HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #10041  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 5:09 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21 View Post
Not to go all NIMBY BUT. Going to bring a lot of congestion to that area. They should really look into sinking those tracks from about Ada all the way in. They would open up a lot of the road connectivity in the area.
Meh. Kinzie is pretty dead west of Desplaines even at rush. Fulton isn't very usable due to the streetscape project which will (finally) wrap in 2019 I think.

Just spend more effort on the pedestrian experience and connections to bus/rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10042  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 5:11 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,617
^ prob the least pedestrian friendly in all of downtown chicago
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10043  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 5:13 PM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
There is no parking requirement for office. So no.
Offices have a parking requirement. and any B,C,M,D in the Transit zone can get parking reductions.

Office buildings can't get a density increase because they have no density, they can get an increase in bulk, however.

In fact, because it is poorly written, parking garages in the transit zone could get an increase in bulk.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10044  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 5:47 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Yeah I found that bothersome too, I’m hoping it was just a misunderstanding of parking spots in total?

Also, does the TOD ordinance apply to office buildings as well? So far it seems like only apartment developers have taken advantage of the density bonuses and parking reductions.
Just directionally, this doesn't feel right. Though parking is of course available in the heart of the CBD, driving clearly isn't intended to be the preferred means of transportation. But in this case, what is the developer's intent? .... is it to market this location as an alternative where employees can easily drive to work...? I imagine there is a market for that sort of thing, but besides the congestion question, it feels at odds with the intent of a CBD to have large auto-oriented offices on the fringes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10045  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 6:01 PM
i_am_hydrogen i_am_hydrogen is offline
tilted & shifted
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,604
Reilly Rejects Lakeshore East Parcel "IJKL" Proposal

Reilly Rejects Lakeshore East Parcel "IJKL" Proposal

Dear Neighbor:

I am writing to provide you with an update regarding LendLease and Magellan Development Group's proposed development of parcels "I, J, K & L" in Planned Development #70 that governs zoning in the Lakeshore East neighborhood.

The initial community meeting attracted over 1,000 residents and lasted more than three hours. In addition - to ensure every resident was afforded an opportunity to raise concerns - I required the Developer to host individual public meetings with every residential building in the neighborhood. Two members of my staff attended every meeting and took very detailed notes.

My office also received hundreds of letters, emails, and calls objecting to the proposal. In addition, I asked every condominium association in Lakeshore East to send me their "punch-lists" of concerns and suggestions related to the project.

After carefully reviewing substantial neighborhood feedback; cataloguing my own concerns regarding the proposal; and after discussions with the City Department of Planning & Development; I have determined this project will not move forward.

My office has informed Magellan & LendLease that their proposal for sites "I, J, K & L" is rejected and will not move forward in its current form.

There are a number of issues that must be resolved by a future proposal for this development site. Some (not all) of those issues include:

Provide more usable, contiguous & active open green space that will serve as a real public benefit to the surrounding neighborhood;

Eliminate the grand staircase & associated zigzag pedestrian path and replace it with a more subtle, meandering path - to allow for the addition of usable green space & reduction of hardscape/pedestrian infrastructure;

Relocate the proposed upper-level Harbor Drive pedestrian access point to the new open green space to improve sight-lines: moving it further north on Harbor & away from the Parkshore's garage and driveway egress;

Address security concerns (especially at the lower access road level) by proposing a staffed guard station on the lower level to monitor pedestrian traffic and activity - as well as regular security patrols throughout the site;

Better define solutions ensuring there are no conflicts between garage access, loading and the proposed pedestrian and bicycle traffic that would occur at the lower level access road that leads toward the Lakefront;

Install fencing between the lower Lake Shore Drive public right-of-way and the property line of sites "I, J, K & L" - while creating one centralized access portal between Magellan site & Lakefront (similar to the required improvements Wanda Vista will make to Riverwalk access at Field Drive);

Properly secure this lower-level Lakefront access portal with the installation of way-finding signage, improved lighting and surveillance cameras that can tie-in to the City's OEMC security camera network; and

Reassess the positioning of towers on the podium and make a greater effort to ensure distances between newly proposed towers and existing buildings are more consistent with setbacks that currently govern the site.

I have shared these concerns (and others) with the Development Team and have explained that they must be properly addressed in any future plans for the site. Once my office receives an updated proposal for this site, we will promptly notify neighborhood residents and proceed with our transparent community process.

It is my pleasure to serve as your Alderman. If we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. I strongly encourage you to sign-up for our weekly e-newsletter at: www.ward42chicago.com for future neighborhood updates.

Sincerely,
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10046  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 6:08 PM
Bonsai Tree's Avatar
Bonsai Tree Bonsai Tree is online now
Small but Mighty
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 219
God this guy is fucking stupid. . .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10047  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 6:21 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,100
^ This proposal is about 1,000 units less than what the original LSE plan had in mind, and significantly more green space. I've given up on Reilly ever approving anything dense
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10048  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 6:21 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 19,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by VKChaz View Post
Just directionally, this doesn't feel right. Though parking is of course available in the heart of the CBD, driving clearly isn't intended to be the preferred means of transportation. But in this case, what is the developer's intent? .... is it to market this location as an alternative where employees can easily drive to work...? I imagine there is a market for that sort of thing, but besides the congestion question, it feels at odds with the intent of a CBD to have large auto-oriented offices on the fringes.
I think it goes a bit far to say Sterling Bay is trying to create an "auto-oriented" office district just because they include parking. Parking will be a part of any office district in Chicago. The Loop has many huge garages as well as parking within its buildings.

But the question is if we can get that parking ratio lowered. That kind of pushback needs to come from the city, because obviously the community is usually too stupid about these issues to have any meaningful insight.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10049  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 6:23 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago/New York
Posts: 2,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree View Post
God this guy is fucking stupid. . .
Really? It doesn't seem too bad. I was fully expecting to come across "reduce the height of all buildings to reduce shadows" or some type of crap but there was none of that. No request for more parking or reducing the number of units. It was all about improving the pedestrian experience. If anything some of the comments might lead Magellan to actually increase heights/units in order to compensate for more parkland. Apart from the one 800 footer, the other buildings were pretty short and dull. There is lots of room for improvement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10050  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 6:23 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 19,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
^ This proposal is about 1,000 units less than what the original LSE plan had in mind, and significantly more green space. I've given up on Reilly ever approving anything dense
None of his concerns appear related to the density, though
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10051  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 6:34 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,642
I don't think IJKL was really imminent correct? maybe they can improve the pedestrian aspect or build what they can build as of right
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10052  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 6:49 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
Really? It doesn't seem too bad. I was fully expecting to come across "reduce the height of all buildings to reduce shadows" or some type of crap but there was none of that. No request for more parking or reducing the number of units. It was all about improving the pedestrian experience. If anything some of the comments might lead Magellan to actually increase heights/units in order to compensate for more parkland. Apart from the one 800 footer, the other buildings were pretty short and dull. There is lots of room for improvement.
Is setting the buildings farther apart and creating underused park space really improving the pedestrian experience, though?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10053  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 6:51 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I think it goes a bit far to say Sterling Bay is trying to create an "auto-oriented" office district just because they include parking. Parking will be a part of any office district in Chicago. The Loop has many huge garages as well as parking within its buildings.

But the question is if we can get that parking ratio lowered. That kind of pushback needs to come from the city, because obviously the community is usually too stupid about these issues to have any meaningful insight.
Some parking availability is fine. I specifically mentioned parking is available in the CBD today. But at first glance, the scale appears to me to be an effort to create something that emphasizes driving more than we would normally see around the CBD. And I don't think it makes sense to simply say 'public transit isn't optimal in the area or the streets are not very walkable,' because the developer is obviously pursuing this with an understanding of the area. I think it makes sense to ask what exactly is the developer's intent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10054  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 7:05 PM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
Really? It doesn't seem too bad. I was fully expecting to come across "reduce the height of all buildings to reduce shadows" or some type of crap but there was none of that. No request for more parking or reducing the number of units. It was all about improving the pedestrian experience. If anything some of the comments might lead Magellan to actually increase heights/units in order to compensate for more parkland. Apart from the one 800 footer, the other buildings were pretty short and dull. There is lots of room for improvement.
It does seem that most of his stated objections were related to either walkability or security - I think security is a valid concern for the areas mentioned, and I thought the stairway he mentioned seemed like a weird thing to me - I mean, it could be nice, but it could also be difficult to navigate. How exactly they will address all those concerns, though, is a pretty big question. It's not an easy place to build, it has a lot of challenges.
__________________
I like travel and photography - check out my Flickr page.
CURRENT GEAR: Nikon Z6, Nikon Z 14-30mm f4 S, Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S, Nikon 50mm f1.4G
STOLEN GEAR: (during riots of 5/30/2020) Nikon D750, Nikon 14-24mm F2.8G, Nikon 85mm f1.8G, Nikon 50mm f1.4D
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10055  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 7:27 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 19,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by VKChaz View Post
Some parking availability is fine. I specifically mentioned parking is available in the CBD today. But at first glance, the scale appears to me to be an effort to create something that emphasizes driving more than we would normally see around the CBD. And I don't think it makes sense to simply say 'public transit isn't optimal in the area or the streets are not very walkable,' because the developer is obviously pursuing this with an understanding of the area. I think it makes sense to ask what exactly is the developer's intent.
Well, that's where numbers matter.

If buildings of the sizes proposed bring in an average of 5-600 workers (and that's conservative--probably even higher), and they each contain 150-200 parking spaces (which I agree is still too high--we will see what Sterling Bay ultimately proposes) that is still only enough parking for 30-40% of the employees.

Bear in mind that even with parking available, some employees will still choose not to drive. But for the remaining 60% or so, they need to find another means to get to their job other than on-site parking. So all in all, I don't think this even comes close to turning this into an auto-dominant office district.

Come out to the suburbs if you really want to see an auto-oriented office district. You will see oceans of surface parking, more than enough for everybody and their visiting uncle.

But I agree, I'd still like to see the parking ratio as low as possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10056  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 7:43 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,617
add green space for buildings on / adjacent to a park? that is pandering at it's worst...

add security guards? let's add a wall and make it a brazilian compound..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10057  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 7:47 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp View Post
add security guards? let's add a wall and make it a brazilian compound..
That's the goal!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10058  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 7:58 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,972
Yeah, aldermen can be pandering idiots in more ways than just "cut the height, density, won't anyone think of the child'n?!?!?" In this case its "please eliminate any and all distinguishing design features because my moronic constituents would like it to take 2X as long to pass through the site on the way to the lakefront. Voters in this ward really like to meander and would like you to build them a place where they can do that!".

This is exactly why we need an actual planning department and not aldermanic prerogative. Design by committee but the committee consists solely of idiots with literally no knowledge of what they are asking for.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10059  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 8:05 PM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
Really? It doesn't seem too bad. I was fully expecting to come across "reduce the height of all buildings to reduce shadows" or some type of crap but there was none of that. No request for more parking or reducing the number of units. It was all about improving the pedestrian experience. If anything some of the comments might lead Magellan to actually increase heights/units in order to compensate for more parkland. Apart from the one 800 footer, the other buildings were pretty short and dull. There is lots of room for improvement.
This isn’t necessarily gonna lead them to increase density. If you add all these additional expenses, you’re essentially reducing the return on investment. That leads to less investment - not more.

I wasn’t a huge fan of the proposal, but this seems to me like the residents of LSE are holding this development to a ridiculously high standard.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10060  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2017, 8:09 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,444
Was there a dedicated thread for this proposal? I can't seem to find it.
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 > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:16 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.