HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    Coast at Lakeshore East in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Chicago Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
Chicago Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 4:01 AM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten View Post
There is supposed to be a park directly east of this building correct? Does anyone have renderings as to what the "sunken" parking podium will be clad with?
Incorrect. Directly to the East of Coast is scheduled to be another development per the LSE master plan.


spyguy/skyscrapercity
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 4:07 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
I don't believe that is recent. Coast isn't even on there if you look at the shape of the buildings on its site.
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 4:20 AM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten View Post
I don't believe that is recent. Coast isn't even on there if you look at the shape of the buildings on its site.
Its recent enough. Magellan is not going to release a new 'master plan' every time a project starts. Everything built is on there... including the 2009 completion of Aqua.
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 4:27 AM
Chicago_Forever's Avatar
Chicago_Forever Chicago_Forever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chi-River North
Posts: 421
Now that I look at the masterplan and the recent pictures of the Coast going up, I don't think there's been any change in the shape. It looks to be same shape that you see on the masterplan, at least the floors below Upper Wacker are. Anyway, there's actually 2 sites east of the coast, the one you mentioned and another just east of it. That's where the Arqui developement is/was going.

Last edited by Chicago_Forever; Feb 16, 2012 at 4:40 AM.
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 4:31 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
No park that I know of. The current Magellan site plan shows three development sites between Coast and Regatta. The way those imaginary lines are drawn, it doesn't bode well for a resurrection of the Arquitectonica project. There's also no bridge across the north part of Field Drive, which totally ruins the "upper/lower loops" idea.

__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 6:42 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by colemonkee View Post
^ What's planned for that empty lot in the last pic? Townhomes?
Presumably (and per all LSE precedent I think) townhomes would need rear access for parking (and for trash etc.?). In that photo, everything is walled off, including the Tides parking podium to the north where that access would need to be.

They probably could punch holes out in it -- if anybody is in a sleuthy mood, you could traverse the aisles in the Tides parking garage and see whether there is provision or possibility for townhouse parking, trash, and residential secondary entries on any of those levels. There probably would be ownership and easement hurdles with that scheme though, unless Magellan planned it out from the start. If access is not from the north, then maybe the townhomes would have driveways right onto South Water (yuck) ... or maybe it'll be a school facility or something.
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 1:50 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Oh come on, they had better complete the upper loop road, the entire circulation of this project will be completely fucked it they don't.

Then again, most of the recent site plans have not shown that road. Perhaps they have excluded it from the maps since it hasn't been built yet? Wouldn't they be obligated to construct it under the PD?

Quote:
Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten View Post
I don't believe that is recent. Coast isn't even on there if you look at the shape of the buildings on its site.
Look again, everything is there including a Coast shaped box in the Upper left that is labeled "Future Development". In other words the only thing out of date on this plan seems to be that the Coast isn't labeled "The Coast".
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 4:49 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
^^ They could connect Harbor Drive to the Upper Wacker cul-de-sac. It would discourage through traffic and avoid having to build an expensive new bridge over Field. You would just carve a hole through the building west of Regatta.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 6:22 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
^^ They could connect Harbor Drive to the Upper Wacker cul-de-sac. It would discourage through traffic and avoid having to build an expensive new bridge over Field. You would just carve a hole through the building west of Regatta.
Lol, that would do anything but discourage through traffic. Think about it, all those people who overshoot 50 MPH Wacker Drive being funneled right into the neighborhood...
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 7:15 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
I'm sure the people who live around there are happy with the disjointed streets since it reduces traffic and creates a feeling of exclusivity and privacy. What's most important is that the pedestrian walkways connect. The past (not the current) master plan show the walkway between Tides and Coast connecting to Harbor drive. This should happen, and I like the thought of building directly over the street and creating an elevated plaza that looks down onto the park. The current master plan looks weak. I know it's still diagrammatic, but the pedestrian routes need to be firmly planned so no new neighbors disrupt circulation.
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 8:44 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 7,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
I'm sure the people who live around there are happy with the disjointed streets since it reduces traffic and creates a feeling of exclusivity and privacy.
That's certainly how I feel about it and has been echoed by others that live here. . . it's one of the things that makes this a unique area within the city. . .

Looks like they're getting ready to jump the crane. . .



. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 4:29 AM
xXSkyscraperDudeXx's Avatar
xXSkyscraperDudeXx xXSkyscraperDudeXx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago, IL.
Posts: 104
Lightbulb

I Love the building but i wish they made it 25 floors larger
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 5:44 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
Lol, that would do anything but discourage through traffic. Think about it, all those people who overshoot 50 MPH Wacker Drive being funneled right into the neighborhood...
I was thinking exit-only... people who get lost in Harbor Drive could exit to Wacker, and residents could also exit to Wacker, but your overshooting drivers would still have to turn around.

That's not to mention different sorts of shared-space strategies you could use to discourage through traffic. If the "street" and its "sidewalks" are at the same level (no curbs) and made of the same material, it will discourage drivers... like the walkway on the south side of Aqua, which is a fire lane and a symbolic extension of Lake Street.

I really don't like this idea of pedestrianizing the city... pedestrian-only walkways have less visibility and often create a feeling of uneasiness. I'm all for parity between drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, but each of those three groups needs a basic level of connectivity and accessibility throughout the city's various neighborhoods, or we turn into Atlanta. The best way to do that is to make every street multi-modal. (Don't get absurdist on me and cite the interstates as auto-only - you can't drive on the L, either...)
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 3:28 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing here. I only think they should finish the top ring road by extending it to the street behind Swissotel. I also don't think the road should have any direct access to Wacker, you should have to make multiple turns off Wacker to get into the neighborhood. The reason I think they should do that is that it will go a long way towards creating some semblance of a grid in this challenging area of town to get around in. It will create a second road that runs parallel to Wacker and feeds into the existing road between Aqua and Swissotel. I'm all for more pedestrian walk ways between the towers to allow people to walk between the ring road and Wacker, but I think the ring road really needs to be completed.
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 7:41 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
but I think the ring road really needs to be completed.
Agreed. With Waterside Drive ending where it does it isolates the various sections of LSE... almost creating a high rise culdesac neighborhood. By continuing Waterside Westward to hook up with North Road/Thru Drive, in between Sofitel and Coast, connectivity among the neighborhood would be vastly improved.
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 8:23 PM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
Those tiny floor heights are really starting to show
__________________
My: Skyscraper Art - Diagrams - Diagram Thread
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 4:35 AM
intrepidDesign's Avatar
intrepidDesign intrepidDesign is offline
Windy City Dan
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 493
Coast Feb 17th





Baby Got Back
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 5:06 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
^^^ I'm not sure what you think I'm arguing here. I only think they should finish the top ring road by extending it to the street behind Swissotel. I also don't think the road should have any direct access to Wacker, you should have to make multiple turns off Wacker to get into the neighborhood. The reason I think they should do that is that it will go a long way towards creating some semblance of a grid in this challenging area of town to get around in. It will create a second road that runs parallel to Wacker and feeds into the existing road between Aqua and Swissotel. I'm all for more pedestrian walk ways between the towers to allow people to walk between the ring road and Wacker, but I think the ring road really needs to be completed.
That's fine, too, if it's structurally possible.

That whole Wacker cul-de-sac just strikes me as really weird, unattractive, and unfinished. The only proposals I've seen have turned it into a service drive/dropoff for the Arquitectonica building, which is a really weird way to use that space. Linking it into LSE stops it from being a dead-end.

I'm against city-owned cul-de-sacs on principle - the city should be maintaining streets for everybody, not just the people who live along it. If residents want a cul-de-sac they don't have to share with the rest of the city, then they should pay the full cost of maintenance and upkeep on that pavement, as well as any utilities beneath.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2012, 5:15 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
I'm sure the people who live around there are happy with the disjointed streets since it reduces traffic and creates a feeling of exclusivity and privacy. What's most important is that the pedestrian walkways connect. The past (not the current) master plan show the walkway between Tides and Coast connecting to Harbor drive. This should happen, and I like the thought of building directly over the street and creating an elevated plaza that looks down onto the park. The current master plan looks weak. I know it's still diagrammatic, but the pedestrian routes need to be firmly planned so no new neighbors disrupt circulation.
Believe it or not, several condo boards are in favor of an Upper Harbor-Upper Wacker connection. City planners are/were as well. They are aware of the problems of loading so much traffic onto a single dead-end street. There's not much risk of through traffic because there's no way to continue further east from the upper level... you have to backtrack to the Illinois Center area before you can get on Lower Wacker or Lower Randolph to access the Drive.

Also - Upper Columbus already connects Upper Wacker to Upper Randolph and it's incredibly sleepy, despite its gargantuan width, and does not see much cut-through traffic.

http://www.neweastside.org/Harbor-Wacker.html
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2012, 3:01 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
I agree regarding cul du sacs, but surely Wacker Drive is an exception as any extension of the road would logically connect to LSD via an interchange and I think everyone agrees that's a bad idea. What would be cool is if they were to extend it to LSD and then have it turn right between the empty lot on the corner and the exiting building (forget what that one is called right now) and connect back through to that other cul du sac on Waterside. that way you'd eliminate all the cul du sacs in the area and provide better access for the residents of LSE while still keeping it out of the way enough to discourage thru traffic.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:19 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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