CHICAGO | The 78 Site

[ithakas]

^ When the heck did all of this happen? I swear these community development processes are so opaque. I live very close to the site and am vehemently opposed to making this area more auto-centric.

Please let me know what you know about this (or DM me) so I can look into this further.

Thanks.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by ithakas

^ When the heck did all of this happen? I swear these community development processes are so opaque. I live very close to the site and am vehemently opposed to making this area more auto-centric.

Please let me know what you know about this (or DM me) so I can look into this further.

Thanks.

I don't have any insider info, this is all in their PD filing. The new parking lot was not discussed in the community meeting last month. They did mention using the Roosevelt Collection parking, which I'm fine with since it's way underused right now, and their new 2-level garage under the stadium and plazas (not great, but to be expected for team staff and players).

They don't give a parking count for the new surface lot but it looks like about 750 spaces, give or take. With the Stormwater and Landscape ordinances, it is a significant expense to build a parking lot of this size which means we'll likely be stuck with it for many years. (temporary gravel lots are not allowed in most cases)

https://chicityclerkelms.chicago.gov...1-001DD80DE488

[r18tdi]

Yucky.

[left of center]

Wow that's really unfortunate.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't have any insider info, this is all in their PD filing. The new parking lot was not discussed in the community meeting last month. They did mention using the Roosevelt Collection parking, which I'm fine with since it's way underused right now, and their new 2-level garage under the stadium and plazas (not great, but to be expected for team staff and players).

They don't give a parking count for the new surface lot but it looks like about 750 spaces, give or take. With the Stormwater and Landscape ordinances, it is a significant expense to build a parking lot of this size which means we'll likely be stuck with it for many years. (temporary gravel lots are not allowed in most cases)

https://chicityclerkelms.chicago.gov...1-001DD80DE488

So much for "The Wilds" I guess. Also some parking to the north and 'ride share' lots. Somehow the graphics always manage to show buildings, rather than vehicles, on the lots.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

So much for "The Wilds" I guess. Also some parking to the north and 'ride share' lots. Somehow the graphics always manage to show buildings, rather than vehicles, on the lots.

The PD includes The Wilds as a future phase replacing the parking lot.

Gotta say, this whole thing has gone from world-class urbanism to something barely better than the suburban strip IKEA that was proposed back in 2002.

[nomarandlee]

I'm more offended by the smaller ride-share lot than the parking lot. Although not ideal, it does make some sense to have parking (if one is to have it) lined up near the railroad viaduct, given that it is not exactly a location most residents would prefer to live next to. Hopefully, eventually, that lot will be built if the district becomes successful.

On the other hand, all the space west of the new Wells Street should be left open for recreational space. Having the Ridshare lot there really looks like it will break up the continuity of the rivers edge, even if there is technically going to be a small frontage remaining.

[r18tdi]

Crain's Chicago Business: South Loop residents weigh in on Chicago Fire stadium plan

...
An online survey of 653 South Loop residents conducted in recent weeks by the South Loop Neighbors community group found 73% of respondents said they were "supportive" and nearly half were "strongly supportive" of the Major League Soccer team's proposal, the neighborhood group said in a statement, while about 10% of respondents were opposed.
...
But the results also showed residents' concerns with how traffic congestion would be mitigated and frustration with "limited pedestrian connectivity," according to a survey summary. Related Midwest also revealed in June that it was scrapping plans for a new Chicago Transit Authority Red Line station at 15th and Clark streets that was originally proposed for The 78, a change that survey respondents identified as another concern.
...
Related Midwest and city planning officials are still negotiating terms of a revised redevelopment agreement, or RDA, that would govern the use of TIF money for infrastructure at The 78. The original deal inked in 2019 called for as much as $551 million in infrastructure projects that Related would finance up front and be reimbursed for using future property tax gains generated by the site.

Related said in June the new dollar figure will be lower than that because some big line items won't be needed under the stadium plan, including the $364 million CTA station and an $85 million realignment of Metra tracks running through the site.
...

[left of center]

Seems most people are concerned/frustrated with the lack of pedestrian connectivity and the abandonment of plans for a new CTA station at 15th. Refreshing to see for once, instead of just "wah wah too much traffic, not enough parking, too much density" you typically hear.

[Jstange059]

Would it be possible for them to design the development in a way that they can retrofit a CTA/metra station in the future when the site is more built up and finances allow?

They also discussed building a pedestrian bridge at 15th, which really seems necessary to me, at a bare minimum. The development would just feel way too separated from the rest of the city otherwise, it really needs some sort of east-west connection

[left of center]

The best way to fix the east-west connections is relocate the RI tracks so that we can have auto and pedestrian access at 15th and/or 14th, with the bonus of being able to have retail along Clark. Grade level access would be best, instead of bridges and stairs, but it doesn't appear that is happening in this plan iteration.

[Randomguy34]

Will be going to the Plan Commission later this month

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/dept...n_Hearing.html

[KWillChicago]

https://www.chicagoconstructionnews....ium-at-the-78/

[dreamy-developer]

My golly does that surface parking lot look atrocious

Chicago Plan Commission Approves Rezoning For Chicago Fire FC Stadium At The 78

[BruceP]

Originally Posted by dreamy-developer

My golly does that surface parking lot look atrocious

Chicago Plan Commission Approves Rezoning For Chicago Fire FC Stadium At The 78

Today's Sun-Times reported that the parking lots are temporary.

[WestTowner]

Originally Posted by BruceP

Today's Sun-Times reported that the parking lots are temporary.

Over/under: 10 years before the parking lots get developed. I'll go over.

[ardecila]

^ Bingo.

The one thing that makes me hopeful is that Related (and/or Nadhmi Auchi's heirs) will still own the land underneath, and they can make more money building residential towers than by keeping the land in parking and charging rent to the Fire.

But the most desirable residential location is probably at the north end by Roosevelt, where you can walk to shopping and CTA. The south end of this development may take a very long time to fill in.

[dreamy-developer]

Originally Posted by WestTowner

Over/under: 10 years before the parking lots get developed. I'll go over.

This was exactly my thoughts too ^^

They may mark and say it's "temporary" but temporary for how long? Seeing Related own all of this plot of land, it could be anywhere from 2-5 years time until it gets developed

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ Bingo.

The one thing that makes me hopeful is that Related (and/or Nadhmi Auchi's heirs) will still own the land underneath, and they can make more money building residential towers than by keeping the land in parking and charging rent to the Fire.

But the most desirable residential location is probably at the north end by Roosevelt, where you can walk to shopping and CTA. The south end of this development may take a very long time to fill in.

To that end, in terms of the overall development, wouldn't it be preferable to have the stadium pushed south?

[BruceP]

Originally Posted by WestTowner

Over/under: 10 years before the parking lots get developed. I'll go over.

That may be, but developers have to work with the data they have today. No one has a time machine they can hop into to see what the situation is 5, 10, 15 years from now. BTW, the Illinois Center development was first proposed in 1968 and they're still working on it.