HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #14941  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 5:14 AM
BorisMolotov's Avatar
BorisMolotov BorisMolotov is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 547
Unfortunately, one of the things I enjoy about Chicago is the ability to cross the street whenever you can. I live in Madison and people wait until the walk sign is on even if there have been only a couple cars on a long light. And in DC I was yelled at by a cop for crossing a side street mid-block to get to the building across the street. As dangerous as it is, its one of the things I actually miss about walking around Chicago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14942  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 6:00 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by BorisMolotov View Post
Unfortunately, one of the things I enjoy about Chicago is the ability to cross the street whenever you can. I live in Madison and people wait until the walk sign is on even if there have been only a couple cars on a long light. And in DC I was yelled at by a cop for crossing a side street mid-block to get to the building across the street. As dangerous as it is, its one of the things I actually miss about walking around Chicago.
And this takes the topic full circle. Bicycle riding on sidewalks, jaywalking. It's all the same in this town. Both go without all that much enforcement, but carry a great deal of liability.

So as long as you look both ways, there's not much I can complain about. And keep in mind, these laws become most applicable along commercial streets. However, if anyone steps out in front of a cyclist mid-block and causes an injury to the individual with ROW, there's a problem, because you are breaking the law. That's why crosswalks are provided and bikes and cars must yield to anyone crossing in them, and have reasonable expectation that no one will enter the roadway between intersections.

9-60-020 Through streets.

9-60-050 Pedestrian to yield right-of-way when.

See below:

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.d...nc=JD_9-60-030
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14943  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 6:35 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,381
This is a serious question to which there are no right answers, and there are put-upon extremists on both sides. I have issues with some widely-held opinions on both sides of the debate. Just like in any contentious issue, any moderate voices are attacked by partisans on both sides.

Some people, especially in the bike/ped activist community, think car drivers bear the brunt of the culpability for all collisions. In effect, the greater destructive power of their vehicles means that drivers need to be held to a far higher standard of care and attentiveness than cyclists and pedestrians, which by default makes a driver responsible in all cases for collisions. These people fail to acknowledge the need for pedestrians and cyclists to also be extremely attentive and to follow predictable rules of behavior to encourage safe interaction of all modes.

Of course, then you've got the polar opposites of the bike/ped activists, the people even more extreme than aic4ever, who want to banish everything but cars, buses, and trucks to sidewalks in all situations. These people cannot conceive of a world where the bicycle is a legitimate form of transport across a city, only a world where bikes are recreational devices. They don't understand concerns about time-effectiveness - a cyclist confined to sidewalks is confined to a very slow average speed, and is fairly useless for everything except exercise and recreation.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14944  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 8:00 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Nicely put guys.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14945  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 9:57 AM
lawfin lawfin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
On-site parking minimizes the impact of new development on existing neighborhoods. The protests from existing residents would be deafening if they thought a new townhouse development would mean two dozen more cars competing for street parking on a given block.
Says you. From your autocentric position. Again households do not universally own cars and depending on surrounding transit infrastructure may choose to limit or even eliminate ownership of a personal vehicle. Once again in certain census tracts in this city esp in places near good transit access the majority of people do not own cars. Thank god.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14946  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 1:30 PM
aic4ever aic4ever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
^^^ I'm not certain Jewel would be hot to trot on redeveloping such a relatively new store. Maybe in 5-10 years though?
I would think that would have to depend in some part on whether they are the owner of the building, or are a tenant of some other owner.

There was really just nothing in that area to speak of whatsoever when the Jewel and the Starbucks and the cleaners went in there. The Jewel got built there before any of that residential to the east, save for the building at Michigan & Roosevelt, which had the view of the lake all to itself at the time. That was really only like 2000 or so. We've had an unbelievable amount of development in that area when you really stop to think about it.

I think something really cool could be built here that would still incorporate the Jewel, but remember the red line runs underneath State right there as well, so anything big would be one hell of an ambitious underground project.
__________________
Don't be a left wing zombie!

Free Nowhereman...fat girls need lovin' too
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14947  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 3:45 PM
jdcpamba jdcpamba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 54
Interesting speculation about the Jewel lot. Hope it happens. There seems to be an uptick in activity in that area with Trader Joe's and the remodeled two story building across the street.

Also, interesting timing on the discussion given that Sloopin and the Tribune are reporting that the bank in the Jewel was robbed yesterday.

http://www.sloopin.com/2012/03/jewel...nd-wabash.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14948  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 3:54 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,387
How would the State Street Subway complicate redevelopment of the Jewel site? The subway is completely within the street ROW, and then curves westward under Dearborn Park II. You just put in some sheet piling first so nothing moves, same as at State Place, the new Jones HS, One Place, Astoria, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14949  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 4:34 PM
aic4ever aic4ever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
How would the State Street Subway complicate redevelopment of the Jewel site? The subway is completely within the street ROW, and then curves westward under Dearborn Park II. You just put in some sheet piling first so nothing moves, same as at State Place, the new Jones HS, One Place, Astoria, etc.
It doesn't curve westward until you're south of Roosevelt and it's not like it's an immediate turn.

I suppose it's hypothetical depending on how deep you'd go. If there was no real digging for depth then yeah, you've just got some sheeting (if that) and caissons.

I was envisioning some kind of buried parking, but now that I think of it, it doesn't seem likely there would be much digging for depth because of the elevated line running right through the middle of the site.
__________________
Don't be a left wing zombie!

Free Nowhereman...fat girls need lovin' too
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14950  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 7:26 PM
lawfin lawfin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by aic4ever View Post
I would think that would have to depend in some part on whether they are the owner of the building, or are a tenant of some other owner.

There was really just nothing in that area to speak of whatsoever when the Jewel and the Starbucks and the cleaners went in there. The Jewel got built there before any of that residential to the east, save for the building at Michigan & Roosevelt, which had the view of the lake all to itself at the time. That was really only like 2000 or so. We've had an unbelievable amount of development in that area when you really stop to think about it.

I think something really cool could be built here that would still incorporate the Jewel, but remember the red line runs underneath State right there as well, so anything big would be one hell of an ambitious underground project.
I agree and hope you are right and these rumors are more than just rumors..it seems like such a waste now; but as you say when it was developed there wasn't much around it save for dearborn park I, II which I wish would go away
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14951  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 7:34 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post
Possibly, but I would imagine that the influx of capital from selling off the property to a developer for a mixed use high rise would more than offset those costs. You're Mr. RE Economics, what does a typical tilt panel structure cost plus build out compared to the financial gain from selling a site like this?
Yes, but they also know that the South Loop is currently a majorly depressed land market and I doubt any developer has come along and offered them a fat payout for that land. They know they can probably wait 5 years and get double the price they could get now or more and, since they currently have a new, revenue generating, store that is probably easily covering their costs, I'm sure they are in 0 rush to dump it in this market. I sure as hell wouldn't unless someone were offering me a stupid deal on it, would you? I'd rather have a $50 million profit in 5 years than a $20 million profit today especially if I'm making money on my investment in the meantime anyhow.

I'd give you more detail on the financials, but to be honest any math I'd run would be wildly speculative because I don't know what they are selling it for and I don't know if there's even an actual deal in the works.

Tilt up structures are usually priced by the cost of the wall area which is usually just below $10/SF of wall. Say you've got a 200x200 building with 18' clear (20' to parapet) then you are talking about $150,000 for just the walls. Probably more like $500k for the shell, but the real money is in the interior which is probably fairly sparse and maybe $50/SF? So that's like $2,000,000 of build out from the shell. So a 40,000 SF Jewel probably costs $2,000,000-2,500,000 to build with tilt up. However that's not even relevant because that construction cost is a sunk cost at this point and the decision to redevelop should be based solely on the merits of this investment and potential opportunity costs, not on the fact that you just dropped 2.5 million into the property 10 years ago.

In reality all that matters is what payout you expect now versus the future versus what return you are getting now. Doesn't matter that you would be destroying nice new buildings or that you spent a ton of money a while back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
This is opposite from reality so it can't be what you're actually trying to say. Riding in a street takes way more effort and alertness than on a sidewalk. If you're talking about business districts, maybe, but the discussion has to be about the whole city, the vast majority of which is neighborhood side streets. The law shouldn't needlessly force people into the option more dangerous to them. Even taking that random number of "10", fine, I would rather have 10 bicycle-pedestrian incidents than 1 vehicle-bicycle incident.
We've been getting horribly off topic, so this is the last I'll say unless people want to continue this in Transit.

No, it's not the opposite of reality, it's my point. If you don't have the coordination to ride in the street, then you shouldn't be riding ANYWHERE on a public ROW, sidewalks, streets, parking lanes, whatever. If you are really that young or decrepit then it's probably not safe for you to be riding your bike in a place where you could harm yourself or others period. Also, if you are really that young or decrepit, you probably aren't using your bike for daily business like commuting or errands and are probably riding for leisure. Again, public ROW is not there for your leisure. If you are looking for a place to cruise about with no particular destination then you should be riding on a bike path or side street, not a sidewalk or busy street.

So again, my point is the elderly and young don't NEED to be riding on a public ROW so we don't NEED to allow them to ride on the sidewalks in order to "create equality" or whatever. If you are using your bike for something useful, then go ahead and ride in the street, but if you aren't capable of doing that then you shouldn't be using your bike to commute or run errands and it's probably not safe for you to be doing so. If you aren't commuting or running errands, then get off the ROW and go to the lakefront, side streets, boulevards, parks, or whatever, but stay out of everyone else's way.

Last edited by Nowhereman1280; Mar 7, 2012 at 7:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14952  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 7:50 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by aic4ever View Post
...
I was envisioning some kind of buried parking, but now that I think of it, it doesn't seem likely there would be much digging for depth because of the elevated line running right through the middle of the site.
yeah, my guess would be tha tthe footings for the "L" would be a bigger concern than the subway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14953  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 8:15 PM
Baronvonellis Baronvonellis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 880
Whats the Gateway project going to be like now? I thought the NIMBYs kept cutting it down and making it smaller. I'm surprised it's under construction now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14954  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 8:25 PM
intrepidDesign's Avatar
intrepidDesign intrepidDesign is offline
Windy City Dan
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baronvonellis View Post
Whats the Gateway project going to be like now? I thought the NIMBYs kept cutting it down and making it smaller. I'm surprised it's under construction now.
As far as I can tell it's still a two phase project, with the highrise portion being the second part, which I believe is what was reduced, but only by a few floors. The construction worker I was talking to said it's going to be a hotel, but I haven't heard any news on whom.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14955  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 8:39 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
I sure as hell wouldn't unless someone were offering me a stupid deal on it, would you? I'd rather have a $50 million profit in 5 years than a $20 million profit today especially if I'm making money on my investment in the meantime anyhow.
I wouldn't either... but then again I'm hemorrhaging jobs like Supervalu or watching my stock plummet by 60% over the past 24 months.

I could see them going either way at this junction. If the store is performing and they can afford to wait for a larger payout then yes, the longer they wait the better. But if the company really needs a $20mm cash infusion then this site (or part of it) could be gone in a heartbeat.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14956  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 9:24 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ Falling stock prices and layoffs (which were a year ago btw) don't justify disrupting what is probably one of their higher revenue and higher profit locations. Businesses almost never sell off assets to gain access to cash, they usually use equity and/or debt. If you are looking for cash why would you sell off something that you could easily leverage at record low interest rates?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14957  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 9:30 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
If you are looking for cash why would you sell off something that you could easily leverage at record low interest rates?
Good point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14958  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 10:33 PM
markh9's Avatar
markh9 markh9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 132
Burberry

Just now:







It's taller than I expected. Its presence will certainly be felt on this stretch of Michigan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14959  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 12:45 AM
bnk bnk is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 12,741
markh9. That is tight. Thanks for the pics. Keep it up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14960  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 3:03 AM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,379
It appears there was a design change in Burberry as well. From this:


To this:

Both images from http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:30 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.