HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7881  
Old Posted May 19, 2017, 8:51 PM
KWILLSKYLINE's Avatar
KWILLSKYLINE KWILLSKYLINE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
I'm not really bothered by the gap / old navy building hanging around for awhile. There's so many better candidates for redevelopment in the loop.
How about a flagship banana republic until the tower comes to fruition?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7882  
Old Posted May 19, 2017, 10:03 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
What projects can you name that should have been rejected [by Plan Commission]?
Well, just yesterday, I don’t think they should have approved the North Branch Framework without providing for public parks. Hope is not a strategy. Or a tactic.

They shouldn’t have approved 1000M and the two 900-foot towers fronting Roosevelt that violate their own adopted plan. Same with X/O and Essex Inn. If the plan needs to be amended, do so. Don’t just ignore the law.

They shouldn’t have approved the British International School instead of a public park at Roosevelt Collection merely because the developer was crying poor.

They shouldn’t have approved the Lucas Museum so far from public transport, and in their role as overseers of the lakefront, where it blocked vistas of the lake.

They shouldn’t have approved the Childrens Museum or the Harris Theater in the protected part of Grant Park.

They shouldn’t have approved Ritz-Carlton Residences on the Mag Mile without the traditional 10th-floor setback.

They shouldn’t have approved Lurie Childrens Hospital without extending St. Clair north to Chicago Ave.

They shouldn’t have approved Legacy in a historic district.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7883  
Old Posted May 20, 2017, 1:35 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Well, just yesterday, I don’t think they should have approved the North Branch Framework without providing for public parks. Hope is not a strategy. Or a tactic.

They shouldn’t have approved 1000M and the two 900-foot towers fronting Roosevelt that violate their own adopted plan. Same with X/O and Essex Inn. If the plan needs to be amended, do so. Don’t just ignore the law.

They shouldn’t have approved the British International School instead of a public park at Roosevelt Collection merely because the developer was crying poor.

They shouldn’t have approved the Lucas Museum so far from public transport, and in their role as overseers of the lakefront, where it blocked vistas of the lake.

They shouldn’t have approved the Childrens Museum or the Harris Theater in the protected part of Grant Park.

They shouldn’t have approved Ritz-Carlton Residences on the Mag Mile without the traditional 10th-floor setback.

They shouldn’t have approved Lurie Childrens Hospital without extending St. Clair north to Chicago Ave.

They shouldn’t have approved Legacy in a historic district.

Adopted plans are nothing written in stone, we've discussed this before. Even with the North Branch Framework, it's a framework, a rough outline that the city can choose to follow, amend, or ignore.

For CMH, to extend St. Clair north, it would have to have jogged around the hotel on Superior.

Lucas Museum wouldn't have blocked vistas to the lake as Northerly Island already does that. You can't see the lake from the parking lot as is.

The Children's Museum would have been no more visually intrusive than the current field house.

For 1000M, the zoning for the site was DX, which has no height limit. How would an overlying landmark district, on a vacant piece of land, overshadow and take precedent?


But what you posted were YOUR opinions that I asked about. I've never been a Robert's Rules by the book fellow. Out of the box kind of thinking has always been my forte.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7884  
Old Posted May 20, 2017, 6:49 AM
Hayward's Avatar
Hayward Hayward is online now
North Center
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE View Post
How about a flagship banana republic until the tower comes to fruition?
Banana republics don't occupy that much space. A flagship on state would be a stretch. The big phone stores might have made sense. Regardless a vacancy on such a high profile corner is a problem. Just down the street, American apparel is out also.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7885  
Old Posted May 20, 2017, 3:42 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 12,462
Does Georgetown still own that Old Navy building? They probably think they've missed the height of this current boom, and they want another short term tenant to occupy the space until the next cycle when they can redevelop.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7886  
Old Posted May 21, 2017, 3:50 AM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Well, just yesterday, I don’t think they should have approved the North Branch Framework without providing for public parks. Hope is not a strategy. Or a tactic.

They shouldn’t have approved 1000M and the two 900-foot towers fronting Roosevelt that violate their own adopted plan. Same with X/O and Essex Inn. If the plan needs to be amended, do so. Don’t just ignore the law.

They shouldn’t have approved the British International School instead of a public park at Roosevelt Collection merely because the developer was crying poor.

They shouldn’t have approved the Lucas Museum so far from public transport, and in their role as overseers of the lakefront, where it blocked vistas of the lake.

They shouldn’t have approved the Childrens Museum or the Harris Theater in the protected part of Grant Park.

They shouldn’t have approved Ritz-Carlton Residences on the Mag Mile without the traditional 10th-floor setback.

They shouldn’t have approved Lurie Childrens Hospital without extending St. Clair north to Chicago Ave.

They shouldn’t have approved Legacy in a historic district.
Damn... can't really respect you anymore after this comment. All opinion based, and really trash opinions for that matter. Complaining about Harris Theater, Lucas Museum(killed anyway sooooo), bitching about a school ffs(????), talking out of your ass on the North Branch project, and "Legacy in a historic district"... might as well brand the whole fucking city as a historic district then lmao
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7887  
Old Posted May 21, 2017, 3:52 AM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Does Georgetown still own that Old Navy building? They probably think they've missed the height of this current boom, and they want another short term tenant to occupy the space until the next cycle when they can redevelop.
They do indeed, might just be like the Sterling Bay project on Michigan where "for lease" signs are up, but at any moment they could start paper work to build something
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7888  
Old Posted May 22, 2017, 12:55 AM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,263
Tonight
One South Halsted
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7889  
Old Posted May 22, 2017, 1:27 AM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
Skyscraper Junkie
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 543
Nice! Can't wait until this one starts rising. Gotta canyon the Kennedy!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7890  
Old Posted May 22, 2017, 10:03 AM
KWILLSKYLINE's Avatar
KWILLSKYLINE KWILLSKYLINE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 625
Absolutely. I cant wait for developer's to start the east side of the expressway. I think halsted has a good thing going. Hopefully gaining momentum. Giddyup developers.
Giddy-out nimby's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7891  
Old Posted May 22, 2017, 7:20 PM
Lakeviewguy Lakeviewguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 17
Good afternoon, all. Not sure how to link up to this new story from today's NY Times....great story about density and the suburbs. Turns out Chicago is among the cities becoming more dense. On the front page at nytimes.com right now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7892  
Old Posted May 22, 2017, 8:35 PM
James_Mac's Avatar
James_Mac James_Mac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Lakeshore East
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakeviewguy View Post
Good afternoon, all. Not sure how to link up to this new story from today's NY Times....great story about density and the suburbs. Turns out Chicago is among the cities becoming more dense. On the front page at nytimes.com right now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/u...to-cities.html

Seems like good news for Chicago but bad news for the country. The basic point is that the much-heralded revitalization of American downtowns is actually very limited in scope - the large majority of 1 million + cities are becoming less dense. Still, Chicago is second on the list of cities in which density is increasing, and that's presumably based on city-wide numbers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7893  
Old Posted May 22, 2017, 8:41 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWILLSKYLINE View Post
Absolutely. I cant wait for developer's to start the east side of the expressway. I think halsted has a good thing going. Hopefully gaining momentum. Giddyup developers.
Giddy-out nimby's.
I want this one if nothing else.



Anyone know of it's status? There were rumblings of it coming back to life not too long ago if I remember.
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7894  
Old Posted May 22, 2017, 9:17 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
Skyscraper Junkie
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by James_Mac View Post
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/u...to-cities.html

Seems like good news for Chicago but bad news for the country. The basic point is that the much-heralded revitalization of American downtowns is actually very limited in scope - the large majority of 1 million + cities are becoming less dense. Still, Chicago is second on the list of cities in which density is increasing, and that's presumably based on city-wide numbers.
Interesting. Essentially, the article says cities that were already pretty dense (upper midwest and northeast) are getting denser, while sprawling metros (south and west) are getting even more suburban. Big exception is Seattle which is hyper-densifying thanks to the tech giants there, and SF and LA which are already dense metros but havent densified much recently.

I wonder what their metrics are? Is it just the downtown/central areas they are counting? Because Chicago has been treading water when it comes to population gains, with huge swatch of the city depopulating, yet we are #2 on that list.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7895  
Old Posted May 22, 2017, 10:31 PM
jpdivola jpdivola is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
Interesting. Essentially, the article says cities that were already pretty dense (upper midwest and northeast) are getting denser, while sprawling metros (south and west) are getting even more suburban. Big exception is Seattle which is hyper-densifying thanks to the tech giants there, and SF and LA which are already dense metros but havent densified much recently.

I wonder what their metrics are? Is it just the downtown/central areas they are counting? Because Chicago has been treading water when it comes to population gains, with huge swatch of the city depopulating, yet we are #2 on that list.

The NYTimes article has a methodology link for the study at the bottom for anybody interested in the whole thing. But TLDR is: the study looks at average weighted density for MSAs by Census tract.

The strongest data correlation is that faster growing MSAs tended to become lower density.

So this is sort of a good news bad news thing. Chicagos average density score is being driven by the lack of regional suburban growth and lower density bungalow neighborhoods losing population as dense downtown neighborhoods grow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7896  
Old Posted May 23, 2017, 1:09 AM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
I wonder what their metrics are? Is it just the downtown/central areas they are counting? Because Chicago has been treading water when it comes to population gains, with huge swatch of the city depopulating, yet we are #2 on that list.
Their metrics are obviously the US Census Department's American Community Survey and your assessment of Chicago's population is partially false. The big area around Englewood and Auburn Gresham are losing most of the population that the city is losing, with some around Austin as well but overall not bad loss there - not even close to the areas of the south side.

The rest of the city region wise is gaining population with of course downtown leading the way. Between 2010 and 2015, 48 of 77 community areas in Chicago gained population and many, many community areas that lost population between 2000 and 2010 have reversed and are now gaining people. If those areas only lost 1/4 of what they did, then Chicago's population gain would have been over 55K people since 2010 aka over double of what it was. That's not a huge growth, but it's a lot better than what the overall number is. Essentially the gains of the north side and downtown are being offset by the losses of Englewood, West Englewood, Auburn Gresham, etc. Areas like the SW side and south lakefront (i.e. Bronzeville) are gaining in population.

Technically most websites and publications get things wrong though. They compare the ACS to decennial census which you aren't necessarily supposed to do - at least the Census department says you shouldn't. If we compare just the 2010 ACS to 2015 ACS, then the density of the community areas that make up the greater downtown area increased by 3364 ppsm. If you leave out Near West Side then the increase of density was 4545 ppsm in Loop, Near North, and Near South combined.
__________________
* Check out my 2014 - 2016 New Construction building permits map at https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...k.kXSch1pWpvKw

* Check out my 2015 Chicago conversions, rehabs, and additions map at https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...k.kyJajGMvzhcE

Last edited by marothisu; May 23, 2017 at 1:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7897  
Old Posted May 23, 2017, 2:02 AM
SolarWind's Avatar
SolarWind SolarWind is offline
Chicago
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,886
1136 S Wabash

May 22, 2017

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7898  
Old Posted May 23, 2017, 2:02 AM
SolarWind's Avatar
SolarWind SolarWind is offline
Chicago
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,886
Homewood Hilton - 1101 S Wabash

May 22, 2017

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7899  
Old Posted May 23, 2017, 2:03 AM
SolarWind's Avatar
SolarWind SolarWind is offline
Chicago
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,886
1411 S Michigan

May 22, 2017

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7900  
Old Posted May 23, 2017, 4:26 AM
SteelMonkey SteelMonkey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarWind View Post
May 22, 2017


There will be people living in Vista before this is done.
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 12:58 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.