Posted Mar 3, 2020, 3:53 AM
|
 |
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 6,036
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
Yeah I don’t see the problem.
I’ve mentioned before that the park solves a very specific issue - when the city backfilled the original river channel in the 1920s, they literally filled it with garbage. The soil is terrible quality, poorly compacted and not at all suited to building foundations without a lot of expensive remediation.
This site plan kills two birds with one stone by setting that land aside as park space and building densely in the areas where soil is good.
Also, as a side note, I’m thanking my lucky stars that Tony Rezko was not able to develop this site the way he wanted to, as suburban schlock-fest, Dearborn Park Phase 3 complete with an IKEA and huge parking garages. Say what you will about the Related plan, but it is dense, livable, walkable, and transit-oriented. It prioritizes connectivity to surrounding areas, as much as is possible.
|
ah ok... well that makes more sense why they're giving up so much buildable space.
I wonder if it would make sense to move the Maritime museum from Bridgeport to here?
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
|