chain myself to every neglected and crumbling suburban clapboard farmhouse style house that stands in the way of a 5 story condo building next to a Metra station. And for what? Are you going to come rehab them?

If people had wanted to restore this warehouse, they had 30 years to do it, and no one stepped up. Sure, political winds could have blown different and landmarked this. But absent government subsidy, that doesn't make the building economical to rehab. If those so minded don't find buildings worthy of their time and effort to preserve, they can't force others to do so.

This is silly, the building in question is undoubtedly economical to rehab in this location. The proposal to build new only exists because that is MORE economical to do. As someone who fixes buildings like this for a living I can tell you what appears to be a pretty ugly shell is easily fixable and the interiors of this building are probably irreplaceable timber frame construction.

The developers should be forced to rehab these structures, but also be allowed to take the left over air rights and go build higher without a zoning change on a nearby vacant lot. Unfortunately we don't have a zoning code that allows that so they are going in for the kill instead.

Originally Posted by ardecila

This seems pretty conceptual, I wouldn't take it literally. I'm sure the transit plans will be refined once they realize they can't afford an elevated stub, the city won't let them put LSD in a tunnel and Metra won't let them reroute the BNSF. Ideally they hire a real transit planner somewhere along the way...

Why is an 18th street stub impossible? I thought that was proposed for the Olympics plan too? What I would really like to see here is not a stub, but a loop coming down 18th to Soldier then down onto the McCormick bus way, through the park, Illinois Center, and then crossing the River (the most difficult part) onto the Carroll transit ROW.

[Mr Downtown]

Wow! Apparently we'll have flying cars in the future:

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by XIII

I'm just waiting for Juanita Irizarry to resurface to work to protect the sacred views parking parks that would be affected by the south loop development

What, economic development? Friends of the Parking Lots to the rescue! Keep Chicago vacant and blighted! Don't activate those parks! Where will all the cars go? Keep people off Chicago's lawn!

The site is west of LSD, so Friends of the Parking Lots can't sue them for it.

I honestly could care less if none of the skyscrapers get built. What I am very anxious about is the proposed transit center. This is what we desperately need in the city. Relieving some of the pressure in Union Station, while having the only direct transfer between Metra and CTA, and allowing East-West travel is something that will benefit the entire city! This would also effectively complete the most challenging part of the Crossrail proposal, without having to wait for federal funding. Metra then only needs to add more frequency and BOOM, we have a regional rail network like much of Europe. Now that I have my hopes up, I can't wait for them to be crushed if this project gets cancelled

[gebs]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Now that I have my hopes up, I can't wait for them to be crushed if this project gets cancelled

[Lifts bucket of cold water]

Yeah, I don't think anyone on this forum thinks any of this is remotely realistic. I know I'm framing this in the wrong way, but it feels like this is 10th in a very long line of similarly gargantuan mixed-use urban utopias that are nowhere near shovel-ready. The only one so far that has any evidence is Southbank né Riverline, and that's just one relatively small building surrounded by dirt right now.

I'm all for big plans and ambition, but I don't see work being done at the 78, River District, or the Burnham Lakefront. And then there's Lincoln Yards ...

Maybe I'm being impatient.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Article from Crains, this is my favorite part regarding transit

Developer envisions transit hub, entertainment, high-rises near Soldier Field



https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...=hero-readmore

Oh mannnnnnnn

Too good to be true, it usually is.

[mcdj]

Originally Posted by AlpacaObsessor

Good lord are the NIMBYs out in full force tonight. I’m sitting here at the meeting and there’s people calling this an ‘abonimation,’ and other sorts of things. I honestly can’t remember this much negative response to some other meetings I’ve been to but great popcorn-worthy drama nonetheless.

Joined this forum just to reply to this.

So I assume you live in the neighborhood? If so, how do you see it as a good thing? I was at the meeting. There were a lot of valid major concerns aired.

I live on S. Calumet, facing the lake, next to McCormick. Aside from the droning of LSD traffic and the dinging of the Metra, this area is generally a quiet, low key enclave. Many people who live here moved here for that exact reason. I would never intentionally move behind a lakefront building, and certainly not behind a mall or a transit hub. And yet here it all potentially comes.

I won’t stick around long enough to see my view destroyed, so that’s not my main concern.

In the short term I’m more NIMBY about the noise and chaos from construction.

Long term, I’m saddened by the continuing Kardashification of America. Everything has to be as massive and glitzy and glamorous as possible at all times, whether it benefits anyone or not. In the face of climate change and income inequality, projects like these tempt fate.

To those who have replied “OMG SO AWESOME BUILD NOW!”, have you ever lived next door to a construction site? For 15 years? Are you just reacting to the sparkly CGI renderings (which make what will in reality be a very cramped sliver of space look sprawling)? Or do you actually see some benefit?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by mcdj

Joined this forum just to reply to this.

So I assume you live in the neighborhood? If so, how do you see it as a good thing? I was at the meeting. There were a lot of valid major concerns aired.

I live on S. Calumet, facing the lake, next to McCormick. Aside from the droning of LSD traffic and the dinging of the Metra, this area is generally a quiet, low key enclave. Many people who live here moved here for that exact reason. I would never intentionally move behind a lakefront building, and certainly not behind a mall or a transit hub. And yet here it all potentially comes.

I won’t stick around long enough to see my view destroyed, so that’s not my main concern.

In the short term I’m more NIMBY about the noise and chaos from construction.

Long term, I’m saddened by the continuing Kardashification of America. Everything has to be as massive and glitzy and glamorous as possible at all times, whether it benefits anyone or not.

To those who have replied “OMG SO AWESOME BUILD NOW!”, have you ever lived next door to a construction site? For 15 years? Are you just reacting to the sparkly CGI renderings (which make what will in reality be a very cramped sliver of space look sprawling)? Or do you actually see some benefit?

You give no valid reason for opposing a zoning change that permits this project other than "I don't want to live next to a construction site"

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by mcdj

Joined this forum just to reply to this.

Welcome to the forum. . . but calm down. . . this isn't getting built. . .

. . .