HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6521  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 12:55 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
Such a passionate debate over a proposal that probably won't start for at least a couple years (if at all, considering the state of Wong's other projects) in a rather desolate area where nothing of value will be destroyed.

If we're OK with a giant pagoda hotel, why not this? Eastern Tower actually looks like highrise buildings you would see in East/SE Asia.

The mall portion sounds interesting - I wonder if it will be like the ones in Canada. Maybe they can attach some huge video screens for visual interest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6522  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 1:13 AM
TorancisOMP's Avatar
TorancisOMP TorancisOMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
Such a passionate debate over a proposal that probably won't start for at least a couple years
Yeah thats what this forum is about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
The mall portion sounds interesting - I wonder if it will be like the ones in Canada. Maybe they can attach some huge video screens for visual interest.
spyguy-- you are right, they got inspiration from Pacific Mall in Toronto because they attached pictures of the mall at the end of the brochure that gave me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6523  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 8:43 AM
Abner Abner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
This could become an important center of the neighborhood if it turns out decent. I mean Chinatown doesn't really have a lot of gathering spaces
This is the part of this plan I don't understand. Chinatown Square already has a plaza on Archer that's located at the center of retail in the neighborhood and actually a pretty good space, aside from being up against Archer. As for this location, nobody is going to be starting parades here because the location is just too bad for it. There is no way to get to this location on foot that does not involve walking through either a block-long spooky viaduct or a nightmarish hellscape. This is a location that will be accessed mostly by drivers. Lots of Chinese people will indeed walk there because they don't really have a choice--in fact you see a lot of people walking from Bridgeport up Wentworth to Chinatown, which has to be one of the least pleasant walks I can think of in the central area.

If the market for Chinese retail and business activity is going to be large enough to support a big development here, I say go for it, but I have no idea why they would bother with a weird plaza in a place that would still be the middle of nowhere even if it were surrounded by 20 story buildings. (I also have no idea who's going to buy eight-story ads facing 24th Place, but whatever.) Unfortunately, geography and existing development mean that Chinatown is going to be a weird, disjointed jumble of ugly places for a long time to come. Since this is never going to be a seamless neighborhood anyway, I wonder why Wong isn't developing some of the lots closer to the Halsted Orange Line stop. Aside from being closer to the train, it would be easily accessible to the fair-sized Asian population at UIC via the Halsted bus. I guess there must be a pretty big price difference.

Honte is right, the recent developments in Chinatown and the 55-90/94 armpit zone are easily among the worst in the city. The bright side is that this ugliness and the generally unpleasant surroundings at least keep things pretty affordable for the community.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6524  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 9:12 AM
Abner Abner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 577
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
Have you seen Archer Courts before? It's right in the heart of Chinatown... a perfectly good adaptive reuse of the old typical housing projects. It's also a first-rate example of a design that successfully updated a building and injected a bit of new life (eg, not 100% preservation) but which did so with care and respect for the old. The end result is a complex better architecturally than the original, but true to its intentions. In fact, many of the gallery-style projects were intended to have glass-enclosed halls, but budget and other concerns prevented this.
Archer Courts is perfectly good (I'm glad you didn't overreach), but I don't think it's exactly comparable. It works fine because it now just looks like a (mostly) ugly, bland apartment complex, and not a very big one at that. I'm probably one of the most zealous people around here about how demolition senselessly wastes materials and displaces people by driving up prices, but I'm still concerned that the place of highrise projects in the collective conscious is so abysmal that it's best to get rid of them or at least make them utterly unrecognizable. The Ickes buildings are much larger scale than Archer Courts and look exactly like the archetypal Chicago projects in terms of architecture and urban design. Is there a way to preserve what it is reasonable to preserve while making them no longer resemble what they currently are? The staggering of the long, tall buildings creates courtyards that are set back, and both enclosed and deeply shadowed by imposing buildings on all sides, making them look like prison yards. The complex looks insular. Can these things be fixed without tearing down at least some of the bulidings?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6525  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 5:27 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,235
An email I received:

Development in the South Loop is About to Change

By Enrique G. Perez


Change is in the air. The City of Chicago is considering implementing what is probably the most comprehensive and far reaching development action plan regarding the Central Area of Chicago in recent years. Termed the "Central Area Action Plan," the stated purpose of the Plan is to continue the implementation of the 2003 Central Area Plan. The Plan has been in the works for some 18 months, according to the Plan's web site, and its links are listed below. Some 30 business and civic leaders participated in the drafting the Plan, the same being acknowledged in the executive summary.

If approved, the plan will affect the Central Area of Chicago in terms of its economic development & land use, transportation, and urban design, waterfront & open space categories. The Plan will affect each of the 12 sub districts in the Central Area, which are Cabrini, Near North, River North, Streeterville, Near West, West Loop, Central Loop, South Loop, River South, South West Loop, Near South and Chinatown. These sub district areas encompass parts of the 2nd, 3rd, 25th, 27th, 42nd, and 43rd Wards.

To my knowledge, the above meeting on April 2 that is sponsored by 42nd Ward Alderman Brendan Reilly is the only community meeting planned on this all important topic, even though five other wards are affected. I can only hope that other community meetings are immediately scheduled.

A review of the attached documents will reveal some far reaching effects steming from the Plan. To start, the Plan outlines two separate scenarios for growth in the Central Area: a Base Case (less optimistic) and an Opportunity (more optimistic) scenario that could affect development and growth. The executive summary also refers to "annual development benchmarks established in the 2003 Plan [that] were met or exceeded since its publication." The Plan also lists the hope that the 2016 Olympics, if Chicago were to win them, would accelerate the growth benchmarks in the Central Area.

In the area of building heights, the Plan introduces the idea of "Conceptual Principles for Building Heights." Having read through some of the original community-specific plans that were established by the City in 2003, including the Near South Community Plan, this new "Conceptual" approach quite honestly appears to obliterate the height restrictions that were either stated or implied in those plans. For example, in the area of the South Loop bounded by Congress, Roosevelt Rd., the Chicago River, and Wabash, the designation used to describe the area in this new "Conceptual" approach is "Transition Zone," where "Tall and Mid-rise buildings" are allowed (See Chapter 3, Page 7 of the attachment). This contrasts with the Near South Community Plan, where the height limit guidelines are listed as being in accordance with the surrounding existing buildings (i.e. those that existed before some of the current crop of tall buildings were built that have had the effect of raising the average building heights of their respective areas). As a case in point, the Plan specifically states that an 80-story building has been "announced" for the Franklin Pointe area at the southwest corner of Congress and Wells (see Chapter 4, Page 6 of the attachment).

In the area of transportation, the Plan calls for the completion of the Taylor Street Bridge sometime in the 2012 to 2016 time frame at a cost of $50 Million (See Page 19 of the Executive Summary). Phase II of the Wells-Wentworth Connector is supposed to be completed in that time frame as well, with Phase I being done by 2012. As many of you might recall from community meetings of some years ago, Wells Street, which becomes Wentworth somewhere south of Roosevelt Rd., is supposed to become a major traffic arterial on par with State and Clark Streets. Also on the horizon according to the Plan, a second bridge across the Chicago River is supposed to be built at either Polk or 16th Streets sometime in the 2016 to 2020 time frame. All of this is on top of several CTA station modernizations that are also supposed to occur.

Specific to the South Loop under "2020 Visions/Goals," the Plan states that "The South Loop will continue its role as an expansion area for the concentration of high learning institutions..." From this, one can only surmise that the South Loop will continue to see an increase in the number of college students, as well as an increase in student housing. In terms of South Loop parking, the Plan seems to acknowledge that parking is a problem, which is something that any resident or visitor to the South Loop can easily attest to, by saying that "The parking policy in the South Loop merits review..." and that "Minimum parking ratios may not be creating enough spaces for visitors and business customers..." In a seemingly contradictory statement however, the Plan states that "Surface parking lots provide most of the opportunities for current and future infill development...," mentioning the parking lots at 901 S. State St. and 1001 S. State St. as future devel opment sites (See Chapter 4, page 14). These two statements beg the question as to whether the City of Chicago is going to actively encourage more development on the remaining parking lots in the South Loop.

Regarding Congress Parkway, the Plan calls for upgrading Congress to "accommodate high levels of pedestrian mobility while also maintaining its role as a key east/west vehicle arterial." The Plan predicts a "further increase in pedestrian traffic" due to "Development proposals for areas immediately south of Congress along the Chicago River." I just wonder if the Plan might once again be referring to the "announced" 80-story building at Franklin Pointe?

For the Near South Area (south of Roosevelt Rd. down to the Stevenson Expressway), the Plan is going to "Consider a new public school to serve growing number of households." My biggest concern in this regard is that the City will underestimate the amount of both elementary and high school capacity that will be needed in the South Loop/Near South side over the coming years. In the time that I have lived in the South Loop, the second fastest growing segment of the population (as I have perceived it) has been families with school-age children. This "pipeline" is now filled with a growing and possibly unsustainable demographic pressure, absent some quick near-term action by our elected officials. In short, more schools need to be built.

Additionally, the Plan also mentions other waterfront, open space, transportation, and urban-design improvements, such as improvements to the Chicago River waterway, Northerly island, and Grant Park, among many many others. The Plan is truly comprehensive in its scope, and detailed in many of its specifics. It will also be expensive to fulfill.

The greater point however is that the Central Area Action Plan is going to have major ramifications for all development in the 12 sub districts that comprise the Central Area, not just in the South Loop area. The meeting headlined above is a great start at informing the River North/Fulton River District community about something that will affect everything from property values to quality of life, so for this I would like to thank Alderman Reilly for getting the "ball rolling."

By extension, the question must now be asked: When are the other 11 sub districts going to have their community meetings to inform their residents of these community-altering changes that the Plan proposes. Furthermore, who is going to call these meetings? Logic dictates that the aldermen of the affected wards do so. The situation also dictates that they do so immediately.

At a bare minimum, the people have the right to know.



The Central Area Action Plan (DRAFT) Documents:


Central Area Action Plan Executive Summary
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webpor...mm20090313.pdf


Chapter 1: Land Use
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webpor...1_Land_Use.pdf

Chapter 2: Transportation
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webpor..._Transport.pdf

Chapter 3: Design
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webpor...t_3_Design.pdf

Chapter 4: North Sub Districts
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webpor...bdistricts.pdf

Chapter 4: South Sub Districts
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webpor...bdistricts.pdf

Chapter 4: Central Sub Districts
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webpor...bdistricts.pdf
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6526  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 6:11 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
.

Last edited by Loopy; May 17, 2010 at 12:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6527  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 7:23 PM
schwerve schwerve is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 343
there is some seriously cool stuff in the transportation section, clinton subway, lakefront/carrol/monroe transitways, WLTC; an urbanists dream.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6528  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 1:01 AM
orulz orulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by schwerve View Post
there is some seriously cool stuff in the transportation section, clinton subway, lakefront/carrol/monroe transitways, WLTC; an urbanists dream.
The transportation section is indeed a transit geek's dream. Most significantly they have some eye-poppingly fast timelines in mind for some of these projects. I can believe 2012 for Carrol Ave and phase one of the Clinton transitway, but it calls for the full WLTC, plus phase 1 of the Clinton subway, plus the Monroe transitway, plus the "lakefront transitway" -- all to be done by 2016??

Last edited by orulz; Mar 31, 2009 at 1:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6529  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 1:22 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Since I"m on vacation and on a slow computer that poorly processes pdf files, can somebody give me a one-liner about what the Monroe transitway is?
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12

....but get a V8 before it's too late
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6530  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 1:22 AM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
.

Last edited by Loopy; May 17, 2010 at 12:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6531  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 2:25 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
TUP, all I have to say is, it sucks you can't see that document! DROOL! If only we could just make 13.5 billion appear out of thin air! COUGH OLYMPICS COUGH...

Man that document proves all you Daley haters wrong, it shows the complex and varied transit expansions that Daley will probably ask for funding for if we get the Olympics. The WLTC MUST BE BUILT! a 4 level transit center combining bus, Metra, CTA, Amtrak all into one station! ZOMG I LLLOVE IT...


Too bad we probably won't even get half of that before 2020...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6532  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 2:27 AM
ChicagoChicago ChicagoChicago is offline
Chicago carpetbagger
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chicago, Atlanta, Nashville
Posts: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Since I"m on vacation and on a slow computer that poorly processes pdf files, can somebody give me a one-liner about what the Monroe transitway is?
"A grade-separated east-west transit way through the heart of the Central Loop beneath Monroe Street, connecting West Loop rail terminals with the Central Business District and Lakefront recreation areas."

Cost estimate is $200mm.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6533  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 2:34 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ Blimey! That was my plan!

LOL, actually I think I just arrived at a separate conclusion that a line like that was needed, since it makes total sense. I definitely look forward to viewing the transportation improvements when I get the chance
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12

....but get a V8 before it's too late
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6534  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 2:41 AM
orulz orulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Since I"m on vacation and on a slow computer that poorly processes pdf files, can somebody give me a one-liner about what the Monroe transitway is?
The document refers to it as the East-West transitway.
Its description:
A grade-separated east-west transitway through the heart of the Central Loop beneath Monroe Street, connecting the West Loop rail terminals with the Central Business District and Lakefront recreation areas.

I think all the "transitways" mentioned in this plan (Monroe, Carroll, Clinton, Lakefront) are being planned as busways. The closest analogies in the US are probably the Seattle transit tunnel and the Boston silver line waterfront segment. They might be guided busways, and I guess they might choose to put tracks in the transitway like Seattle did, but they also might not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6535  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 3:20 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ I figure we should take any further discussion of this to the transit thread.

But I decided to read the transit portion of the pdf file (yeah, it actually worked pretty well). I am as blown away as the rest of you guys. Chicago has a lot of ambitious transportation projects planned. I just hope it can get the funding to complete all of them before I'm a bearded old guy with a cane.

I definitely like the idea of the Clinton subway and the various downtown transitways (Clinton/Carroll Ave, Lakefront) and agree that the Wells-Wentworth connection and additional bridges across the south branch of the River are important investments for the future.

Now lets go get us some $13 billion!
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12

....but get a V8 before it's too late
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6536  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 3:38 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,104
Recession? What recession?



I'm liking the optimism and good vibes coming recently. We're arguing over new building proposals and spiffy new transit plans, just like the good ol' days.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6537  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 3:42 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,104
Zaha Hadid's Burnham Pavilion

Found this on Google. Couldn't find anything on Van Berkel's design, but it should be unveiled officially later this week.




Burnham Pavilion, Chicago

Zaha Hadid Architects participation in the Burnham Plan Centennial celebrations is a great opportunity to participate in Chicago’s ongoing tradition of bold plans and big dreams with an architectural design at the scale of a pavilion. Our design will echo Chicago’s cutting edge cultural and architectural landscape by introducing a new Zaha Hadid Pavilion Concept into Millennium Park.

The form of the pavilion is derived from the intersection of ellipsoids creating arching interior spaces that envelope the visitor flow. The structure is expressed via a series of diagonal sections that are in line with the historic axis of the unbuilt Plan of Chicago. These arching structural devices are erected along a gradient and therefore display areas of lesser density towards the centre of the pavilion in order to allow controlled daylight into the structure. The louvers in the ceiling underline the design intent of referring to the historic diagonal that cuts through the site and help to create a vivacious interior space that changes throughout the day according to sun angles and weather conditions. They appear like cuts in a canvas and cohere with the choice of material and construction method.

The pavilion is made from a light weight aluminium structure that is then “dressed” in a tensile fabric. As fabric behaves in specific ways, once tensile forces are applied, the resulting exterior skin undulates in anticlastic curvatures along the guiding rails of the aluminium substructure. The aluminium ribs are deliberately expressed through the external skin.

In the pavilions interior the materiality corresponds with its exterior. The continuity of material allows for a coherent overall look and feel. Since the pavilion will serve as a display for projections layers of fabric are integrated in its interior walls that allow for front and back as well as for double projections taking place throughout the day. Layering of fabric and of images create visual highlights and involve the visitor in a unique overall experience. The superimposition of visual materials and the visitor within the pavilion leads to the integration of the pavilion, the visitor and the display. The pavilion becomes the display and the visitor becomes part of the image.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6538  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 3:53 AM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
TUP, all I have to say is, it sucks you can't see that document! DROOL! If only we could just make 13.5 billion appear out of thin air! COUGH OLYMPICS COUGH...

Man that document proves all you Daley haters wrong, it shows the complex and varied transit expansions that Daley will probably ask for funding for if we get the Olympics. The WLTC MUST BE BUILT! a 4 level transit center combining bus, Metra, CTA, Amtrak all into one station! ZOMG I LLLOVE IT...


Too bad we probably won't even get half of that before 2020...
wait... what? why are so many of you guys pro-olympics. among its many other cons, it will do tremendous amounts of economic damage to this city. why do you guys think it'll just magically spawn 13.5 billion. in fact i'd be very worried if we did magically spawn that money and built all this, because the city could never sustain all the over-growth.
it's such flawed thinking.
we need more responsible and realistic planning in this city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6539  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 4:15 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ I'm not saying the 13 billion is going to be profit from the games, I'm saying a large chunk of it will come from the Federal government (as has happened with every American city that has gotten the games) if we secure the bid. If you don't believe that we'll get billions in transit funding if we win the game then you are ignoring history.

Also, your assessment about the games doing "economic damage" to this city is just false. If you want to discredit other's opinions on Architecture because you are an architecture student, then I will simply discredit your opinions of Economics being a Economics and Finance major myself... I will say this, looking at past precedent and theoretical predictions, there is almost zero chance of the games having a net negative effect on the economy. I'm sorry but every single summer games that has come to the United States has been profitable, that is fact...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6540  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 4:40 AM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 12,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianXSands View Post
wait... what? why are so many of you guys pro-olympics. .
Why would you think some of us or even I being pro-olympics?

But I do have to agree with Nowhereman's point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:08 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.