HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2261  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2016, 10:02 PM
Ryanrule Ryanrule is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by observer View Post
Regarding Ryanrule post above, the townhomes, or single family homes placed along river there are to bring down scale along pedestrian path. You could argue it would be better left as landscaping or park space, but I do not mind having a lower scale building with rich materiality contributing the pedestrian path. Stepping the scale down in this manner using townhomes was done pretty well by River View project on north side of river just west of old Spire site. In that case, the town homes also had the added benefit of covering up a 4 story parking garage. It's not a comment on the specific architecture details in that case, but more the planning on massing concept.
I would like a continuation of density along the river. Both sides. Removed the stupid pd on the west side.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2262  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2016, 10:05 PM
Arm&Kedzie Arm&Kedzie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Chicago
Posts: 132
Is the cladding on the podium of 4 E Elm pre-cast or stone?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2263  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 12:56 AM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
Fuck that... Townhouses are NIMBY incubators and I say this as an architectural tour guide on the Chicago River that has has to hear about the whiny bitchy people who've complained about both the smell from Bloomers and the noise from tour boats on the north branch.

I just don't have time for that bullshit.
I don't see what they'll realistically be able to object to once it's built out since all the other empty land bordered buy Harrison/Clark/Roosevelt is either occupied or spoken for. It's not like they'll be able to force the rail yard or postal service across the river to move or cease operation. Pretty meh on this since CMK clearly doesn't want to go back to the city in order to amend the River City PD for more units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2264  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 1:04 AM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
I don't see what they'll realistically be able to object to once it's built out since all the other empty land bordered buy Harrison/Clark/Roosevelt is either occupied or spoken for. It's not like they'll be able to force the rail yard or postal service across the river to move or cease operation. Pretty meh on this since CMK clearly doesn't want to go back to the city in order to amend the River City PD for more units.
The town-homes BVic refers to were built after Blommers, and after the river.
__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2265  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 2:06 AM
streetline streetline is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
The riverwalk has to dead-end. CMK doesn't own the property south of Roosevelt. Where is the riverwalk going to go?

I believe there will be vertical access up to Roosevelt provided inside the tower, but I'm not sure if that will be closer to the river or Wells.

Hopefully something like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8444...7i13312!8i6656
A connection to Roosevelt, and some thought towards a future connection under Roosevelt when the area to the south is developed, is what I'm looking for.

With the render as it is, we can't even tell if the building is going to abut Roosevelt directly, or be set back like the building in your French example. If it is set back like that, I'd think the river walk should include a route back to Wells on the south side of the tower, so that you can go as far as possible along the river, and perhaps pass under the viaduct behind the bridge mechanism in the future (Is the alternative, an under-bridge, even possible with the width of the river there? I don't know).

I like what we've actually seen of this project for the most part (density could stand to be higher, but if they want to use only the existing PD, oh well), but I'm worried by what we haven't been shown: views from Roosevelt or Wells. Addressing the river well is a great bonus, but addressing the adjacent streets well is basic prerequisite to a good urban development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2266  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 3:29 AM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetline View Post
A connection to Roosevelt, and some thought towards a future connection under Roosevelt when the area to the south is developed, is what I'm looking for.
Yep. Totally. Imagine if the riverwalk extended to Ping Tom Park in Chinatown. Take a nice summer walk along the lake from downtown and then top it off with some Chinese food.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2267  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 9:29 AM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by george View Post
1/3

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2268  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 2:42 PM
brian_b brian_b is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryc View Post
The town-homes BVic refers to were built after Blommers, and after the river.
It quite literally doesn't matter in Illinois unless you are talking about farmland.

That's why the city has to protect the service and manufacturing zoning. One residential unit in those zones can kill the entire thing via nuisance lawsuits.

Illinois is the only state in the US that doesn't believe in the "coming to the nuisance" doctrine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2269  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 3:38 PM
Near North Resident Near North Resident is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetline View Post


Also the little moat between the mid rise and the townhomes is interesting. That may be at chore to keep clean.
That ain't happening in a million billion years, city code or whatever won't allow it, especially without handrails for safety! And I don't think you can change the shoreline without congressional approval right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2270  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 4:01 PM
Notyrview Notyrview is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,648
I hate 4 E Elm in toto. What a disaster.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2271  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 4:02 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
^At most, I think you just need Corps of Engineers signoff to dig (or fill) a slip entering private property. Chicago has had many such in its history (including the marina at River City), and many others have been filled in recent decades.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Yep. Totally. Imagine if the riverwalk extended to Ping Tom Park in Chinatown.
Don't worry, it will. Now imagine if Riverside Drive (Wells-Wentworth) were a pleasant, walkable boulevard instead of an auto sewer of minimum dimensions and no parking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2272  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 4:11 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Near North Resident View Post
...
especially without handrails for safety!
...
Rivers don't have shores, they have banks.

As for handrails, you apparently have yet to visit the new riverwalk.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2273  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 5:38 PM
Near North Resident Near North Resident is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
Rivers don't have shores, they have banks.

As for handrails, you apparently have yet to visit the new riverwalk.
the riverwalk is ADA compliant... 100% sure that the rendering shown is not
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2274  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 5:57 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Near North Resident View Post
the riverwalk is ADA compliant... 100% sure that the rendering shown is not
a) that rending hardly shows the riverwalk large enough to be 100% certain about much of anything related to it

b) really not sure what you're seeing or not seeing in the render to conclude that it's "100% not ADA compliant" as I don't see anything about it that makes it different from other river-proximate walkways built over the past 10 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2275  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 6:08 PM
JK47 JK47 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian_b View Post
Illinois is the only state in the US that doesn't believe in the "coming to the nuisance" doctrine.

That is not even remotely true. Illinois, like most states as well as the 2nd Restatement of Torts, recognizes that "coming to the nuisance" is only a factor to consider with regards to relief. The case used by my Torts textbook back in lawschool to illustrate was the feedlot case in Arizona (Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb) where housing developments were built adjacent to a long-operating feedlot (the result being that the housing developer must compensate the feedlot operator for modifying, moving, or shutting down its operation). Coming to the nuisance is not, with the exception of Right to Farm laws*, a bar to recovery in a private nuisance action.


*Right to Farm laws are not impervious however given Iowa's was struck down as an unconstitutional taking under the 5th Amendment (reason being that it effectively constituted a grant of a permanent easement to benefit the farmer against adjacent parcels without compensation).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2276  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 6:54 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Evanston News:

Quote:
27-story tower proposed for Davis
By Bill Smith on January 5, 2016 - 11:53am


Evanston city officials are reviewing a proposal to build a 27-story, 217-unit rental apartment building on the northwest corner of Davis Street and Chicago Avenue.

Community Development Director Mark Muenzer says the plan calls for preserving the landmark two-story University Building on the corner. The construction site includes the vacant lot just west of the University Building and the Chase Bank drive-thru to the west of that.

The project, proposed by Vermilion Development of Chicago, would also include 20,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space and 176 parking spaces.

- See more at: http://evanstonnow.com/story/real-es....n3KrXxQy.dpuf

this sounds promising. the historic 2 story building on the corner gets saved and the vacant lot and underused drive-up bank lanes to the west get redeveloped into a residential tower with 20,000 SF of activity-generating retail.

i hope this redevelopment proposal goes through, but knowing evanston........
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2277  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2016, 7:12 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Good.

I really like the little pavilion and garden with the Lyfe Kitchen, glad to see that's staying put. That and Fountain Plaza provide a nice bit of breathing room in downtown Evanston, but I'll be glad to have a shiny new highrise going up to the east.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2278  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2016, 2:39 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Near North Resident View Post
the riverwalk is ADA compliant... 100% sure that the rendering shown is not
Just to be clear, the Riverwalk is NOT strictly ADA compliant... the city, being the government, did not need to make it so...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2279  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2016, 2:52 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetline View Post
I like what we've actually seen of this project for the most part (density could stand to be higher, but if they want to use only the existing PD, oh well), but I'm worried by what we haven't been shown: views from Roosevelt or Wells. Addressing the river well is a great bonus, but addressing the adjacent streets well is basic prerequisite to a good urban development.
That is concerning. Is there nothing that shows how this integrates into the city? For example, a site plan (similar to that for LSE)...
Would also be interesting to know how much will be publicly accessible vs. "gated." One image depicts a pedestrian path through what appears to be a mid-rise, but that may be a resident path.
I am always leery of any large sub-divisions

Last edited by VKChaz; Jan 6, 2016 at 4:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2280  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2016, 5:12 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
more on that newly proposed Evanston highrise:


Quote:
New tower would be among (Evanston's) tallest
By Bill Smith on January 6, 2016 - 10:36am

Plans for a new high-rise building in the 600 block of Davis street call for creating one of the tallest structures in Evanston.

The developer's proposal to the city indicates that at a total of 280 feet, including the mechanical penthouse, the new mixed-use retail and rental apartment building would be slightly shorter than the Chase Bank tower at 1603 Orrington and the Sherman Plaza condo development.

Other sources list the Chase Bank tower as 280 feet tall and the Sherman Plaza building as 276 feet tall, but those measurements typically exclude the mechanical penthouse.


- See more at: http://evanstonnow.com/story/real-es....tpkSXGOf.dpuf
a rendering of the proposed building is available at the link above. tower on parking podium. not horrible, but not that great either. at least it's got a good bit of ground floor street-facing retail.

i don't like that a curb cut for the drive-up banking will remain, but at least it's being drastically reduced, so that's something, i guess.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
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 11:36 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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