CHICAGO | Lincoln Yards

[k1052]

Originally Posted by ardecila

SB is almost certainly in a holding pattern right now waiting for Amazon's announcement. If Amazon decides to go elsewhere, then SB will probably be open to creating more open space on site and lean more residential with the development instead of high-rise office. Right now they will not commit to anything that might make Lincoln Yards less well-suited to Amazon's needs.

On the other hand, if Amazon does choose Lincoln Yards, then SB doesn't have to worry about the community's concerns or about Hopkins; Emanuel will just steamroll all of them to make the project happen and reel in that monster fish.

Agreed, I just found the difference in feedback heartening. The traditional community meeting Q&A where the developers just get yelled by a minority of people who can attend then the news reports how much the community is opposed is a model that needs revision.

What Hopkins is saying right now is obviously just cover while waiting for that decision to be made. He's well aware that the mayor will move him aside at the speed of light to close an Amazon deal.

[ardecila]

Not strictly Lincoln Yards, but the Trib is reporting that a nonprofit group ('Friends of Goose Island") led by R2 Companies wants to take the historic but crumbling Division St Bridge over the North Branch and move it 1300' north to Blackhawk St, where it would serve as a pedestrian link across the river. Conveniently, this would land right next to R2's redevelopment sites at the old Morton Salt and New Metal Crafts buildings. Eventually this would link with a second ped bridge across the North Channel so you could walk to the Kingsbury/Whole Foods area, but in the meantime it would still connect with the Cherry Ave bridge to provide a decent walking route to the Red Line.

Originally they wanted to use the Chicago Ave Bridge, which CDOT will replace this year or next, but apparently that bridge is too deteriorated and there's no easy way to move it to Blackhawk... ideally you'd float it up the river on a barge, but in the case of the Chicago Ave bridge, the Division St bridge is in the way and completely inoperable... so they would have to cut it into chunks, which kinda defeats the purpose.

I'm glad they are finding a way to re-use the Division St bridge, it has a lot more ornamental work as part of the bridge similar to the Cortland St bridge, and has low steel beams overhead that make it difficult to re-use anywhere that truck traffic is a concern.

Earlier rendering showing the Chicago Ave Bridge repurposed:

(PORT Urbanism via Chicago Tribune)

[left of center]

Interesting. That would be a really great preservation and reuse of Chicago's bascule bridge heritage. How likely is this proposal actually happening? I fear that it would be crazy expensive and definitely well above CDOT's budget. Will this be done with money from the non profit group? Amazing if so. I assume that the bridgehouses will be preserved and moved as well, as the image for the previous Chicago Ave bridge plan shows?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by left of center

Interesting. That would be a really great preservation and reuse of Chicago's bascule bridge heritage. How likely is this proposal actually happening? I fear that it would be crazy expensive and definitely well above CDOT's budget. Will this be done with money from the non profit group? Amazing if so. I assume that the bridgehouses will be preserved and moved as well, as the image for the previous Chicago Ave bridge plan shows?

Right now, Friends of Goose Island is planning to do private fundraising. They believe they can do it for a price between $4M-5M, which is comparable to a new-construction bridge. Don't rule out the possibility of a TIF grant that covers some of the cost, although it would likely also come with city bidding requirements that could increase costs.

The bridge house would be kind of pointless since the bridge would become totally fixed. Without a good use for a bridge house, it just becomes a liability... but maybe they could turn it into a coffee stand or something. The current bridge house is totally compromised but it originally looked like the Cortland St one, with clapboard siding and a pitched shingle roof.

[k1052]

Elston is getting curb protected bike lanes south of North Ave right now. If the Cherry St bridge was used as well you could have a pretty nice protected bike loop through LY and Goose Island connecting back to Milwaukee.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Right now, Friends of Goose Island is planning to do private fundraising. They believe they can do it for a price between $4M-5M, which is comparable to a new-construction bridge. Don't rule out the possibility of a TIF grant that covers some of the cost, although it would likely also come with city bidding requirements that could increase costs.

The bridge house would be kind of pointless since the bridge would become totally fixed. Without a good use for a bridge house, it just becomes a liability... but maybe they could turn it into a coffee stand or something. The current bridge house is totally compromised but it originally looked like the Cortland St one, with clapboard siding and a pitched shingle roof.

Great!

Is $4-$5 million what an actual new construction bridge costs? Figured that it would be higher than that. I would be totally behind the use of TIF funds for this. The city should use more TIF money for historic renovation/preservation, in addition to its primary focus of incentivizing new development.

Yes you are right, the Division St bridge houses look to be in bad shape, and not really worth salvaging. Perhaps they can save and use the ones from the now doomed Chicago Ave bridge? The historic, masonry construction bridge houses are half the splendor of those old movable bridges. Even if they just sat empty (and locked up of course) it would really add to the aesthetic of the relocated Division St bridge itself as well as the surrounding area. Monetizing them, such as having them host a coffee shop like you said, or something to that effect would be even better. They could even serve as a station/stairwell for a potential river taxi stop as well?

[ardecila]

I think the $4M figure is for a pretty barebones bridge, which seems realistic if you don’t have prevailing wage requirements and don’t have a complex or elaborate design.

[k1052]

Heneghan has been busy knocking down the old city fleet buildings on the east side of Throop for the past couple weeks. The site now has a beautiful view of General Iron at work across the river hah.

[gebs]

Big changes to the most controversial multi-phased, master-planned, mixed-use urban utopia: Sterling Bay tweaks Lincoln Yards plan [Crain's]

[gebs]

Details:

"Four months after publicly unveiling its Lincoln Yards development between Lincoln Park and Bucktown, the Chicago developer will reveal a revised proposal this week that cuts 100 stories of buildings out of the plan and increases open space by 56 percent.

... The most visible change to the plan is shorter buildings. After stunning North Side stakeholders over the summer with proposed skyscrapers as high as 70 stories, the tallest tower under the new plan would be 650 feet, or about 50 stories.

And though the heights have shrunk, the new plan calls for 12.8 million square feet of buildings—up from the previous 12 million—because the planned development boundary has increased, according to a Sterling Bay spokeswoman. The increased square footage includes the already-built C.H. Robinson office building at 1515 W. Webster Ave.

Two parcels previously reserved for buildings would be replaced with park space under the new version. Those sites, combined with open-air plazas and riverwalks running along the North Branch, would total 20.9 acres of publicly accessible open space, according to Sterling Bay. That's an increase from 13.4 acres under the plan pitched in July and does not include space in the 20,000-seat soccer stadium."

[marothisu]

Sterling Bay tweaks Lincoln Yards plan

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...oln-yards-plan

Sterling Bay's plan to redraw a big swath of the North Branch of the Chicago River is getting a lower profile and a little less crowded in hopes of winning over North Side residents.

Four months after publicly unveiling its Lincoln Yards development between Lincoln Park and Bucktown, the Chicago developer will reveal a revised proposal this week that cuts 100 stories of buildings out of the plan and increases open space by 56 percent.

The most visible change to the plan is shorter buildings. After stunning North Side stakeholders over the summer with proposed skyscrapers as high as 70 stories, the tallest tower under the new plan would be 650 feet, or about 50 stories.

Those still would be high-rises typically found in areas like the Loop or River North and would dwarf the surrounding neighborhoods. And though the heights have shrunk, the new plan calls for 12.8 million square feet of buildings—up from the previous 12 million—because the planned development boundary has increased, according to a Sterling Bay spokeswoman.

But more room to work with also means more open space under the new plan, something neighborhood groups have demanded for a corridor already rankled by congestion and traffic gridlock.

Two parcels previously reserved for buildings would be replaced with park space under the new version. Those sites, combined with open-air plazas and riverwalks running along the North Branch, would total 20.9 acres of publicly accessible open space, according to Sterling Bay. That's an increase from 13.4 acres under the plan pitched in July and does not include space in the 20,000-seat soccer stadium planned as an anchor for the site's arts and entertainment-focused southern portion, Sterling Bay officials said.

Under the latest version of the plan, Sterling Bay would extend Dominick Street south, where it would stretch over the Chicago River and connect to North Avenue. Southport Avenue would be extended into the development to Armitage Avenue, which would be stretched across the river with a bridge. Those two streets would connect with Kingsbury Street. Elston Avenue would be rerouted to alleviate traffic and safety issues at its intersection with Ashland Avenue.

All of those additions would aim to reduce traffic along Clybourn and Elston avenues on east and west border of the project.

A transit-way track would run from downtown to the Lincoln Yards site on existing freight train tracks, and a new multi-modal Metra station just south of the current Clybourn Metra stop would link the commuter rail with an extension of the 606 bike trail, which would go directly into the heart of the Lincoln Yards site.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Still too dense for a transit desert. You can build 100 floors if you foot the bill for a new subway, if not, get used to building six flats bruh...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Still too dense for a transit desert. You can build 100 floors if you foot the bill for a new subway, if not, get used to building six flats bruh...

I'm interested what they mean by this:
"A transit-way track would run from downtown to the Lincoln Yards site on existing freight train tracks"

Obviously some new train line - so I'm curious what type of frequency, load, how many stops and where, etc etc it would be. No way something of this scale would work without at least one city train line going to it.

[UPChicago]

Post pictures

[k1052]

I don't know why there is so much focus on a subway. There is no money for that and it's not needed to service this anyway. Buy some low floor off the shelf MUs, build a few simple platforms, and after leaving the UP alignment at Kinzie street run down Clinton after giving it the King St. treatment.

[gebs]

Originally Posted by k1052

Buy some low floor off the shelf MUs, build a few simple platforms, and after leaving the UP alignment at Kinzie street run down Clinton after giving it the King St. treatment.

Reading this was like listening to someone with a thick Scottish accent describe a complex machine using slang terms.

[Via Chicago]

what also hasnt been addressed is the ridiculous soccer stadium/6 venue entertainment component. i agree this is still an incredibly bloated proposal given its location.

[west-town-brad]

instead of building on vacant land already served by the green and red lines, let's build on newly bulldozed land not served by any transit at all. hey, the tax payers will foot the bill!

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

instead of building on vacant land already served by the green and red lines, let's build on newly bulldozed land not served by any transit at all. hey, the tax payers will foot the bill!

Vacant land does not mean nobody owns it nor does it mean the owners aren't greedy. I mean I agree it would be optimal, but what you're saying is really an idealistic thing and real life trying to secure and buy land and all that I think is a little bit more complex than just snatching some land.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Vacant land does not mean nobody owns it nor does it mean the owners aren't greedy. I mean I agree it would be optimal, but what you're saying is really an idealistic thing and real life trying to secure and buy land and all that I think is a little bit more complex than just snatching some land.

sure but zoning can influence what gets developed where. this plot should not be zoned the way it is given the existing transit realities. they are trying to smash a square peg into a round hole. that dosent mean a higher use dosent exist for this plot compared to what is currently there, but it also dosent mean it should be unfettered just because a developer stands to make a profit, at the expense of the rest of the surrounding neighborhoods.