CHICAGO | 1000M (1000 S Michigan) | 805 FT | 73 FLOORS

[2PRUROCKS!]

If you read their website they do actually complain about Bob O'Neal supporting a tall high rise that will cast shadows on the park.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I suppose no one would object to a playground for cute little kids, but young families are very seldom the market for these buildings. The empty-nesters who dominate the highrises fronting Grant Park are working hard to prevent a small installation of "fitness equipment" in the park because—after all—everyone already belongs to a gym or has a workout room in their condo building. They don't like the skate park, and want Lollapalooza, the Chicago Marathon, and all the fun runs gone from Grant Park.

In other words, they don't want a park. They want a lawn to look down at. And you kids better keep off of it!

Well, yeah... this is pretty disgusting. Currently the park is designed around massive regional events. I sometimes enjoy those events but recognize that their staging poses huge headaches to everyday people who live/work in the area.

Setting aside the issue of what to do with those events, I would support a redesign of the park that encouraged strolling as well as passive and active recreation... but it seems these folks want neither. All they want is, yes, a lawn to look at (and drive through at high speed).

Maggie Daley Park is at least a step in the right direction.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Well, yeah... this is pretty disgusting. Currently the park is designed around massive regional events. I sometimes enjoy those events but recognize that their staging poses huge headaches to everyday people who live/work in the area.

Setting aside the issue of what to do with those events, I would support a redesign of the park that encouraged strolling as well as passive and active recreation... but it seems these folks want neither. All they want is, yes, a lawn to look at (and drive through at high speed).

Maggie Daley Park is at least a step in the right direction.

Those events were being held there before most of those people even knew what Grant Park was; and had they done their research, they'd know the deal.

I guess I'm saying that my sympathies are nonexistent regarding any complaints.

[FlashingLights]

I want them to still keep the french Versailles theme. They just need to cap Columbus and the tracks and add modern modern park touches in those caps.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by FlashingLights

I want them to still keep the french Versailles theme. They just need to cap Columbus and the tracks and add modern modern park touches in those caps.

I would hate to see the tracks capped. Trains are cool and the tracks harken back to the early years of the city. I can see Columbus Drive going on a road diet.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by FlashingLights

I want them to still keep the french Versailles theme. They just need to cap Columbus and the tracks and add modern modern park touches in those caps.

I'm all for capping the tracks to add usable terrain for people, but I prefer old style park land to the modern.

[SolarWind]

I also prefer to see the train tracks capped. Here's a link to a Grant Park picture I took from One Museum Park several years ago. The tracks are quite conspicuous.

October 22, 2008
http://i.imgur.com/lCUgoaC.jpg

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

I also prefer to see the train tracks capped. Here's a link to a Grant Park picture I took from One Museum Park several years ago. The tracks are quite conspicuous.

October 22, 2008
http://i.imgur.com/lCUgoaC.jpg

The amount of space that takes up is crazy. I have to imagine covering that up to make walk-able terrain would encourage more real estate sales in that immediate area.

Edit: Cover up the tracks and then pack the area with paths and trees a la Central Park - http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp...ity-2__880.jpg

[Mr Downtown]

Somehow the bizarro-world idea has taken root that the Park District is not allowed to make new areas of Grant Park formal and symmetrical. This is apparently based on some idiot's perverted interpretation of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards that additions to historic buildings should not pretend to be historic.

[woodrow]

I dislike Columbus way more than the train tracks. I find that it takes me out of the park experience in a way that the sunken tracks don't. Road Diet that mother and make it more attractive, and easier, to cross. Hell, maybe a median with trees even. Then cover the tracks. Also, the span at 11th Street is a little crazy, so maybe work on that first.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by woodrow

I dislike Columbus way more than the train tracks. I find that it takes me out of the park experience in a way that the sunken tracks don't. Road Diet that mother and make it more attractive, and easier, to cross. Hell, maybe a median with trees even. Then cover the tracks. Also, the span at 11th Street is a little crazy, so maybe work on that first.

Grant Park, Millennium Park and Maggie Daily Park all feel like isolated compartmentalized sections and not like one giant fluid park area and I think that hurts the city. When you walk through Central Park in NYC it's like one giant continuous experience despite the intersecting roadways. Columbus, Jackson, Congress, Monroe, Balbo are massive in percentage to our parks and all interrupt one's ability to explore the area smoothly, and the train tracks take away a huge chunk of walk-able land. Looking at an aerial view of the parks on Google maps shows just how much interruptions and loss of parkland is taken up by the various streets and tracks.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Grant Park, Millennium Park and Maggie Daily Park all feel like isolated compartmentalized sections and not like one giant fluid park area and I think that hurts the city. When you walk through Central Park in NYC it's like one giant continuous experience despite the intersecting roadways. Columbus, Jackson, Congress, Monroe, Balbo are massive in percentage to our parks and all interrupt one's ability to explore the area smoothly, and the train tracks take away a huge chunk of walk-able land. Looking at an aerial view of the parks on Google maps shows just how much interruptions and loss of parkland is taken up by the various streets and tracks.

They are compartmentalized; they're rooms. It's hard to have fluidity with roads. and I highly doubt those roads are going anywhere. MP is a green roof atop tracks and MD is where the lake once was. Central Park is different and the comparison of the two are a little silly. The majority of what's now Grant Park was Lake Michigan 140 years ago. Central Park's roadways are depressed within trenches and is park is 2 1/2 times larger.

Let's try and be realistic.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

They are compartmentalized; they're rooms. It's hard to have fluidity with roads. and I highly doubt those roads are going anywhere. MP is a green roof atop tracks and MD is where the lake once was. Central Park is different and the comparison of the two are a little silly. The majority of what's now Grant Park was Lake Michigan 140 years ago. Central Park's roadways are depressed within trenches and is park is 2 1/2 times larger.

Let's try and be realistic.

By that lazy argument then we can never compare two things because they aren't the same. We're all aware that Central Park has drastic differences to the parks in downtown Chicago. The point was to focus on what I think Central Park does right and what Chicago could work towards improvement. Covering the tracks, minimizing the current roadways, and creating more connectivity between the compartments would make the entire area more fluid to explore.. like Central Park.

Improving the parkland downtown can be a huge driver on continued desirability for living places like 1000 S Michigan.

Let's try not to be so pessimistic.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

By that lazy argument then we can never compare two things because they aren't the same. We're all aware that Central Park has drastic differences to the parks in downtown Chicago. The point was to focus on what I think Central Park does right and what Chicago could work towards improvement. Covering the tracks, minimizing the current roadways, and creating more connectivity between the compartments would make the entire area more fluid to explore.. like Central Park.

Improving the parkland downtown can be a huge driver on continued desirability for living places like 1000 S Michigan.

Let's try not to be so pessimistic.

Not pessimistic nor lazy, just accurate and to the point.

Now... -Show Me the money!

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I suppose no one would object to a playground for cute little kids, but young families are very seldom the market for these buildings. The empty-nesters who dominate the highrises fronting Grant Park are working hard to prevent a small installation of "fitness equipment" in the park because—after all—everyone already belongs to a gym or has a workout room in their condo building. They don't like the skate park, and want Lollapalooza, the Chicago Marathon, and all the fun runs gone from Grant Park.

In other words, they don't want a park. They want a lawn to look down at. And you kids better keep off of it!

Thanks for the link. Your summary is a bit... biased perhaps?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

By that lazy argument then we can never compare two things because they aren't the same. We're all aware that Central Park has drastic differences to the parks in downtown Chicago. The point was to focus on what I think Central Park does right and what Chicago could work towards improvement. Covering the tracks, minimizing the current roadways, and creating more connectivity between the compartments would make the entire area more fluid to explore.. like Central Park.

Improving the parkland downtown can be a huge driver on continued desirability for living places like 1000 S Michigan.

Let's try not to be so pessimistic.

Agree with this. The roads going through Grant Park are a head scratcher.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Agree with this. The roads going through Grant Park are a head scratcher.

I vote we convert the roads to plazas, especially Columbus since it's used like that at times anyway. Belgian block all the way.

[Rocket49]

Seems a good solution would be for the City of Chicago to close off Columbus Drive on a seasonal basis.

Close Columbus to traffic for 6 months from mid-April to mid-October. It seems like it's closed half the time during that period anyhow, so why not keep it closed the entire time.

Then open up Columbus to traffic for 6 months during the slow season from mid-October to mid-April.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Rocket49

Seems a good solution would be for the City of Chicago to close off Columbus Drive on a seasonal basis.

Close Columbus to traffic for 6 months from mid-April to mid-October. It seems like it's closed half the time during that period anyhow, so why not keep it closed the entire time.

Then open up Columbus to traffic for 6 months during the slow season from mid-October to mid-April.

True. Much less foot traffic in the winter. While we're in daydream mode for all of this, I'd love to see underground foot paths from one side of Michigan ave to Grant park so people don't have to wait on traffic lights to cross.

[aaron38]

Once a road has been closed for 6 months and traffic has settled into a new pattern, there's little reason to reopen it. Just make everyone mad once, instead of mad every spring.