CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 567

the urban politician · #**11321** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 12:15 AM**

^ Great news!

I have been waiting to see that lot (and the lots east of it) developed.

I like Chinatown, but I don't love it. The Chinatown square development is a great development retail-wise, but the surface parking there leaves much to be desired. A multilevel project at the site you mention will help towards finally creating some enclosure in that area.

BorisMolotov · #**11322** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 12:34 AM**

Quote:

The problem is that carrying liability insurance for roller coasters is very, very expensive.

^ As much as a roller coaster would be nice, I really didn't expect one due to the reasons you mentioned. It's just that those stupid swings and a minigolf course that no one ever seems to use look really bad there IMO. You don't think they could put at least one or two good thrill rides there?

Maybe charge an admission into a small park there.

Rizzo · #**11323** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 1:03 AM**

You can't charge admission (not even on a small one). It wouldn't be profitable.

Amusement parks can charge admission because people go there to ride a multitude of rides and would prefer not to pay per ride.

Piers can charge per ride. Understand it like this, The existing rides at Navy Pier are a side attraction. People can choose what they want to ride without having to spend alot. You'll turn away older customers for example, who want a relaxing ride on the ferris wheel to see the city. They don't want to pay $8 to ride everything. Okay, so charge a small admission....well now you are just losing money since people are "buying cheaper in bulk" as opposed to paying for the mini gulf, ferris wheel, and swing ride separately.

It makes alot more sense to charge a higher ticket price for just the roller coaster if you were building one. Problem solved

ardecila · #**11324** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 1:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BorisMolotov

^ As much as a roller coaster would be nice, I really didn't expect one due to the reasons you mentioned. It's just that those stupid swings and a minigolf course that no one ever seems to use look really bad there IMO. You don't think they could put at least one or two good thrill rides there?

Maybe charge an admission into a small park there.

As I mentioned, Zamperla has done some interesting things at Coney Island, bringing an assortment of their most popular rides to a compact site. Since they're a manufacturer, they can easily move rides in and out seasonally, reselling the rides to other parks, testing out new designs for popularity, etc. It also frees up the city (of NY) from having to purchase/operate/maintain the rides - they just award a one-price contract.

They can and do charge admission - $26 for a four-hour pass, or $30 for a six-hour pass. I'm not sure how the enforcement works, but I'm sure it works somehow. I don't know why they couldn't charge admission for a similar park at Navy Pier, assuming that the range of rides and games was roughly equivalent.

I've always thought that the city should have an amusement park, even if it's just a small one. Historically, there were many parks in the city and inner suburbs, and today it's difficult and expensive for people to get up to Gurnee, especially people from lower-income neighborhoods in the city. Navy Pier is easily accessible by public transportation, and it's the ideal place for an amusement area in the city that is geared to kids and young adults from the city - not to tourists. Coney's Luna Park offers an excellent model for this, and it's been extremely successful (although it's only been open for one year).

I do think the ferris wheel should stay, or be replaced with a bigger one - the ferris wheel is an iconic part of Navy Pier. Maybe replace the gondolas with something sleeker, and re-design the lighting scheme? Ideally, it would not be included in the amusement park pricing scheme, so it would be "outside the fence", so to speak.

Vertigo · #**11325** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 1:57 AM**

The wimpy Ferris Wheel has always been an issue with me at Navy Pier. Even before the bigger ones were built. If there is a place that should have a big Ferris Wheel, it's Chicago. After all, It made it's debut here. It should be associated with the city the same way skyscrapers are. Yet most visitors(and many locals) are completely unaware of the connection.

Even though I know it will never happen, I've always thought it would be cool to have a chairlift running the length of the pier. Great way to enjoy the view and avoid the crowds below.

ardecila · #**11326** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 8:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

The next zoning committee agenda has a See Wong zoning request for a 5-story building with 65,000 sq ft of retail and 60 hotel rooms at "2101-2115 S. Archer; 2100-2114 S. Wentworth."

Anyone know anything about this? Renderings? Looks like it would be on the irregularly shaped grocery parking lot on the sharp SW corner of the Archer/Wentworth intersection, so it's definitely an interesting site for a semi-prominent building.

Since it is a See Wong project, the architect is almost certainly Haylock. I wouldn't expect anything too grand from them - everything to come out of that firm is shitty design. I doubt the 5-story building will even hold the corner properly - they'll probably shoehorn a rectangular building into the site and make some awkward little triangular greenspaces with black-iron fencing.

I say this after learning that the so-ugly-it's-cool Hong Kong-style design for Eastern Tower has been replaced by a Haylock shitbox. Ordinarily, I wouldn't be too concerned about the design quality for a Chinatown project, but this is particularly upsetting, given that Eastern Tower had an interesting design previously.

Eastern Tower (red building in the aerial)

Busy Bee · #**11327** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 3:27 PM**

Ahhh shit.

spyguy · #**11328** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 6:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Since it is a See Wong project, the architect is almost certainly Haylock. I wouldn't expect anything too grand from them - everything to come out of that firm is shitty design. I doubt the 5-story building will even hold the corner properly - they'll probably shoehorn a rectangular building into the site and make some awkward little triangular greenspaces with black-iron fencing.

I say this after learning that the so-ugly-it's-cool Hong Kong-style design for Eastern Tower has been replaced by a Haylock shitbox. Ordinarily, I wouldn't be too concerned about the design quality for a Chinatown project, but this is particularly upsetting, given that Eastern Tower had an interesting design previously.

It is a Haylock design, just like both versions of Eastern Tower. And it's built right up to the lot line.

spyguy · #**11329** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 6:50 PM**

Montrose Green
1819 W Montrose - right next to the CTA station
Retail/office/residential

The previous proposal was for the Montrose Art Center. The architect and basic design remains the same.

Baronvonellis · #**11330** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 7:09 PM**

Wow, that's pretty wacky. Looks like retail facing an alley. I've never seen that before. Wish it was taller though.

In other news for that area the addition to the Old Town School of Folk music is under construction. When I went by there the other day there were lots of construction equipment on the site working and the foundation looks like it was getting ready to be poured. The Old Town School of Folk Music is a big driver of the retail for the area. I see lots of people walking around with guitars around there, and going to the restaurants and shops after class. This would just about double the amount of musicians around there. Lincoln Square is turning into Lincoln Park North.

J_M_Tungsten · #**11331** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 7:15 PM**

The future of Old Town?

From Sekkle's Portland, Oregon Thread
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=186292

Busy Bee · #**11332** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 7:48 PM**

Awesome! 5 suburban kids pretending to be homeless Roma.

Nowhereman1280 · #**11333** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 8:23 PM**

^^^ You mean the future of Lincoln Square?

I love lincoln square, one of my favorite neighborhoods in Chicago. Just as nice as Lincoln Park, but a lot more laid back.

denizen467 · #**11334** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 8:58 PM**

Site prep work has started on at the ex Gansevoort site, with the north side of Illinois Street also being narrowed by jersey barriers. We don't have renders of what's going there, do we?

Nowhereman1280 · #**11335** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 9:09 PM**

??? I thought that site was supposed to be stalled or cancelled? Hopefully they are moving ahead with the original design because it was gorgeous...

The AIA gave it an award as a cancelled project...

aiachicago.org

denizen467 · #**11336** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 9:25 PM**

^ I think the hotel was cancelled, but isn't some pub or something going there? It was never clear whether it was going to be just a throwaway 2-story commercial (like next door) or mid-rise commercial with other uses on top.

the urban politician · #**11337** Posted **Nov 13, 2010, 10:13 PM**

^ It will be a 2 level commercial building, one of the tenants will be a bar, the same bar that's in Wrigleyville (forgot the name).

Yay.

spyguy · #**11338** Posted **Nov 14, 2010, 12:44 AM**

^They actually pulled out and were replaced by Cantina Laredo. So I assume that's what is going up.

In other news, the Trib mentions that Target is still in talks for a 125,000 sf store in Sullivan Center and could be joined by a 25,000 sf DSW. I've always thought the large empty space in Citadel Center would be a better fit for DSW considering the layout and the number of shoe stores on that block.

denizen467 · #**11339** Posted **Nov 14, 2010, 2:40 AM**

^ I was curious - found these numbers. A Sullivan Center store would not be much different from their other city stores (which now have groceries anyway).

http://pressroom.target.com/pr/news/fastfacts.aspx

Target operates two store formats:

General Merchandise stores ... are typically one-level stores within major community or regional shopping districts. This is our most prevalent store format which is approximately 126,000 square feet in size. ...

SuperTarget stores ... an average size of 174,000 square feet per store, SuperTarget’s mix of grocery and merchandise delights our guests by offering the convenience of one-stop shopping.

ChiTownCity · #**11340** Posted **Nov 14, 2010, 6:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

^They actually pulled out and were replaced by Cantina Laredo. So I assume that's what is going up.

In other news, the Trib mentions that Target is still in talks for a 125,000 sf store in Sullivan Center and could be joined by a 25,000 sf DSW. I've always thought the large empty space in Citadel Center would be a better fit for DSW considering the layout and the number of shoe stores on that block.

So the highrise is actually going up then?