HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 6:53 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,467
Here's the problem with saying a development is "too high". Putting it off only makes it worse. Here's a proposal from last year:
http://neighborsofwestloop.com/2016/...r-development/

Quote:
The 19-story building would be located along Peoria Street, between Pastorelli Food Products (901 W. Lake) and the new Cruz Blanca/Leña Brava restaurant (900 W. Randolph). The existing historic buildings on Lake, Sangamon, and Randolph would serve as a buffer between the larger building and the street level. The building façade is proposed to be brick, concrete, and dark metal with a steel and glass structure.

Committee Feedback

The Development Committee felt that, at 194 ft (with the possibility of increasing under subsequent modifications) the proposed building height was too high, especially in comparison to nearby buildings (both existing and proposed).
They could have had 19 stories, 194ft. By saying no to that, now they're facing 51 stories, 570ft. I wonder if they wish they could get the 19 story proposal back?

And who knows, maybe this is all bait and switch? Get everyone to freak out about 570ft, and then they'll be greatful when it's cut down to "only" 200ft?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 7:12 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
I have no problem with trying to control development to maintain the character of a neighborhood. But we should also recognize the costs of doing so, and consider whether it’s worth it. Your original statement that there is no shortage of land and competing developments trivializes those trade offs and suggests that we can limit development in high-demand areas at little or no cost to the city overall, as if those other parcels are experiencing the same demand but for some reason aren’t being developed. They’re not.
I understand your broader point. But I have seen enough of developers simply trying to pack people into whatever the current "hot" neighborhood is or to seek height simply to market views to not feel that every proposal requires a philosophical argument. The developer will come back with a more reasonable proposal and everyone will live just fine.
If someone wants to make the case that the entire area should have been higher density and other development sites de-emphasized because that would have somehow benefited the city, then fine, make that case. But that isn't the direction that has been taken. Or, make the point that the city should plan better overall so that every proposal doesn't lead to these neighborhood arguments and one-off decisions... well, I would certainly support that.
With regard to other sites, I am of the impression that all the big money behind Riverline, 78, Finkl, Tribune, Reese, etc. do expect those areas will experience demand and will be developed, while the Fulton area and near west side has other land as well. So, I am not convinced there is any net loss from not packing more density than currently planned into the West Loop.

Last edited by VKChaz; Nov 1, 2017 at 10:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 9:36 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is online now
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 1,821
I appreciate the fact that many people here want to keep the West Loop as a mid rise neighborhood, since Chicago pretty much lacks in that department, and I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, when it comes to any development near transit, I'm fine with shooting for the moon when it comes to density. It makes sense to build a huge amount of units next to a busy L stop than one a mile or two away whose residents will most likely be auto dependent regardless of how good the bus service is.

And also, regarding WLCO, maybe this will make them think twice before shooting down any and every proposal that comes their way that's higher than 6 stories. A high profile failure or two against developers aught to bring their collective ego down a notch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 10:18 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brookfield / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
I appreciate the fact that many people here want to keep the West Loop as a mid rise neighborhood, since Chicago pretty much lacks in that department, and I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, when it comes to any development near transit, I'm fine with shooting for the moon when it comes to density. It makes sense to build a huge amount of units next to a busy L stop than one a mile or two away whose residents will most likely be auto dependent regardless of how good the bus service is.

And also, regarding WLCO, maybe this will make them think twice before shooting down any and every proposal that comes their way that's higher than 6 stories. A high profile failure or two against developers aught to bring their collective ego down a notch.
Let Lakeview go complete midrise. Anything touching the loop should be as big as the steel can support.
__________________
“Chicago ain't no sissy town.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 10:21 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
I appreciate the fact that many people here want to keep the West Loop as a mid rise neighborhood, since Chicago pretty much lacks in that department, and I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, when it comes to any development near transit, I'm fine with shooting for the moon when it comes to density. It makes sense to build a huge amount of units next to a busy L stop than one a mile or two away whose residents will most likely be auto dependent regardless of how good the bus service is.

And also, regarding WLCO, maybe this will make them think twice before shooting down any and every proposal that comes their way that's higher than 6 stories. A high profile failure or two against developers aught to bring their collective ego down a notch.
i'm not sure you'll find many people *here* that are against well planned / designed high-rises in West loop
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 10:23 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,234
That blocky podium is a bit much.

From the information, it's 65' tall, and I wouldn't honestly mind seeing that cut in 1/2.

There should be a compromise: the developers place three floors of the parking underground, which would allow for a lower, and more pedestrain friendly base with active use and a slightly shorter tower.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 10:25 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,628
[duplicate]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 10:26 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
Let Lakeview go complete midrise. Anything touching the loop should be as big as the steel can support.
For Chicago's cultural assets, it needs a walkable, semi-charming neighborhood close to the CBD that residents and visiting folks alike will be able to enjoy as a reprieve from the throng of towers downtown. The West Loop's history makes it one of the obvious candidates, and the requisite zoning overlay has been put into place, so there's no point in violating it now with a 50-story tower.

And Lakeview will never become a mid-rise neighborhood, for myriad reasons too numerous to spell out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 10:34 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
For Chicago's cultural assets, it needs a walkable, semi-charming neighborhood close to the CBD that residents and visiting folks alike will be able to enjoy as a reprieve from the throng of towers downtown. The West Loop's history makes it one of the obvious candidates, and the requisite zoning overlay has been put into place, so there's no point in violating it now with a 50-story tower.

And Lakeview will never become a mid-rise neighborhood, for myriad reasons too numerous to spell out.
Bronzeville east of MLK and north of Pershing would be another good candidate, but too much of the developable land is controlled by a handful of big developers to make it likely.

I would love to see Dearborn Park redeveloped as all mid rise, a continuation of Printers Row.

Most of the proposed mega developments on the river could also be new mid rise districts, but the developers seem to still favor the tower/townhome combo in parks (as well designed as some of them have been, at least for the conceptual renderings ahead of Amazon).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 12:22 AM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brookfield / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
For Chicago's cultural assets, it needs a walkable, semi-charming neighborhood close to the CBD that residents and visiting folks alike will be able to enjoy as a reprieve from the throng of towers downtown. The West Loop's history makes it one of the obvious candidates, and the requisite zoning overlay has been put into place, so there's no point in violating it now with a 50-story tower.

And Lakeview will never become a mid-rise neighborhood, for myriad reasons too numerous to spell out.
I'll compromise. Anything East of I-90 can be supertalls, anything West not currently under construction can be midrises.
__________________
“Chicago ain't no sissy town.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 12:31 AM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is online now
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 1,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
I'll compromise. Anything East of I-90 can be supertalls, anything West not currently under construction can be midrises.
Ha! I love the ambition, but don't forget that you'd level a lot of charming, historic and walkable neighborhoods for all those new high rises. I wouldn't mind mixing in a lot of taller development into these neighborhoods in areas that are already underdeveloped (empty lots, parking lots, ugly retail strip malls, etc.), especially if they are transit oriented.

My biggest pet peeve right now is the old Cabrini site. Its frustrating how long its taking to redevelop the area. I would absolutely love for the plans to call for high rises, especially along the river and clustered along Clybourn and Division. It would help connect downtown with the North/Clybourn corridor, better integrating the latter into the 'greater downtown' area.

We will probably see mostly lowrises and townhomes unfortunately.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 12:38 AM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brookfield / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
Ha! I love the ambition, but don't forget that you'd level a lot of charming, historic and walkable neighborhoods for all those new high rises. I wouldn't mind mixing in a lot of taller development into these neighborhoods in areas that are already underdeveloped (empty lots, parking lots, ugly retail strip malls, etc.), especially if they are transit oriented.

My biggest pet peeve right now is the old Cabrini site. Its frustrating how long its taking to redevelop the area. I would absolutely love for the plans to call for high rises, especially along the river and clustered along Clybourn and Division. It would help connect downtown with the North/Clybourn corridor, better integrating the latter into the 'greater downtown' area.

We will probably see mostly lowrises and townhomes unfortunately.
Charming, historic, and walkable neighborhoods...

Damn, you got me. It's like the puppy dog eyes of the architectural world. You guys win. We'll only build on surface lots and torn down parking garages,

But you are absolutely correct that we have underdeveloped areas yearning for new construction that are moving way too slowly.
__________________
“Chicago ain't no sissy town.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 10:28 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp View Post
i'm not sure you'll find many people *here* that are against well planned / designed high-rises in West loop
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 1:52 PM
gebs's Avatar
gebs gebs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: South Loop
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithakas View Post
I would love to see Dearborn Park redeveloped as all mid rise, a continuation of Printers Row.
I tend to agree with most comments on this forum, but out of purely selfish reasons, I don't want Dearborn Park redeveloped ... because that's where I live. Granted, if I were to look at it objectively, it does seem to create a huge gap between the CBD and the more dense plots of the South Loop, in addition to interrupting Dearborn's clean cut through the city.

Maybe one day ... but for now, I like my relatively quiet enclave.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 3:24 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 781
Quote:
Originally Posted by gebs View Post
I tend to agree with most comments on this forum, but out of purely selfish reasons, I don't want Dearborn Park redeveloped ... because that's where I live. Granted, if I were to look at it objectively, it does seem to create a huge gap between the CBD and the more dense plots of the South Loop, in addition to interrupting Dearborn's clean cut through the city.

Maybe one day ... but for now, I like my relatively quiet enclave.
Yeah, I grew up a block north of it and most of my neighborhood friends grew up in DP, so I have a lot of great memories there. But I think the city could really use some connectivity in that part of the city, considering it links the Loop with some important near south neighborhoods like Chinatown, Pilsen, and Motor Row, and it's also a natural place for another mid rise neighborhood (if done right).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 4:08 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithakas View Post
Bronzeville east of MLK and north of Pershing would be another good candidate, but too much of the developable land is controlled by a handful of big developers to make it likely.

I would love to see Dearborn Park redeveloped as all mid rise, a continuation of Printers Row.

Most of the proposed mega developments on the river could also be new mid rise districts, but the developers seem to still favor the tower/townhome combo in parks (as well designed as some of them have been, at least for the conceptual renderings ahead of Amazon).
Historically most big new construction in Chicago outside of downtown was dictated by lake views. Go as tall as you can along the lake, sell views to as many people as possible, and then rapidly transition to low rise house/town home development behind that so you can sell people a quiet, single-family neighborhood. That was how Edgewater was developed, and Lakeview/Lincoln Park as well, South Loop, Hyde Park and even South Shore.

It's kind of a limited perspective on city dwelling, it says the only reasons to put up with the "hassle" of a city are if you can get dazzling views, or if you can carve out your own quiet, suburban-style niche. Because of the high land values involved, this is a development style that tends to shut out the middle class.

To me, midrise inland neighborhoods like West Loop aren't just about a pleasant urban form, they're about a new (for Chicago) urban lifestyle where you embrace the activity, convenience and amenities of a dense, walkable area and you don't need the sweetener of a lake view or a big private yard. Instead of seeing the hustle and bustle as a hassle, you see it as a privilege that not only saves you time, but also saves money as you can forgo a car and lots of transportation costs.

I'll be interested to see what happens to West Loop as the first generations of midrise dwellers start reaching middle age and having kids. Skinner is already expanding for the second time in a decade. Maybe a neighborhood option for middle/high school is needed soon, apart from Whitney Young.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 4:14 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 15,282
^ Thats how it is in New York.

I think River North is developing in this fashion as well
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 10:05 PM
The Lurker The Lurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Great Lakes
Posts: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Thats how it is in New York.

I think River North is developing in this fashion as well
We know.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2018, 8:28 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,234
I hope... hope... hope..., that others in this audience will be attending wither one or both West Loop community meetings. Related has their work cut out, but any positive feedback is a bonus.

__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2018, 8:35 AM
PaleAle PaleAle is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 8
Who's boomer mother made that flyer.
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 > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:27 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.