CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[honte]

^ Huh?

First, I was talking about views from the units, not my view as a driver. Second, the best way to make better walking areas is to improve them with buildings that make walking around better. Right?

Also, as VivaL said, the Orange line is just down the street. You are putting too much focus on the Red Line station. Last, it's not like the guy can snap his fingers and just grab whatever site he feels like.

[Chicago Maroon]

In the next couple of weeks I will be interviewing with an organization called the Center for Neighborhood Technology for a summer internship. They operate out of the nation´s thirteenth building to be certified Platinum LEED, near the Damen blue line stop, which I think is pretty cool. Anyway, I am curious as to if anyone might know what their stances in the past have been concerning Chicago developments? Outside of their official reports, I haven´t been able to glean much information about them and figured this would be the place to ask, spefically concerning their past stances on skyscrapers. You can PM me if you would like.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Huh?
First, I was talking about views from the units, not my view as a driver. Second, the best way to make better walking areas is to improve them with buildings that make walking around better. Right?

I suppose if it's big enough, it might make its own draw, but unless there is significant enhancement of the walk between that Orange Line station and the building's location I can't imagine many people wanting to make that walk after dark - especially lone women, which is something a lot of men don't seem to take into account when they think about "walkable."

Originally Posted by honte

Also, as VivaL said, the Orange line is just down the street. You are putting too much focus on the Red Line station. Last, it's not like the guy can snap his fingers and just grab whatever site he feels like.

Well, to each his own, but living in the armpit of two expressways would be pretty much a nightmare scenario in my way of thinking. But then again, I've been living car-free for coming up on nine years now, and I don't really consider places to be pedestrian-friendly when the sky is paved over, the street grid is badly broken, and there's a lot of industrial use limiting potential density. Like I said, when you're driving, I don't think it's possible to really see things as a pedestrian does - even if the Orange Line is only 1/4 mile away on the map.

[KevinFromTexas]

Great photo updates you guys.

harryc, those panos are stunning. Great colors with the sunset.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by emathias

Like I said, when you're driving, I don't think it's possible to really see things as a pedestrian does - even if the Orange Line is only 1/4 mile away on the map.

^ Yup. Great point.

In fact, one of my big complaints is that a lot of modern planning occurs through the window of a car as it whizzes by at 35 mph. It certainly shows..

[Steely Dan]

this is not the thread for the 7 billionth rant about how much we all hate cars and auto-centric planning. for the love of god PLEASE takes it to a different thread. this thread is exclusively for discussion about highrise developments in chicago.

[tintinex]

It looks like they are starting the demolition process for this building. I live right next door. I'll try to get some pics and post them later today.

[Kevin J]

Originally Posted by Chicago Maroon

In the next couple of weeks I will be interviewing with an organization called the Center for Neighborhood Technology for a summer internship. They operate out of the nation´s thirteenth building to be certified Platinum LEED, near the Damen blue line stop, which I think is pretty cool. Anyway, I am curious as to if anyone might know what their stances in the past have been concerning Chicago developments? Outside of their official reports, I haven´t been able to glean much information about them and figured this would be the place to ask, spefically concerning their past stances on skyscrapers. You can PM me if you would like.

Maroon: I dealt with CNT a bit in the mid 90's when I was doing environmental law work in the non-profit sector. Their focus then seemed to be regional planning and transportation issues, especially the latter. Perhaps they have shifted focus since then, but even in the more recent press mentions I have seen of the group, I don't recall them weighing in, positively or negatively, on any specific skyscraper projects, or skyscrapers in general. Hopefully, someone with more recent information about CNT will weigh in, but I hope that helps a little.

[jc5680]

Soil testing again today at hubbard and clark...(453 n clark?)

[Abner]

Originally Posted by emathias

I suppose if it's big enough, it might make its own draw, but unless there is significant enhancement of the walk between that Orange Line station and the building's location I can't imagine many people wanting to make that walk after dark - especially lone women, which is something a lot of men don't seem to take into account when they think about "walkable."

Well, to each his own, but living in the armpit of two expressways would be pretty much a nightmare scenario in my way of thinking. But then again, I've been living car-free for coming up on nine years now, and I don't really consider places to be pedestrian-friendly when the sky is paved over, the street grid is badly broken, and there's a lot of industrial use limiting potential density. Like I said, when you're driving, I don't think it's possible to really see things as a pedestrian does - even if the Orange Line is only 1/4 mile away on the map.

Agreed. The location sucks (I use "armpit" to describe it too) and it would take a whole lot more than one housing development to change it. I used to live less than a half-mile from that Orange Line stop but I would avoid using it if I could because the walk there was dismal and frightening. The cars drive way too fast, everything is under expressways or train tracks, and most of the area is industrial. I think rezoning and changing the street atmosphere entirely would be necessary before it would be livable. I would also agree with you that people don't take into account how safe a woman would feel in an area when they judge a location like this one.

Then again, there have been new developments not that far away, like on 26th, so I guess we shouldn't think other people have the same tastes.

[honte]

^ If you used these arguments all the time, how many of Chicago's neighborhoods would ever change? I think it's short-sighted. No, developers probably are not thinking that much about how single women will feel. It's their choice to buy there or not. If the developer thinks there is a market, they plan a development. It's simple.

I'll tell you what, I'd rather live here in a pioneering area with smashing skyline views (and probably pay 1/2 of what you'd pay in South Loop) than in some junk three-flat on Western Avenue. Yet, tons of people have bought places on Western and other pretty ugly settings.

I've walked that stretch several times, so accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about is a bit presumptuous.... just because I admit I own a vehicle.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Honte, we all know you are an evil car-fiend, you can stop pretending now...

I don't see what is wrong with them building in a new area, it actually makes sense to me since it seems like Chinatown is constantly growing outwards...

[Abner]

Originally Posted by honte

^ If you used these arguments all the time, how many of Chicago's neighborhoods would ever change? I think it's short-sighted. No, developers probably are not thinking that much about how single women will feel. It's their choice to buy there or not. If the developer thinks there is a market, they plan a development. It's simple.

I'll tell you what, I'd rather live here in a pioneering area with smashing skyline views (and probably pay 1/2 of what you'd pay in South Loop) than in some junk three-flat on Western Avenue. Yet, tons of people have bought places on Western and other pretty ugly settings.

I've walked that stretch several times, so accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about is a bit presumptuous.... just because I admit I own a vehicle.

Hope you weren't confusing two different people talking about this issue.

I agree that things should get built there, but I agree with the sentiment that you probably can't expect it to be extremely forward-thinking because there is currently no pedestrian experience to be had there. I would kind of expect it to be more similar to the other things that have gone up in that general area, which are all pretty schlocky and built with cars in mind.

I would also say that this particular location is different from other unpleasant stretches because the two elevated expressways, the train tracks, and the industry along Canal really do cut it off from everything around it. People will definitely still live there if the price is right--I mean, little old ladies still walk between Chinatown and Bridgeport along Wentworth, which is just as bad--I just doubt it will "feel" that much like an extension of Chinatown. But of course there's nothing wrong with building for the benefit of residents rather than tourists and visitors.

[vxt22]

You guys act like any area that isn't bright and full of retail is a 'bad area.' Not only are these places necessary, but this used to be how Chicago was up until a few years ago. Infrastructure and industry are both still crucial parts of Chicago.
This does not make the area bad. I walk there regularly and feel safe. I've never felt the least bit uneasy or had anyone care that I was there.
Perhaps, if I had a wife, I wouldn't encourage her to go there, but that is an unreasonable expectation to hold any part of any city to.

I don't know, I kinda like walking around different sorts of neighborhoods, but I tend to have a different sense of danger as compared to the average American. People here seem to change their lives just to avoid danger. I've never understood that.

Off topic though..

[the urban politician]

People, lets give this project a chance. It will have a huge amount of retail, all of the parking will be in a garage above it, and there will be a decent amount of residential incorporated. This is just a spark, but it sounds like a very good one. You can't have a pedestrian experience if you've got no people, right?

I really look forward to this one. Chinatown has so much potential.

[BVictor1]

03/05/08

[simcityaustin]

You know BVic, sometime I think you're really a bird disguised as a human.

[Dan in Chicago]

Originally Posted by migueltorres

It looks like they are starting the demolition process for this building. I live right next door. I'll try to get some pics and post them later today.

Funny, I was walking through Jackson Park this morning thinking that would never happen.

About the project in west Chinatown, it's not a bad neighborhood at all. It's a bit industrial on one side, and the other side is full of new (although ugly) townhomes. I used to spend a lot of time over there, and I doubt I ever saw so much as one suspicious character. It's one block from a fortune cookie bakery, and you can smell fortune cookies at that intersection most of the time. Across the railroad tracks there used to be two enormous warehouses for the Cuneo Press. When they were imploded it was a huge loss; they would have made the Cermak/Canal river district really something. One of them had a tower like the Lakeside Press building.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by migueltorres

It looks like they are starting the demolition process for this building. I live right next door. I'll try to get some pics and post them later today.

^ It's been ages since we've heard about this. I forgot, is it condos, apartments? Did they even start selling anything?

[cbotnyse]

does anybody have any info on 24 S. Morgan? I think its called The Pure?? (I've seen listings on MLS) I'd like to know when delivery is and a sales center phone number? Its not a good sign if I cant find it from a google search.

thanks.