CHICAGO | General Developments

[nomarandlee]

The biggest problam with the RC can be easily summed up in that it looks like when you go there it will feel like a CONCEPT from one end to the other. The more you are going to make look something look like a concept the more the bar is raised in making sure the details of the concept is held to a high standard. It looks like if you pulled out any of these portions of the RC it would be kinda "meh", when you put a bunch of "mehs" together in concept form like RC it can quickly go bad.

[honte]

^ Well, that is a good way to put it. I agree, it feels somewhat contrived, like an "instant town centre," and that may be why it's drawing the Naperville comments (although of course Naperville has quite a nice older downtown).

Architecturally, my main complaint is not with the low-rises, however dull they appear, but with that Loewenbergish tower! It looks decent from East-West, and then from North-South there is all that painted concrete...

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton

Sometimes symmetry works better than just a haphazard mishmash of buildings. I'm also not sure what is wrong with something that is all glass, or all brick. Is the Trump Tower, and numerous other buildings that are all glass "totally monotonous" as well? I'm not claiming that RC is an architectural masterpiece; but at the same time, the buildings seem relatively nice and there are many buildings in Chicago that are far worse/uglier.

Also, all the comparisons of RC to Naperville are absolutely absurd and need to stop. RC will be a great addition to the community - it will bring a lot of things to the South Loop that the South Loop is currently missing....a 16-screen theater while at the moment, the South Loop as NO theatres....a bowling alley, which the South Loop currently lacks....another health club, which the South Loop doesn't have many of yet....a park that will have lots of concerts, fairs, and farmers markets, giving the neighborhood much more vibrancy....TONS of restaurants and retail - something that the South Loop is greatly lacking right now. What's Naperville-ish about this? Is everyone trying to say that only suburbanites like to go out to the movies? That only suburbanites work out at gyms and like to bowl? I realize that some of you may have been really attached to the status quo of that area, which is the oh-so-cosmopolitan parking lots and fields of weeds....but I guess I am one of the few that thinks that the RC is a big step foward over the parking lots and fields of weeds that currently occupy that area. Crazy, I know.

No one disagrees that the South Loop needs movie theatres, retail, bowling alleys... etc. But the design of it is terrible. It promotes car use, does not focus retail on major corridors, rather hides it inside a dead end, allowing only one traffic choking enterance and exit. This in of itself is a suburban mentality.

Your claims of suburbanites being the only ones going to movies or bowling is pretty ludacris. As for the "cosmopolitain fields of weeds" as you call them, yes, i think i would rather hold on to them for a little while longer for a better idea to come around. People dont marry the first person they meet. Chicago deserves better.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

Originally Posted by left of center

No one disagrees that the South Loop needs movie theatres, retail, bowling alleys... etc. But the design of it is terrible. It promotes car use, does not focus retail on major corridors, rather hides it inside a dead end, allowing only one traffic choking enterance and exit. This in of itself is a suburban mentality.

Your claims of suburbanites being the only ones going to movies or bowling is pretty ludacris. As for the "cosmopolitain fields of weeds" as you call them, yes, i think i would rather hold on to them for a little while longer for a better idea to come around. People dont marry the first person they meet. Chicago deserves better.

a) So you're saying that only people in suburbs drive cars? You're right, I've never seen anyone in a car in NYC, LA, Hong Kong, etc. Many people will walk or take the el when going to the RC. But it is going to be more ideal for some people to drive there. Just like it is more ideal for some people to drive to a Bears game, just like it is more ideal for some people to drive to any sports event/concert/cultural event in any major city in the country. I guess by your logic professional sports teams, big concerts, cultural events, etc. are all part of the suburban mentality too, as some people actually drive their cars to these events. What are these country hicks driving their cars to these events thinking? How unsophisticated can they get?

b) There is more than one entrance/exit in RC, so get your facts straight before you spew off more "ludacris" nonsense.

c) What "major corridors" are even in existence, on the RC property? Are you suggesting that instead of building the RC, we should try to convince businesses to set up shop underneath the Metra tracks? Perhaps you should learn a little bit about the actual location of RC, before you assert that there are much better ways to develop the land that RC will be on.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton

a) So you're saying that only people in suburbs drive cars? You're right, I've never seen anyone in a car in NYC, LA, Hong Kong, etc. Many people will walk or take the el when going to the RC. But it is going to be more ideal for some people to drive there. Just like it is more ideal for some people to drive to a Bears game, just like it is more ideal for some people to drive to any sports event/concert/cultural event in any major city in the country. I guess by your logic professional sports teams, big concerts, cultural events, etc. are all part of the suburban mentality too, as some people actually drive their cars to these events. What are these country hicks driving their cars to these events thinking? How unsophisticated can they get?

b) There is more than one entrance/exit in RC, so get your facts straight before you spew off more "ludacris" nonsense.

c) What "major corridors" are even in existence, on the RC property? Are you suggesting that instead of building the RC, we should try to convince businesses to set up shop underneath the Metra tracks? Perhaps you should learn a little bit about the actual location of RC, before you assert that there are much better ways to develop the land that RC will be on.

A) I never said only suburbanites drive cars. I never stated my opinion on Bears games, concerts, cultural events, etc. I never called car drivers country hicks. I never made direct connections between not driving and sophistication. With that said, have you observed how successful retail districts work in this city? Good examples would be State St, Michigan Ave, and Lincoln, Clark, Broadway, etc. on the North Side. Key word here is pedestrian presence. Ofcourse some people will choose to drive. The point is the developer should encourage walking. The RC in its current state doesn't really do that.

B) There is only one entrance/exit for vehicle traffic, which is the issue i was alluding to.

C) Uhm.... Roosevelt Rd? I know plenty of the geography of that location, and i think an extension of the street grid would have been a better idea (extending LaSalle and Financial down to Roosevelt, and 9th or 11th west into the property) or atleast a system of roadways that would better connect the retail area with the rest of the neighborhood, since the Metra ROW would be an issue. Ironically, there are plans for retail underneath Metra tracks in the Loop, funny you should mention that.


The fact that you twist my words with such conviction is really interesting. Im merely posting my thoughts here, and you somehow takes offense to what i say, or act as if im personally attacking you. You gotta chill out, guy.

[a chicago bearcat]

I'd like to say that I don't find Roosevelt collection completely ridiculous

I'd just like to see how the wells facade is going to be treated, and how they are going to get pedestrians from the surrounding neighborhood utilizing the town center they've created

I understand it would be expected for pedestrians to traverse the park, and walk up the steps shown in the rendering to access the town center, but if a retail area is that detatched from the rest of the neighborhood it could end up as a purely motor vehicle destination even for those within a 10 minute walk

Such a large portion of this project is parking, and it seems this podium development could feel completely disconnected from the neighborhood if it treats its edges as borders instead of transitions. Working street retail, as in this project needs a real street in order to thrive, I just don't see it.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

Originally Posted by left of center

A) I never said only suburbanites drive cars. I never stated my opinion on Bears games, concerts, cultural events, etc. I never called car drivers country hicks. I never made direct connections between not driving and sophistication. With that said, have you observed how successful retail districts work in this city? Good examples would be State St, Michigan Ave, and Lincoln, Clark, Broadway, etc. on the North Side. Key word here is pedestrian presence. Ofcourse some people will choose to drive. The point is the developer should encourage walking. The RC in its current state doesn't really do that.

B) There is only one entrance/exit for vehicle traffic, which is the issue i was alluding to.

C) Uhm.... Roosevelt Rd? I know plenty of the geography of that location, and i think an extension of the street grid would have been a better idea (extending LaSalle and Financial down to Roosevelt, and 9th or 11th west into the property) or atleast a system of roadways that would better connect the retail area with the rest of the neighborhood, since the Metra ROW would be an issue. Ironically, there are plans for retail underneath Metra tracks in the Loop, funny you should mention that.


The fact that you twist my words with such conviction is really interesting. Im merely posting my thoughts here, and you somehow takes offense to what i say, or act as if im personally attacking you. You gotta chill out, guy.

To your responses:

A) What exactly is the developer of RC doing to discourage walking? Those who live within walking distance to RC will walk there, no matter what. Those who don't live within walking distance will not walk there, no matter what. It's a pretty simple concept. I'm not sure what the developer could possibly even do to make a big impact on the number of people walking to RC vs. not walking there. I assume you think that because RC has it's own underground parking, walking to RC is somehow being discouraged. As if people who lived in Lakeview or Hyde Park would plan on walking to RC, but once they realize that RC has parking, will drive there instead.

B) There will be an entrance/exit on Roosevelt and an entrance/exit on Wells. I may not be a math prodigy, but I believe that adds up to more than one.

C) Already on all sections of Roosevelt nearby RC, there is tons of retail in existence or sprouting up. However, the section of Roosevelt at RC is a bridge. So I'm not sure what kind of retail you had in mind for Roosevelt in that area. A couple hot dog venders repelling over the Roosevelt Street bridge? The parking garage in RC that you and others on here rip on is in fact creating the ability to connect Roosevelt with the whole plot of land that RC is on, in the first place. And as for the retail underneath the Metra tracks that you refer to, it will be in a preexisting building where the entrance to the Metra is contained in. The Metra track between Polk and Roosevelt is supported by a concrete wall that is maybe 7 or 8 feet high....don't think anyone will be squeezing shops underneath it.

And just to let you know, I take no offense to what I say. I just like messing with people on this site who get all snobbish about their architecture, or get all snobbish in general....especially since it is usually well deserved.

Just curious, what would be your master plan for the RC parcel of land?

[detroitismylove]

Originally Posted by Latoso

It was great! Free booze and they had a dj and go-go dancers. What more could one want.

Awesome. I recieved an invitation in the mail last week but was unable to travel to Chicago this week. Im glad you had a great time! Looks like an amazing project for the South Loop.

[honte]

Man, this place got pretty nasty all of the sudden. Who would have thought this small development would generate such heated arguments? Maybe we do need that Roosevelt Megaprojects thread?

[alex1]

without having to get ugly, I just wanted to support my belief that if you build lots of parking (if it's FREE), you are in turn supporting increased vehicular dependence.

People want convenience, and FREE parking in bunches undoubtably gives them that. This is one reason why I'm against the parking garage proposed for Wrigley Field. It's not good long term urban policy to dedicate so much space to the car.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton

a) So you're saying that only people in suburbs drive cars? You're right, I've never seen anyone in a car in NYC, LA, Hong Kong, etc. Many people will walk or take the el when going to the RC. But it is going to be more ideal for some people to drive there. Just like it is more ideal for some people to drive to a Bears game, just like it is more ideal for some people to drive to any sports event/concert/cultural event in any major city in the country. I guess by your logic professional sports teams, big concerts, cultural events, etc. are all part of the suburban mentality too, as some people actually drive their cars to these events. What are these country hicks driving their cars to these events thinking? How unsophisticated can they get?

^ That's the second person whose words you put in their mouth. Please stop arguing in this fashion. BTW, I agree that RC does not detract from pedestrians just because it has parking. But this is what gets me, from 9th street all the way to 12th street, if you want to get into this development from Clark St as a pedestrian, how will you do it? Is there even 1 pedestrian entrance to this on its east side between those 2 roads? If not, then that's pretty damn sad, and shows us whom this development caters to (drivers!).

b) There is more than one entrance/exit in RC, so get your facts straight before you spew off more "ludacris" nonsense.

^ It's spelled 'ludicrous'. Also, Wells is just a garage entrance, right? So when it comes to through street traffic, RC has only one entrance and exit.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by honte

Man, this place got pretty nasty all of the sudden. Who would have thought this small development would generate such heated arguments? Maybe we do need that Roosevelt Megaprojects thread?

^ Well, I think it's worthwile to discuss RC because it's a pretty major development that sets the tone for that part of the city. A lot of people have strong opinions about it because many people believe that the Dept of Planning and Devt went to sleep on this one. I happen to agree

[spyguy]

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by spyguy

^ So the only pedestrian access points are Roosevelt and a long staircase at 9th? Boy, I can't wait for those choking traffic bottlenecks to arrive, reminding everyone about the consequences of bad planning

[honte]

Speaking of choking bottlenecks and poor planning, does anyone else see imminent disaster with that tiny, one-lane road they put in at Lakeshore East? There is barely enough room to pass a parked car, and now they are starting to add retail in bizarre places, such as that bank on the lower level of the Shoreham.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ That's the second person whose words you put in their mouth. Please stop arguing in this fashion. BTW, I agree that RC does not detract from pedestrians just because it has parking. But this is what gets me, from 9th street all the way to 12th street, if you want to get into this development from Clark St as a pedestrian, how will you do it? Is there even 1 pedestrian entrance to this on its east side between those 2 roads? If not, then that's pretty damn sad, and shows us whom this development caters to (drivers!).



^ It's spelled 'ludicrous'. Also, Wells is just a garage entrance, right? So when it comes to through street traffic, RC has only one entrance and exit.

There are Metra tracks blocking entrance to this parcel of land, between Polk and Roosevelt. It has NOTHING to do with RC: no matter how the land is developed, people trying to get into this area on the east side will either have to enter at Polk or Roosevelt.

As for the ludicrous comment, I was poking fun of Left of Center's misspelling of the word, hence the quotation marks. I apologize if that went over your head.

I am in NO way trying to compare this development to Michigan or 5th avenue. All I am saying is for what the developer was given, he/she did a pretty good job. So many of you on here are going on and on about the area should be developed to have an open space with rows of restaurants, shops, and bars along all the streets....ala Manhattan or some parts of Chicago on the North Side. What all of you are either forgetting (or not even realizing) is that directly to the east, RC is bounded by Metra tracks....directly to the south, RC is bounded by the Roosevelt street bridge - which is greatly elevated over RC's parcel of land....directly to the west is Wells street, which currently is a dirt road heading south of Polk, and then ends even before it makes it to Roosevelt. Even once Wells is built up more, RC will still essentially be bounded/blocked off by the River on it's west side, as the river is just a half a block west of Wells. The most "pedestrian friendly" entrance/boundry of RC is Polk Street, which just happens to dead end at Wells due to the river.

I am huge fan myself of open space corridors full of shops, restaurants, bars, etc. I think that the South Loop will still get a lot of that - particularly at State, Wabash, and Michigan. But it ain't happening here. RC is bounded by train tracks mounted on a concrete wall, a bridge, a river, and a dead-end road on all 4 sides. I've seen many pieces of land in cities in the past along the lines of RC's parcel of land (including in NYC, which so many of you in here seem to strive for Chicago to become more like) and almost in all cases, the land was complete unused/abandoned. The developer should be lauded for still being able to put this land to pretty good use. The South Loop is the largest growing area of Chicago and it doesn't even have a movie theater or bowling alley, and is severely lacking in restaurants, shops, and health clubs. RC will deliver on the area's immediate needs for these things, and can almost serve as an anchor retail area in which smaller, streetside shops/restaurants/businesses will spout off from.

To everyone who is ripping on RC, I really have to ask: what would be your master plan for the area if you were the developer? I'm really not sure that anyone could come up with something that much better, given RC's geographical constraints.

The one thing that I will agree with most people on is that it probably would be to not allow free parking in the RC lots, as it might inspire a few lazy people to drive to RC, who could have otherwise walked. But I'm not even 100% sure if RC has even communicated yet if the parking will be free or not? If they are planning on offering free parking, that would be something that they should reconsider, as paid parking would result in only the people who need to drive actually doing so, and cutting down on veichle traffic.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton

To everyone who is ripping on RC, I really have to ask: what would be your master plan for the area if you were the developer? I'm really not sure that anyone could come up with something that much better, given RC's geographical constraints.

This is the best point you've made so far. From the developer's perspective, there might not be too much more you can do (planning-wise - the architecture still sucks and it's a different story). But that's why I've been complaining all along that the city has failed us from a planning perspective. Much more could be done if all the parties were involved.

As for the Metra tracks on the side of the property, there must be a solution. In my opinion, it would be worth the taxpayer expense to rework this track, or Clark Street.

Could Clark be raised from Polk southward in a way that is respectful of Dearborn Park? (That would really wall them off - just what they want!) Could the tracks be sunken or rerouted? (Sure, it's expensive, but a better use than Daley's stupid idea of rerouting the spur near 16th, which isn't a problem unless you're a yuppie who bought a condo right next to it without thinking that there was a train track outside your window.) To reintegrate all this land with the city, I think it easily would be worth it.

But these are the kinds of things that the city must take on, not the developers, unless they are real visionaries.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

I think that one thing that almost all of us on this board can agree on is that it is pretty funny/ironic that the handful of malcontents from Folio Square, who protested nonstop against Burnham Pointe, are not protesting against RC. One of their main supposed gripes against Burnham Pointe was the traffic that it would create. I think it's safe to say that there are going to be at least a few more cars entering and exiting from RC. Another big gripe of there's was that Burnham Pointe was out of scale compared to the rest of the neighborhood. The high-rise in the 2nd phase of RC is a good 10 stories higher than Burnham Pointe (although I guess it isn't directly blocking their view!)

[a chicago bearcat]

^ burnham pointe and Roosevelt collection are separated by a bit of distance

and I think the prospect of more retail in the area subdues complaints

although I'd still protest the dullness of the RC tower, it seems out of place
as if it should've been built 7 years ago in river north, and I still want to see how wells is being addressed

[Sir Isaac Newton]

Originally Posted by a chicago bearcat

^ burnham pointe and Roosevelt collection are separated by a bit of distance

and I think the prospect of more retail in the area subdues complaints

although I'd still protest the dullness of the RC tower, it seems out of place
as if it should've been built 7 years ago in river north, and I still want to see how wells is being addressed

They are roughly 100 yards apart. When you bring up Wells, are you referring to how RC will incorporate Wells into the development or how the city will renovate/develop Wells? I believe the city is planning on paving Wells all the way down to Roosevelt in the next year or two, with plans to possibly develop it further south, later on....