CHICAGO | The 78 Site

[Handro]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

^ That is way too much greenspace. Looks like a university campus, not a neighborhood.

Agreed, but I don’t think we can expect much from any of these pending mega developments. I’m still pretty psyched for this one for the simply fact that I think that lot could sit empty for another 100 years without it.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

^ That is way too much greenspace. Looks like a university campus, not a neighborhood.

Uhh, it's a park. Parks are good..or are they not anymore?

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Uhh, it's a park. Parks are good..or are they not anymore?

Parks are good, but they don't have to take up such a large fraction of the land... the proportions are off here IMO. This is like suburban office park greenspace fraction, not middle of the city greenspace fraction. I'm sure it will be a very nice park though, but I'm not sure this level of development justifies a subway station unless those buildings are very tall...

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Uhh, it's a park. Parks are good..or are they not anymore?

No. Too many parks create too many dead spaces.

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

No. Too many parks create too many dead spaces.

Don't forget that the 78 will have 10,000 units and 24,000 jobs. That's not including the amount of people that will visit the site on a given day. The parks here will definitely get used

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

No. Too many parks create too many dead spaces.

U wot m8

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

No. Too many parks create too many dead spaces.

Nonsense.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

No. Too many parks create too many dead spaces.

Originally Posted by sentinel

Nonsense.

Anyone who's read any of Jane Jacob's works knows that the grandmother of new urbanism was no fan of parks. I don't think I can do her arguments about them justice, but anyone interested in urban design should probably read her works if for no other reason than so many other urbanists have read them and they inform a lot of contemporary opinions.

I like parks, but I also feel that it is absolutely possible to have too many parks, or parks that are too big for the area they serve. Cities exist for commerce, and while residents and visitors do need some open space to stretch their legs or have a break from the hustle of the city, a poorly planned and/or implemented park can do more harm than good. Ultimately, quality is far more important than quantity when it comes to parkland.

[ardecila]

Yeah I don’t see the problem.

I’ve mentioned before that the park solves a very specific issue - when the city backfilled the original river channel in the 1920s, they literally filled it with garbage. The soil is terrible quality, poorly compacted and not at all suited to building foundations without a lot of expensive remediation.

This site plan kills two birds with one stone by setting that land aside as park space and building densely in the areas where soil is good.

Also, as a side note, I’m thanking my lucky stars that Tony Rezko was not able to develop this site the way he wanted to, as suburban schlock-fest, Dearborn Park Phase 3 complete with an IKEA and huge parking garages. Say what you will about the Related plan, but it is dense, livable, walkable, and transit-oriented. It prioritizes connectivity to surrounding areas, as much as is possible.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yeah I don’t see the problem.

I’ve mentioned before that the park solves a very specific issue - when the city backfilled the original river channel in the 1920s, they literally filled it with garbage. The soil is terrible quality, poorly compacted and not at all suited to building foundations without a lot of expensive remediation.

This site plan kills two birds with one stone by setting that land aside as park space and building densely in the areas where soil is good.

Also, as a side note, I’m thanking my lucky stars that Tony Rezko was not able to develop this site the way he wanted to, as suburban schlock-fest, Dearborn Park Phase 3 complete with an IKEA and huge parking garages. Say what you will about the Related plan, but it is dense, livable, walkable, and transit-oriented. It prioritizes connectivity to surrounding areas, as much as is possible.

ah ok... well that makes more sense why they're giving up so much buildable space.


I wonder if it would make sense to move the Maritime museum from Bridgeport to here?

[ardecila]

I agree the site could use a cultural destination. The newest site plan shows something resembling the Culture Shed that Related built at Hudson Yards, but without any further description from Related it’s just a cool-looking blob...

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I agree the site could use a cultural destination. The newest site plan shows something resembling the Culture Shed that Related built at Hudson Yards, but without any further description from Related it’s just a cool-looking blob...

Yeah I noticed that too; I think once the plans are fleshed out further, that 'shed' will have some actual purpose, other than a placeholder, rando design feature. You are totally correct that there needs to be a dedicated cultural destination, considering this is being planned as a fully functional neighborhood.

I understand now what you mean, SIGSEGV. Personally, I think allocating a good chunk of green space is always a good idea. My only gripe with the design is why have the Crescent park in the middle? It just seems more logical/natural to have it along the river, and have more than just a riverwalk, but a more diverse and continuous ecosystem, rather than the split-up that the site plan shows. That way, LaSalle street wouldn't have to have that silly job, it could just be a straight shot from Roosevelt to 15th St.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by sentinel

My only gripe with the design is why have the Crescent park in the middle?

reread ardecila's post.

the crescent park is located where it is because that's where the shitty unbuildable back-filled soil from the old river channel is.

Originally Posted by ardecila

I’ve mentioned before that the park solves a very specific issue - when the city backfilled the original river channel in the 1920s, they literally filled it with garbage. The soil is terrible quality, poorly compacted and not at all suited to building foundations without a lot of expensive remediation.

This site plan kills two birds with one stone by setting that land aside as park space and building densely in the areas where soil is good.

this old picture from the south branch straightening will hopefully let you understand it better.


source: https://interactive.wttw.com/chicago...-chicago-river

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

reread ardecila's post.

the crescent park is located where it is because that's where the shitty unbuildable back-filled soil from the old river channel is.






this old picture from the south branch straightening will hopefully let you understand it better.


source: https://interactive.wttw.com/chicago...-chicago-river

Ahh, clearly I did not read that.

[bhawk66]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

reread ardecila's post.

the crescent park is located where it is because that's where the shitty unbuildable back-filled soil from the old river channel is.






this old picture from the south branch straightening will hopefully let you understand it better.

Actually, are not the buildings right on the infill? It appears that way from the most recent site plan.

If that north/south street in the picture nearest the old river route can be identified that would tell it.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Actually, are not the buildings right on the infill?

no, it's pretty clear in the recently released site plan that the crescent park closely follows the path of the old back-filled river channel.

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Actually, are not the buildings right on the infill? It appears that way from the most recent site plan.

If that north/south street in the picture nearest the old river route can be identified that would tell it.

^^ That's Clark street. Same street placement as today.

[Gedung Tinngi]

Will there be a pedestrian connection to Ping Tom Park?

I can only imagine it being a fantastic feature to someday walk from the Loop to Chinatown along the River.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Gedung Tinngi

Will there be a pedestrian connection to Ping Tom Park?

I can only imagine it being a fantastic feature to someday walk from the Loop to Chinatown along the River.

An riverwalk connection next to the water is probably a later project, but very soon (once Wells-Wentworth opens) you should be able to get to Ping Tom Park via an inland connection. This is important since it will also link the newer Ping Tom fieldhouse to the original eastern side of the park, which are currently split by the railroad.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Gedung Tinngi

Will there be a pedestrian connection to Ping Tom Park?

I can only imagine it being a fantastic feature to someday walk from the Loop to Chinatown along the River.

Yes, there will be an connection that allows (eventually) a continuous walk from the lake along the river to Ping Tom Park (once the Riverline river walk is complete).