CHICAGO | General Developments

[sammyg]

Originally Posted by Eventually...Chicago

That parking garage is the very definition of
GREENWASHING!!!!

That's exactly what it is. There wouldn't be any debate at all on this forum about a new parking garage on Kinzie without the vaguely enviro bells and whistles. And once it's approved, who knows how much of all of that will remain. Not much, I'd guess.

[HowardL]

When I left work on Friday, there was a billboard announcing a new 2-storey retail component to be added to The Montgomery. It is going to be on the western side of the building at the southeast corner of Chicago and Larrabee. Seemed nice enough. It sort of mirrors the curved elements and general massing of the parking ramp on the other side of the tower. It's a brilliant idea. Replace the worthless grass lawn with something that people can use.

[honte]

^ "Worthless grass lawn." Right, entirely worthless.

[HowardL]

Fine ... unused ... neglected lawn.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by honte

^ "Worthless grass lawn." Right, entirely worthless.

He does kind of have a point. With all of the density over there, cabrini coming down and retail going in, that corner is set to be hopping in the coming years. A tiny grassy area on the corner there wouldn't serve the ubran environment all that well, IMO. Especially since there's a nice park just down Kingsbury...

Taft

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by honte

^ "Worthless grass lawn." Right, entirely worthless.

Open green space = good....usually. Unused open space of almost any variety is a black hole of urbanity and vibrancy... = bad, usually. It's not like we're talking about building an astroturf soccer field in a quiet park or something crazy like that, where lacking "urbanity" is a virtue, even a stated goal... we're talking about Chicago Avenue, steps from River North.

[Abner]

One thing I've noticed about a lot of modernist developments is that they incorporate poorly shaped, awkwardly placed, and very small areas of "green space," usually a lawn and shrubbery. There's no relaxing to be had right up against Chicago Ave. It's like there's a belief that there is a simple linear relationship between square footage of open space and the space's value to residents, as if open space is beneficial to people for no other reason than there are no buildings there. Judging by the use they make of open spaces, people seem to prefer interior courtyards and backyards to front lawns.

[aaron38]

The LSE parkhomes


The eagerly anticipated western LSE park stairs

[honte]

Originally Posted by Abner

One thing I've noticed about a lot of modernist developments is that they incorporate poorly shaped, awkwardly placed, and very small areas of "green space," usually a lawn and shrubbery. There's no relaxing to be had right up against Chicago Ave. It's like there's a belief that there is a simple linear relationship between square footage of open space and the space's value to residents, as if open space is beneficial to people for no other reason than there are no buildings there. Judging by the use they make of open spaces, people seem to prefer interior courtyards and backyards to front lawns.

I think you are maybe forgetting that this building was constructed as a posh corporate headquarters, not residences.

In any case, I really don't want to get into all of this again; I seem to always get myself into these endless arguments. It's been painfully demonstrated that I am in the minority on this board, and that is fine. But the question I will leave with, one which I have asked many times before (and you all know my personal answer): Does every square inch of land have to be packed with people at all times to be useful?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ No, not every square inch, but the vast majority of them do need to be packed to be useful. That just how cities are, in the CBD/dense core all land should be at a reasonable if not full utilization or else weaknesses will arise in the core since businesses don't like to be near open or abandoned lots.

However, in more residential areas like the Gold Coast and Lincoln Park, small pockets of relatively unused land are good for the environment since they provide a spacier feel for the residents, generally raising moral, whether they are used or not.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by honte

I think you are maybe forgetting that this building was constructed as a posh corporate headquarters, not residences.

In any case, I really don't want to get into all of this again; I seem to always get myself into these endless arguments. It's been painfully demonstrated that I am in the minority on this board, and that is fine. But the question I will leave with, one which I have asked many times before (and you all know my personal answer): Does every square inch of land have to be packed with people at all times to be useful?

To answer your question: of course not. But I think that "useful" is a word that means different things to different people. One thing I have a hard time finding useful are the "grass museums" that pop up around the city. Wether they be oversized lawns of the variety we are currently discussing or unused parks like Pritzker park on State and Van B, these spaces suck the vitality out of the streetscape without offering anything meaningful in return.

Split Pritzker park in two, the half closer to the el becoming greenspace with a fountain and benches in the middle (ok, a bit cliche) and the other half becoming a dog park for loop residents. Turn the grassy space in front of M Wards into an open sculpture gallery. IMO, those would be much more "useful" spaces that would keep their greenspace qualities while inviting use and offering visual respite from the city. Heck, just add some decent landscaping to either space and you'd have *something*.

I have no problem with greenspace, so long as it serves the urban environment. I just don't think large lawns abutting some of the busiest streets in Chicago serve the urban environment well: they are not used (in the literal sense) and they aren't visually appealing or otherwise worthwhile.

Taft

[Abner]

Originally Posted by honte

I think you are maybe forgetting that this building was constructed as a posh corporate headquarters, not residences.

In any case, I really don't want to get into all of this again; I seem to always get myself into these endless arguments. It's been painfully demonstrated that I am in the minority on this board, and that is fine. But the question I will leave with, one which I have asked many times before (and you all know my personal answer): Does every square inch of land have to be packed with people at all times to be useful?

Just to clarify, I definitely think that green space is valuable--even (or especially) when it's not crowded with people--but I think many developments haven't considered what kind of green space makes people happiest. I think the exact same amount of open space as exists at Chicago and Larrabee could be sited to give people a lot more pleasure. It's not about increasing the number of people who use space but increasing the satisfaction of those who do use it, and I mean "use" very broadly. And I do think that lawns are detrimental when they're up against fast thoroughfares like Chicago Ave. because drivers tend to speed up when they get that feeling of openness. (Yeah, this particular one has shrubbery and trees facing the street.) I wish open space would more often face side streets, where residents always crave it, rather than major streets where it just becomes a void.

[honte]

^ I agree that the Chicago green space is not ideally sited. I also agree with Taft in a general dislike for big, boring patches of lawn. But, we have to make the best of what we have. The old Wards lawn could be improved in a number of ways, I agree.

My opinion is that, 1) the old Ward's building itself is being further degraded, which is a loss; and 2) that patch of green space will become more valued as River North continues to densify. I doubt either of those come as any surprise. Anyway...

[VivaLFuego]

A 30 page presentation on the redevelopment process for Harper Court:

http://www.vision53.org/resources/Ha...verview508.pdf

This includes redeveloping the Harper Court mall and that large hideous surface parking lot.

The presentation says the overall FAR is targeted to be between 2.5 and 3.5, with maximum building heights to be no taller than the adjacent 11-story Hyde Park Bank building. Everyone here should write to the consultant leading the public input portion of the development (ccs@ccstudioinc.com) and Alderman Preckwinkle to lend support to approval at the high end of that range, with maximum plausible number of residential units This is supposed to be the new "downtown" Hyde Park, which will require major new population density and some serious density of the built environment.

And just because I'm feeling cruel, here's a picture of what used to be on the site of that huge ugly parking lot, along Lake Park north of 53rd St, in 1956 just before urban renewal:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_7vNdIdheK3w/...t+ca.+1956.jpg

Sorry for ruining your day with that pic.

EDIT: I should credit the Hyde Park Progress blog for digging up that photograph I linked to.

[EarlyBuyer]

YouTube video: The Parkhomes at Lakeshore East

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zBIYPSrOyQ8&feature=user

[EarlyBuyer]

Two YouTube video's: Solstice on the Park

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IVyfFQgHTCk&feature=user


This one may have been previously posted:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=85gtcWmV-8Q&feature=user

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Abner

Just to clarify, I definitely think that green space is valuable--even (or especially) when it's not crowded with people--but I think many developments haven't considered what kind of green space makes people happiest. I think the exact same amount of open space as exists at Chicago and Larrabee could be sited to give people a lot more pleasure. It's not about increasing the number of people who use space but increasing the satisfaction of those who do use it, and I mean "use" very broadly. And I do think that lawns are detrimental when they're up against fast thoroughfares like Chicago Ave. because drivers tend to speed up when they get that feeling of openness. (Yeah, this particular one has shrubbery and trees facing the street.) I wish open space would more often face side streets, where residents always crave it, rather than major streets where it just becomes a void.

I believe that with 757 N Orleans, there is supposed to be a small "pocket park" created by the developers after it's constructed. That's great, except the "pocket park" they're going to make is on the NE corner of Superior and Orleans, and very high traffic area next to a brick wall that, if it's anything like my brick wall, will be radiating roasting-hot heat in the summertime and conducting ice-cold air in the winter. I hope I've heard wrong, because a pocket park at that site is beyond moronic.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

...
And just because I'm feeling cruel, here's a picture of what used to be on the site of that huge ugly parking lot, along Lake Park north of 53rd St, in 1956 just before urban renewal:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_7vNdIdheK3w/...t+ca.+1956.jpg

Sorry for ruining your day with that pic.

Man, you ARE cruel ;-)

Too bad they can't just reconstruct that.

[the urban politician]

In light of all the development in the area (SoNo, New City, British School, ongoing development & North/Clybourn, etc etc) what will come of that neat little nightlife district on Weed St? I'm talking about the Zentras, the Circuses, the Wildhorse Saloon (is that what it was called? Can't remember), the Crobar, etc etc. I remember buying a hot dog from a Mexican street vendor there at midnight once (YES! There are street vendors in Chicago).

I realize that there are much more of those days behind me than ahead of me, but every great city needs a nightlife district. What do you guys think will happen to that area, and where will the big-time nightlife migrate to?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

In light of all the development in the area (SoNo, New City, British School, ongoing development & North/Clybourn, etc etc) what will come of that neat little nightlife district on Weed St? I'm talking about the Zentras, the Circuses, the Wildhorse Saloon (is that what it was called? Can't remember), the Crobar, etc etc. I remember buying a hot dog from a Mexican street vendor there at midnight once (YES! There are street vendors in Chicago).

I realize that there are much more of those days behind me than ahead of me, but every great city needs a nightlife district. What do you guys think will happen to that area, and where will the big-time nightlife migrate to?

I'm sure that people will have to learn to co-exist with these established businesses as the residents did who moved into new condos on Halsted in Boystown. Yes, some residents did complain, but they were basically told to shut the hell up.