CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 1201

Vlajos · #**24001** Posted **May 14, 2014, 6:03 PM**

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...esh-market.php

Great news for the Bronzeville area, new Mariano's at 39th and MLK.

marothisu · #**24002** Posted **May 14, 2014, 6:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlajos

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...esh-market.php

Great news for the Bronzeville area, new Mariano's at 39th and MLK.

That is great news...

k1052 · #**24003** Posted **May 14, 2014, 6:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayward

Goose Island has been repaved. But it's awful between the bridge near chicago and lake. I'm wondering if that viaduct will be reconstructed since it's in such bad shape. The halsted bridges over the river were redone and are nice.

Concrete would be ideal to handle all that traffic...especially trucks.

The Chicago/Halsted viaduct has been on CDOT's to do list for some time, pending availability of funds. I wonder if it would just make more sense to eliminate it altogether and put the intersection on grade. The Grand Ave rail yard is almost completely disused and the only remaining customers are the Tribune printing facility (which is probably going away in the not distant future) and Blommer's infrequently used lower siding.

wierdaaron · #**24004** Posted **May 14, 2014, 7:08 PM**

Lake Shore Drive Island? $177M Plan Aims to Embrace Burnham's Vision
DNAInfo Chicago

They think they can use private funds for this. I like the idea, but I wonder if Brian Hopkins is just trying to get some name exposure as he plans to run for alderman.

the urban politician · #**24005** Posted **May 14, 2014, 8:54 PM**

^ WOW. That would be bad ass. I mean, really bad ass.

bnk · #**24006** Posted **May 14, 2014, 9:52 PM**

It certainly would but unfortunately it would likely cost 15-20 times as much as $177 million though.

Rizzo · #**24007** Posted **May 14, 2014, 10:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Lake Shore Drive Island? $177M Plan Aims to Embrace Burnham's Vision
DNAInfo Chicago

They think they can use private funds for this. I like the idea, but I wonder if Brian Hopkins is just trying to get some name exposure as he plans to run for alderman.

This would be amazing and has pretty much been my dream for saving the Oak street beach since I've moved here. It's got the same elements I imagined..a tunnel for LSD on a smooth curve and a respectable park terminating michigan ave. We could actually market Oak St Beach as a legitimate tourism destination

nomarandlee · #**24008** Posted **May 14, 2014, 10:47 PM**

That would be bad ass.

Also expensive as hell. I'm not sure if I would rather have something a bit less ambitious and put some of that money to other city projects (like capping south Grant Park etc.). I mean as awesome as another island would be I really don't know how necessary it is.

I would also have liked to seen some more attention to the redevelopment of Olive Park. That has potential to be a great little tranquil pocket park but its bordering on the fence of being derelict property.

harryc · #**24009** Posted **May 14, 2014, 10:54 PM**

^^ A much cheaper alternative ;-)

Forever Free and Clear

Rizzo · #**24010** Posted **May 14, 2014, 10:57 PM**

I'd rather the work that needs to be done, get done. Reallocating funds may cause critical projects to fall short of real solutions and instead result in mere cosmetic upgrades. The Mag Mile has no resolution once you get past the JHC. It just dies into this sad "highway" ramp. You have Oak street wich has all been redone, LSDL with its grand apartments facing the lake at this awful intersection and crappy park. An expensive project indeed, but that's the price of fixing a big problem and increasing desirability to the area. I have no doubt this would bring more tourists and increase propety value.

marothisu · #**24011** Posted **May 14, 2014, 11:30 PM**

Love it - I love the idea of making it into more of a cove and the island part is cool too. Also the greenspace part of course...

MayorOfChicago · #**24012** Posted **May 14, 2014, 11:44 PM**

I mean yeah, I don't see it happening, but I'm drooling over the thought. That would be a HUGE HUGE thing for the city, especially on the tourist front. Who wouldnt' be blown away visiting and seeing that.

chicagogreg · #**24013** Posted **May 15, 2014, 12:05 AM**

The Gold Coast is expensive as it is now. This wild plan goes through and that area goes through the roof. Wow that would be incredible.

streetline · #**24014** Posted **May 15, 2014, 12:59 AM**

I might have some nits to pick with the design (is the island as useful as a harbor in the same location? is all of that tunneling really necessary and affordable? could/should we build more park land and straighten the drive even further instead? how could this be integrated with a lower level busway on Michigan? etc...), but overall I like it a lot.
This certainly seems like a more reasonable place to spend money on engineering the shoreline than the relatively isolated Northerly Island.

ardecila · #**24015** Posted **May 15, 2014, 1:15 AM**

They're not really spending that much money on Northerly Island, actually. Park investments are pretty cheap compared with road or transit projects. I am astounded at the amount of work on the Bloomingdale Trail for only $91 million...

The underpass at Oak would be fairly easy, since you'd be building a tunnel on a whole new alignment in virgin soil - no traffic to work around, no underground utility conflicts. The one at Chicago would be much tougher, but maybe they'd elevate the park over the roadway instead.

LouisVanDerWright · #**24016** Posted **May 15, 2014, 2:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

They're not really spending that much money on Northerly Island, actually. Park investments are pretty cheap compared with road or transit projects. I am astounded at the amount of work on the Bloomingdale Trail for only $91 million...

The underpass at Oak would be fairly easy, since you'd be building a tunnel on a whole new alignment in virgin soil - no traffic to work around, no underground utility conflicts. The one at Chicago would be much tougher, but maybe they'd elevate the park over the roadway instead.

All I know is that they better make sure they have a damn good breakwater or that tunnel will flood on occasion. They already have occasional flooding problems while the drive generally can only flood so much before the general grade of the roadway dumps it back into the lake. If there was any sort of low spot on the road it would flood rapidly on those days. I suppose that's another benefit of this plan, create a flooding buffer for the drive? Can we get Army Corps funding for this like New Orleans? Got any pork scraps for your home town Obammy?

LaSalle.St.Station · #**24017** Posted **May 15, 2014, 2:43 AM**

I like the idea.

But Didn't we go through this with Loyola trying to add landfill in the lake, only to be shut down by Canada and other Great Lake protection advocates.

ardecila · #**24018** Posted **May 15, 2014, 2:54 AM**

^ No, that project got shut down because it was a turnover of public lake-bottom property to a private entity (Loyola). It wasn't environmentalists that killed it, it was the courts and the laws protecting public rights to water bodies.

Nobody's ever said the city cannot expand parkland into the lake, or build barrier islands/marinas/protection structures/whatever.

denizen467 · #**24019** Posted **May 15, 2014, 8:36 AM**

$177 million? Isn't the decimal point in the wrong place or something?

I don't see an improved Oak Street Beach being a big hit with tourists. It's only a couple months out of the year, and then you've got shadow issues for a big part of the day. On top of that, Boul Mich gets more ritzy the further you go north, so capping it with a beach works poorly for both the street and the beach.

I know most people here will disagree, but I also think the LSD approach southbound into the city is an absolutely, positively iconic Chicago experience, feeling like you're about to drive right into the Drake, Playboy/Palmolive, and Hancock. To deprive future youngsters, tourists, and adults too, of that would be kind of a shame. The S curve will have to be straightened and that will already diminish the experience enough; to bury the southbound lanes would be a shame. I would prefer to see the southbound lanes kept at grade or even above grade if necessary, while the northbound lanes could be put underground.

ChiTownCity · #**24020** Posted **May 15, 2014, 10:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467

i know most people here will disagree, but i also think the lsd approach southbound into the city is an absolutely, positively iconic chicago experience, feeling like you're about to drive right into the drake, playboy/palmolive, and hancock. To deprive future youngsters, tourists, and adults too, of that would be kind of a shame. The s curve will have to be straightened and that will already diminish the experience enough; to bury the southbound lanes would be a shame. I would prefer to see the southbound lanes kept at grade or even above grade if necessary, while the northbound lanes could be put underground.

+1