CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[SolarWind]

September 29, 2017

[SolarWind]

September 29, 2017

[SolarWind]

September 29, 2017

[SolarWind]

September 29, 2017

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by 10023

Hopefully that all gets torn down and replaced in one go next time.

I really hope that something can be done which creates some kind of public space and focal point for River North, though. Keep the blocks bounded by LaSalle, Erie, Clark and Ohio open as a sort of mini Madison Square Park. Then go big on the lots facing it to the south (Best Western/parking), east (Rainforest Cafe/Hard Rock Cafe/Walgreens/parking lot), and north (Fogo de Chao and some other low rose monstrosity). There are few nice older buildings to the north of Portillo's which would, ideally, be moved. This would ideally include breaking up the street grid and creating a more managed traffic flow.

That won't happen though, and modern Chicago is very bad at big centerpiece projects (witness the utter failure of Block 37).

I hope that McDonald's stays there forever. It looks nice to me and I don't see it as bad for the area. They could definitely give up that parking lot though.

[10023]

^ De gustibus non disputandum est... needless to say I disagree.

[jc5680]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I hope that McDonald's stays there forever. It looks nice to me and I don't see it as bad for the area. They could definitely give up that parking lot though.

Ditto, kill the parking lot, keep the absurd spectacle.

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I wouldn't be that harsh, modern Chicago has also had some great successes (Millennium and Maggie Daley Parks, Riverwalk, the Navy Pier redo is turning out to be a huge improvement IMO)

The problem with Block 37 is that it happened in the early 2000's when there was still a 90's mentality hanging over developers. We seem to have broken free of that in the past 7-8 years. I think it would have turned out much better had it been developed today. For example, the new apt building built atop of it was a recent addition and was a much bolder, denser celebration of urbanity and the central city than the gloried shopping mall and Dallas style office building that came before it.

I agree that Chicago has been quite mediocre to poor with centerpiece projects... and when i think center piece project im thinking ala rockafeller center..where a central building is a focal point and surrounding park or open space is integrated and possibly other buildings... Its funny because we supposedly have the best architects or tops in the world but when given a blank slate we more than often underwhelm. Im hoping that lot behind north Michigan avenue that CIM group (i think its CIM) i believe is developing is not another failure added to the list.
Also block 37 is such a disappointment of what it could of been...dead center in middle of city and such blandness and lack of verticality...very annoying

[harryc]

Can't keep em straight without a program
#8 Curbed guide to the West Loop

Sept 25



Maple Bacon Long John ......

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

I agree that Chicago has been quite mediocre to poor with centerpiece projects... and when i think center piece project im thinking ala rockafeller center..where a central building is a focal point and surrounding park or open space is integrated and possibly other buildings... Its funny because we supposedly have the best architects or tops in the world but when given a blank slate we more than often underwhelm. Im hoping that lot behind north Michigan avenue that CIM group (i think its CIM) i believe is developing is not another failure added to the list.
Also block 37 is such a disappointment of what it could of been...dead center in middle of city and such blandness and lack of verticality...very annoying

The boom/bust cycle interferes with the completion of big master plans. A single developer usually can't build out all the square footage they're entitled to within a single economic cycle, especially not when plenty of other developers are competing for the same tenants. Other US cities have the same issue, but sometimes have bottomless demand like NYC. In other countries, the variables are different - maybe more government subsidy, maybe cheaper labor, maybe more demand, maybe less market competition - so you see more of these mega-developments come to completion. Economies of scale make this style of development pretty efficient, it's just that US cities aren't well-suited for it.

For Chicago, I think Lakeshore East is pretty spectacular. It has its fair share of filler buildings but also world-class architecture, arranged in a very successful and dramatic urban plan. Most of the key pieces are in place now after 20 years, once Site O gets developed it will really gel.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by 10023

Hopefully that all gets torn down and replaced in one go next time.

I really hope that something can be done which creates some kind of public space and focal point for River North, though. Keep the blocks bounded by LaSalle, Erie, Clark and Ohio open as a sort of mini Madison Square Park. Then go big on the lots facing it to the south (Best Western/parking), east (Rainforest Cafe/Hard Rock Cafe/Walgreens/parking lot), and north (Fogo de Chao and some other low rose monstrosity). There are few nice older buildings to the north of Portillo's which would, ideally, be moved. This would ideally include breaking up the street grid and creating a more managed traffic flow.

That won't happen though, and modern Chicago is very bad at big centerpiece projects (witness the utter failure of Block 37).

If the expectation is that the core of the city will continue to add population, there should be much more planning of open space IMO. Plazas, squares, parks, etc. But to achieve greatness, the city needs to step up and make land acquisition, not simply rely on "privatized" public space in the form of public right of way to whatever developers choose to offer. Might be a bit tougher to the near north and west where available land is now more scarce and more expensive - though I would like to see it. Plenty of land to the south/southwest for big thinking.

[10023]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

If the expectation is that the core of the city will continue to add population, there should be much more planning of open space IMO. Plazas, squares, parks, etc. But to achieve greatness, the city needs to step up and make land acquisition, not simply rely on "privatized" public space in the form of public right of way to whatever developers choose to offer. Might be a bit tougher to the near north and west where available land is now more scarce and more expensive - though I would like to see it. Plenty of land to the south/southwest for big thinking.

I agree, but unfortunately neither the city of Chicago not the state of Illinois have any money. Even Millenium Park relied on philanthropy.

[the urban politician]

I not think public open space needs to be that expensive for it to be successful.

[10023]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I not think public open space needs to be that expensive for it to be successful.

The improvements don't need to be that expensive. You don't need something like Millenium Park, filled with Gehry and Kapoor and others. And that was bound to be expensive because it's build over a rail yard.

But I do believe that truly great public spaces need to be a decent size. Pocket parks are nice but don't make great public spaces. Buying two full city blocks in Chicago (about the size of Bryant Park?) from private landowners is going to cost a pretty penny by itself.

Then yeah, all you need to do is build a low brick wall, iron fencing, line it with shrubbery (with entrances at the corners and mid-block), plant grass, and add a few pathways from point to point within the park. Later some wealthy person can fund and dedicate a fountain, community groups can plant flower beds and trees, and you've got a great space. Or you can require developers to fund improvements in exchange for zoning exceptions for plots on the periphery (since it would increase the value of their projects). But you need some vision and initiative to secure that real estate while it's available.

[woodrow]

^^ I think about this a fair amount! Every time i go by the river north post office. Exactly what you say. A neighborhood park, or plaza, or square. Keep it simple. And the idea of incentives to developers on the periphery is spot on.

[The Best Forumer]

Originally Posted by harryc

Sept 29

From Left to right - Mc D's - Nobu Hotel - 210 N Green

Nice shot...

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by 10023

Or you can require developers to fund improvements in exchange for zoning exceptions for plots on the periphery (since it would increase the value of their projects). But you need some vision and initiative to secure that real estate while it's available.

The fact that it's off the government budget doesn't mean that there isn't a "cost" to these actions. I'm completely on board the idea that these public spaces should be created, and the idea that those who benefit more pay more is overall sensible (and is the basic idea behind TIF), but zoning should not be used as a tool to tax real estate. Zoning is about separation of land use and regulating externalities imposed by development. While it's politically convenient to use zoning as a tool to extract revenue, it should be recognized for what it is - a tax on improvements on land, which is a highly inefficient form of taxation that has real, negative consequences.

[harryc]

Sept 28

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by 10023

I agree, but unfortunately neither the city of Chicago not the state of Illinois have any money. Even Millenium Park relied on philanthropy.

Actually, that's not necessarily true. Most people think this because they don't have good knowledge of how budget and large organizations work. Depending on the regulations of the organization, it's totally possible to have one sub organization which is totally fine and has mine while another one doesn't with regulation/rules stating that you can't take from one sub-organization/division and put it in another.

For example:
http://www.chicagocitytreasurer.com/...than-budgeted/

[SolarWind]

October 2, 2017