CHICAGO | General Discussions

[urbanpln]

[QUOTE]I assume you mean fourth largest city, can't forget about Mexico City...

True.

[Baronvonellis]

The north lakefront is amazing! But Central Park is much better than Grant Park. It has changes in elevation, feels like you are walking through a forest, and a Castle! Plus, the few roads that go through it are minimal and almost hidden. It's terrible how many roads cut through Grant Park! Buckingham fountain is vast but boring after you've seen it a couple times. There's not much to do around there. And south of there the grassy fields and ball fields aren't very inspiring. Then you get to get to all the train tracks that need to be capped as well.

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yeah, the lakefront is just a spectacular urban ensemble that never fails to wow me. It truly feels like a visionary plan that was executed on a gargantuan scale - which it was, in a way that possibly no other American city can match. (NY comes close with Central and Riverside Park) But I don't see us really building on that legacy. We've spruced up some corners of Grant Park at tremendous cost, but the Riverwalk is really the only truly-new, significant public space we've added.

Here's hoping Lincoln Yards can be a leader in planning and landscape like Toronto's Port Lands or Vancouver's False Creek.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I assume you mean fourth largest city, can't forget about Mexico City...



Yeah, the lakefront is just a spectacular urban ensemble that never fails to wow me. It truly feels like a visionary plan that was executed on a gargantuan scale - which it was, in a way that possibly no other American city can match. (NY comes close with Central and Riverside Park) But I don't see us really building on that legacy. We've spruced up some corners of Grant Park at tremendous cost, but the Riverwalk is really the only truly-new, significant public space we've added.

Here's hoping Lincoln Yards can be a leader in planning and landscape like Toronto's Port Lands or Vancouver's False Creek.

How much do you really need to add to what is already a monumental legacy like the Chicago lakefront?

We already have added to it in bits and pieces, and as you mentioned, the Riverwalk just got completed as well. Also, don't forget about the 606.

My choice would be less about adding and more about making our legacy spaces better. The Navy Pier flyover is one project. Another one for me is the Riverwalk east of Michigan Ave--it seems cheap and rugged compared to the portions further west, and lacks the same design language. And I hate that you are stuck using cheap and nasty port-a-potties on the eastern side whereas the western side has proper plumbing with bathrooms.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Chicago has the potential to connect the lakefront in Wilmette all the way down the North Branch (with paths out to the forest preserves) to the 606, through to downtown all the way to Ping Tom or possibly further with of course the main branch riverwalk back out to the lake and the entire lakefront trail system. What other city on earth can do that? We have endless possibilities of connecting our park system together, even things like the St. Charles Air Line or the Paseo Trail could be integrated into this system.

The lakefront is already one of the most impressive public spaces on the planet, one that I would argue is unmatched except for perhaps Rio. The inevitable combination of this and previously abandoned industrial spaces and infrastructures in the neighborhoods is the true potential of the Riverwalk. Once that is complete I don't see how any other city on earth can claim a more impressive public realm.

[the urban politician]

^ Shhhh.... don't propose such nice things. They will bring evil gentrifiers with their fancy cocktails. We want to keep the city as poor, rundown, disinvested, and hopelessly crime-ridden as possible...

[left of center]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Shhhh.... don't propose such nice things. They will bring evil gentrifiers with their fancy cocktails. We want to keep the city as poor, rundown, disinvested, and hopelessly crime-ridden as possible...

Chuy, is that you?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

Harry you answered my question before I asked. I wad wondering if that wall on the south side was going to come down for lower washington access but since its a bridge ramp support plus city property I assume its no touchy, and just build up beside it.

That, and there's an old tunnel that goes under the river at Washington Street.

https://chicagology.com/prefire/prefire087/

[harryc]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

That, and there's an old tunnel that goes under the river at Washington Street.

https://chicagology.com/prefire/prefire087/

WOW - that's a new one on me - ty.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

That, and there's an old tunnel that goes under the river at Washington Street.

https://chicagology.com/prefire/prefire087/

Very cool. They should try to use it again during the summer atleast.

[maru2501]

ok, I did not know that

[left of center]

There are tunnels under Van Buren and LaSalle too, and they were all used for street cars back in the day IIRC. The LaSalle and Washington tunnels were older through, and were used for horse drawn carriages and pedestrians before the advent of the streetcar.

The LaSalle St tunnel was filled in and blocked off by the blue line under Lake St, but I believe that the Washington and Van Buren tunnels still remain, with their entrances sealed up. Would be neat if they could find a use for them again.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

That, and there's an old tunnel that goes under the river at Washington Street.

https://chicagology.com/prefire/prefire087/

Originally Posted by left of center

There are tunnels under Van Buren and LaSalle too, and they were all used for street cars back in the day IIRC. The LaSalle and Washington tunnels were older through, and were used for horse drawn carriages and pedestrians before the advent of the streetcar.

The LaSalle St tunnel was filled in and blocked off by the blue line under Lake St, but I believe that the Washington and Van Buren tunnels still remain, with their entrances sealed up. Would be neat if they could find a use for them again.

Damn this city is so cool. I agree it would be neat to put the tunnels back to use somehow.

[RockfordSoxFan]

Fascinating on the history of those tunnels. Thanks for sharing guys.

[ardecila]

The Washington tunnel is possibly the most usable one of the bunch - it could potentially host a future light-rail line, and thus be protected from disruptions on the rare day when the bridges open. (Not much use as a busway without any ventilation, unless CTA switches to electric buses.) Unfortunately it's full of utility lines, so those would need to be relocated to God-only-knows-where. The tunnel still has a cobbled floor with the old rail tracks set in it.

Originally Posted by left of center

There are tunnels under Van Buren and LaSalle too, and they were all used for street cars back in the day IIRC. The LaSalle and Washington tunnels were older through, and were used for horse drawn carriages and pedestrians before the advent of the streetcar.

The LaSalle St tunnel was filled in and blocked off by the blue line under Lake St, but I believe that the Washington and Van Buren tunnels still remain, with their entrances sealed up. Would be neat if they could find a use for them again.

History lesson, kids...

The Van Buren one doesn't actually run under Van Buren, it runs about 120' north below private property. It, too, was blocked off when 311 S Wacker was built. The developers imagined using it as a pedway to Union Station. The connection was even included on the construction drawings for the building, but for some reason it was never built. That was part of the rationale for the winter garden, to provide a dignified place for people to descend. There would have been a second set of (long) escalators leading down from the lower level of the winter garden to the tunnel.

Amtrak's current Union Station proposal includes a development on the Union Station garage, which is the site of the other tunnel portal. Maybe if that ever gets off the ground we can see something happen with the tunnel. I don't think it makes much sense as a pedway, there's no retail to draw people down there and the river bridges are rarely opened like they were when the tunnel was built. Nowadays, 99% of the time it would be more convenient just to stay at street level. It would be just as sucky as the CTA transfer tunnel at Jackson, only 3 times longer.

The sidewalks around there do get very congested during rush periods, which is why the Central Area Plan called for a new pedestrian bridge at Quincy. It would probably cost a similar amount as retrofitting the tunnel, but would be more convenient and architecturally splashy.

[KWillChicago]

I would love for those tunnels, washington especially, to be used as pedways. It would be cool to use them as galleries for public art as well. But with the robbery spike that is happening more often in the subways they would have to be well lit and monitored. Obviously crime is no new thing but they have been getting alot ballsier over the last several years. If anyones got pictures of the old UIC tunnels can you post them? I remember walking those when I was younger before they locked them up. Lets just say...creepy.

[the urban politician]

Wow, that’s the first time I’ve ever visited that website. It’s a gem!

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

I would love for those tunnels, washington especially, to be used as pedways. It would be cool to use them as galleries for public art as well. But with the robbery spike that is happening more often in the subways they would have to be well lit and monitored. Obviously crime is no new thing but they have been getting alot ballsier over the last several years. If anyones got pictures of the old UIC tunnels can you post them? I remember walking those when I was younger before they locked them up. Lets just say...creepy.

Yeah I think the city stopped expanding the Pedway system for good reasons. Underground construction is expensive, and as the Loop got cleaned up in the 1990s, people didn't hesitate to walk around at street level anymore.

I still think pedways make sense in certain cases - we need better, sealed connections between CTA and Metra stops - but we don't need a full-fledged street network below ground.

[left of center]

A ped bridge at Quincy would be a much more attractive option for pedestrians than fixing up one of the tunnels into a pedway. The tunnels would be useful if integrated as part of a future transit route, otherwise probably best to keep pedestrians at street level.

[donnie]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Wow, that’s the first time I’ve ever visited that website. It’s a gem!

Link plz

[left of center]

I think TUP was referring to chicagology