CHICAGO | General Developments

[Bucky]

The site plan shown in Ardecila's post for a section of South Works does seem to repeat the flaws of Lake Meadows now being addressed (High-rise residential surrounded by too much parking and open space). It now moves those same mistakes further south.

[sentinel]

Edit - post removed, saw that OhioGuy posted the same article in another thread -oops!

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by honte

You call me an elitist when I advocate for good architecture, but you're expecting something like Skybridge on 80th Street? When's the last time you were down there? Good luck!

Just a few short years ago, nobody would have said that about Uptown, either (which is now getting a very urban mixed-use Target).

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Are there any higher-res images so we know what those dark grey strips in the bottom and left margins are? Are they rows of townhouses?

I'm not sure what they are. If they are townhouses, at least they'll screen the view of the parking lots from the old neighborhood. They'll also block vehicular access.

The site plan for this shopping center is by Antunovich Associates. I believe SOM planned the other 80% of the site.

[honte]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Just a few short years ago, nobody would have said that about Uptown, either (which is now getting a very urban mixed-use Target).

Yeah, but Uptown had: Leadership, rapidly rising land values, little available space, proximity to affluent neighborhoods, great rapid transit, and ... yuppies. None of these exist in South Chicago at the moment. Uptown has had them for at least a decade.

I agree with sound and urban planning principles as much as the next guy. But the realities of Chicago's real estate market have shaken the idealist out of me lately. When you have high prices, density, huge profit margins, yeah, I complain about design and whatnot. In this case, I'm just surprised we're going to be able to legally cross the fence that's been there for so many years.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

This same article also discusses the Theatre District tower project:

Jan. 30, 2008

Aragon owner a partner in Uptown movie theater project
By Eddie Baeb
http://chicagorealestatedaily.com/cg...ws.pl?id=27968

Also this:

Mr. Gouskos also is still working on plans for a 21-story condominium tower at 4738-50 N. Winthrop Ave., just south of the proposed retail/parking building.

http://chicagorealestatedaily.com/cg...ws.pl?id=27968

-----

Meanwhile, in the best of all possible worlds, here's hoping that someday someone will bring new life to the old Uptown Theater...

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by honte

I agree with sound and urban planning principles as much as the next guy. But the realities of Chicago's real estate market have shaken the idealist out of me lately. When you have high prices, density, huge profit margins, yeah, I complain about design and whatnot. In this case, I'm just surprised we're going to be able to legally cross the fence that's been there for so many years.

One the one hand, I agree that it's important to recognize the importance of the economics behind real estate development in many of these "under-invested" neighborhoods; in many areas, including much of the south and west sides, almost any development (i.e. investment) can and should be considered progress.

However, with that mindset taken too far and not challenged, we wind up with early-90s-era developments like the North/Sheffield/Clybourn stripmall clusterfuck (which I've heard SCB, hired as architects for Crate & Barrel, apologized for?), the gated-cul-de-sac-yardless-95%-impervious-surface-townhome clusterfucks near Diversey and the river, etc. Any investment was good investment, and man that stuff is a blight that will take decades, if ever, to undo.

Rant aside, the southworks retail, while not optimal, is definitely a boon to the area. I won't hold my breath, but even with that site plan there could be adequate pedestrian accomodations made in terms of landscaped walkways, etc.

[the urban politician]

^ And, of course, my famously favorite poster child of horrible planning: Dearborn Park

Originally Posted by wrabbit

Also this:

Mr. Gouskos also is still working on plans for a 21-story condominium tower at 4738-50 N. Winthrop Ave., just south of the proposed retail/parking building.

http://chicagorealestatedaily.com/cg...ws.pl?id=27968

-----

Meanwhile, in the best of all possible worlds, here's hoping that someday someone will bring new life to the old Uptown Theater...

^ This tower plan confuses me. On one hand, it's already sold out, on the other hand they still talk about this thing being "in planning" and having to face community opposition. Yet it's already nearly sold out. Am I missing something?

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ And, of course, my famously favorite poster child of horrible planning: Dearborn Park

So, pretend that it's 1976. It's the day after Mayor Daley's funeral, and you've been put in charge of planning for all former South Loop railyard property. You have total control over all physical planning decisions, but of course you can't change peoples' feelings about the Near South Side in 1978, you can't relocate the jail-police HQ-cage hotels-rescue missions, you can't singlehandedly rescue Chicago Public Schools, nor can you repeal the laws of economics, nor alter the hyperinflationary interest rates of the time.

What do you do differently?

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

So, pretend that it's 1976. It's the day after Mayor Daley's funeral, and you've been put in charge of planning for all former South Loop railyard property. You have total control over all physical planning decisions, but of course you can't change peoples' feelings about the Near South Side in 1978, you can't relocate the jail-police HQ-cage hotels-rescue missions, you can't singlehandedly rescue Chicago Public Schools, nor can you repeal the laws of economics, nor alter the hyperinflationary interest rates of the time.

What do you do differently?

you bring up a valid point. Not to mention the mistakes you see in Dearborn Park are still being replicated across the country, in places that aren't as far along on the revitalizing of inner city neighborhoods.

the schools question still hasn't been answered. Now, just like in '78, most kids that came from wealthier parents go to private schools. But what has changed is people's perceptions of safety. And that was a huge problem back then.

In any case, sometimes a dearborn park is necessary to change the public mood. To show that city living isn't impossible. Even if that means putting up walls and ignoring the rules of smart urban planning.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by alex1

the schools question still hasn't been answered.

Jones High School, immediately adjacent to Dearborn Park, was ranked (along with 3 other Chicago Public Schools) as one of the top 100 public high schools in the country. Just sayin'.

And yeah, Dearborn Park Phase I (north of Roosevelt), being an early example or urban "revitalization" and "transformation" of the city's old industrial districts, made almost complete sense in its context. And in that context, I think it was very successful, and even included decent density in the highrises and midrises that line State street. That said:
1. The existing site plan can and should be gradually revamped to better connect with the surrounding neighborhood, e.g. punch 9th/Park Terrace through to connect with Clark street, add stairs/ramps from Roosevelt Road.
2. The low-rise, low-density Dearborn Park Phase II (south of Roosevelt), developed in the 90s, with single family homes lining State all the way up to Roosevelt, cul-de-sacs and no connectivity to Clark, was inexcusably awful.

[honte]

^ Agreed. Dearborn Park II is vomit-inducing. The first one, I'm actually quite fond of (mistakes notwithstanding).

[Mr Downtown]

Other than running 14th through to Clark, what decision about DPII should have been made differently at the time?

There was just no market for anything but townhouses in that area in 1989. The third highrise in DPI had been cancelled a couple years earlier. Initial plans for a Stanley Tigerman-designed midrise west of the school were cancelled after the foundations had already been poured. Many of the townhouses were sold as "move-ups" to people who already lived in DPI. The real estate recession of 1991-93 was not insignificant in the decisions made in the South Loop. Look at what Central Station built for its first 10 years. Townhouse complexes could be parcelled out to various developers and built little by little as the units sold.

What happens on a particular parcel affects the city for generations, but the decision has to be made at one particular point in the real estate and credit cycle.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

So, pretend that it's 1976. It's the day after Mayor Daley's funeral, and you've been put in charge of planning for all former South Loop railyard property. You have total control over all physical planning decisions, but of course you can't change peoples' feelings about the Near South Side in 1978, you can't relocate the jail-police HQ-cage hotels-rescue missions, you can't singlehandedly rescue Chicago Public Schools, nor can you repeal the laws of economics, nor alter the hyperinflationary interest rates of the time.

What do you do differently?

^ I correct the problem in 2008.

Chicago isn't a great city because it's a city full of inward-oriented walled-off kingdoms. It's a great city because it's a city of interconnected neighborhoods. I think it's time to recognize mistakes made in the past and correct them to reflect the times in which we live. Look what's happening to Lake Meadows.

Cities change. If Dearborn Park doesn't change, then that's the real problem, not my failure to recognize how the peculiarities of its layout fit the time in which it was built. Run some roads through it, damn it!

Btw, I agree with Honte. I also prefer DPI

[honte]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Other than running 14th through to Clark, what decision about DPII should have been made differently at the time?

^ 20-year Land Lease??

__________________

Ground has been broken on the Stone Point Condominiums in Bridgeport. This is the 8-story condo on Halsted overlooking the amazing new city park in the former Stearns Quarry. http://www.stonepointcondominiums.com/. One of the up-sides to Bridgeport being so backwards is that there seems to be no opposition to high-density housing in most parts of the neighborhood. Several surprisingly tall and dense projects have been built there over the last few years (all ugly). Another 6- or 7-story building is going up right now on the north side of 31st just west of the Dan Ryan.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I correct the problem in 2008. . . Run some roads through it, damn it!

I'd like to see that, too. Got any suggestions for strategies to accomplish that?

[the urban politician]

^ Sure, but does that matter? Who in hell will ever allow that to happen?

[Eventually...Chicago]

dearborn park was the "first one in" sort of project. as bad as it is all we really need to hope is that the south loop will continue to develop and the land will be too valuable to let it sit as is. The south loop has dozens of wide open sites that need to be filled first. Also townhouse areas have lots of different owners, making them nearly impossible to redevelop. Same with condos.

I think that this quality is both a good and bad thing for chicago. Chicago has tons of open parcels for development all over the city, so it has a lot of future potential, but that means bad buildings/projects tend to stick around instead of being redeveloped. There is nothing that leads to good dense urban planning and rebirth like being on an island. I think we just need gas prices to go up high enough that it imposes an economic barrier to outward growth and people have no choice but to move in. Or maybe only lakefront municipalities get lake water, that'll get them moving back!

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Eventually...Chicago

Or maybe only lakefront municipalities get lake water, that'll get them moving back!

It won't do anything - most suburbs don't use the lake anyway.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I'd like to see that, too. Got any suggestions for strategies to accomplish that?

What's the feasibility of using eminent domain tactics? We're not even talking about evicting people, just seizing the little bits of empty landscaping and fences that keep people out, and paving them over. If residents sue over quality of life reduction, then settle with money taken from the nearest TIF district.

Or, if the city already owns the little grassy bits and fences, then just pull a Meigs Field and move landscapers in to rip out the sod and fences, and then a CDOT crew to pave it. Of course, you give them all police protection.