CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 282

Jibba · #**5621** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 7:04 AM**

^Something about that story is utterly hilarious to me (nothing about you or your character, but about your explaining to uninformed tourists how to travel in ways that they likely found unimaginable), and, accordingly, somewhat sad and unfortunate.

cbotnyse · #**5622** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 12:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

...I wonder if they'd be twice as shocked by Avenido 9 de Julio in Buenos Aires.

probably, yeah. what's your point?

aic4ever · #**5623** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 2:24 PM**

I find the easiest way to Navy Pier from Millenium Park is to go up Michigan Ave., cross the river, then cut northeast through the plaza at Tribune Tower and Cityfront Plaza. Go down the stairs at the dead end of Illinois (upper) and down onto the lower Illinois, and it's a straight shot to the pier.

To simplify it for tourists, just tell them Michigan north to Illinois, east to the Pier. They won't get the more pleasant stroll through the plazas, obviously, but it's the easiest way to get there.

wrab · #**5624** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 2:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abner

.....the city pretty much only plants deciduous trees and other plants that lose all their leaves and color in the winter. Even the planter boxes downtown, some of which could have native grasses, small conifers, or evergreen bushes, instead get flowers in the summer and weird mats of butchered pine twigs in the winter. Wouldn't it be nice to have winter landscaping in this new area, or at least landscaping that looks good year-round like the area around the Notebaert museum or the restored pieces of Northerly Island?

You know, I've been wondering why there aren't more conifers/evergreens in the city for the longest time. I though that it maybe it was a hangover from the aftermath of the Great Fire, because of the high combustibility of pine wood?

Anybody know? Mr. Downtown?

cbotnyse · #**5625** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 2:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aic4ever

I find the easiest way to Navy Pier from Millenium Park is to go up Michigan Ave., cross the river, then cut northeast through the plaza at Tribune Tower and Cityfront Plaza. Go down the stairs at the dead end of Illinois (upper) and down onto the lower Illinois, and it's a straight shot to the pier.

To simplify it for tourists, just tell them Michigan north to Illinois, east to the Pier. They won't get the more pleasant stroll through the plazas, obviously, but it's the easiest way to get there.

so we should steer people away from the new section of park the city is spending $35 million on? I understand your point, and you're right, but it just illustrates how much a pedestrain bridge makes sense as part of the renovation of that area.

aic4ever · #**5626** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 3:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

so we should steer people away from the new section of park the city is spending $35 million on? I understand your point, and you're right, but it just illustrates how much a pedestrain bridge makes sense as part of the renovation of that area.

Well, as of right now, there is no $35 million expansion in place, so my directions are actually faster anyway, since all parts of Millenium park are currently closer to Michigan Ave. than they are to the lakefront. While I understand the attraction to walking along the lake to get to the Pier, if the Pier is the main destination, the route given, in my opinion should be the easiest, especially for tourists. I have been traversing the lakefront since I moved into the city in '99, and with the current construction happening where you cross the river, I find myself getting turned around again, like I used to, at the area where I need to cross the river to get to the pier.

That said, I really can't disagree with the idea of a pedestrian bridge over LSD. Hell they put one over Columbus for no reason apparent to me, other than perhaps to service future expansion. The problem I see will be that there isn't a heck of a lot of room on the lake side of the drive to accommodate abutments and the necessary handicap ramps, and still make the thing look decent. I think the last thing anybody wants there is something reminiscent of the North Ave. crossing, which is kind of an eyesore.

As far as crossings go, at this point, I'd much prefer to see Queen's Landing addressed. It's a flat-out crime that there's no option for crossing at that location anymore (there used to at least be a light) other than playing live-action frogger.

cbotnyse · #**5627** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 3:24 PM**

what do you mean no plan in place? did you read the link spyguy posted?

I think there should be a crossing at Queen's and at Randolph, either above or below ground, doesn't matter to me.

The more I think of it the more I hate how Columbus and LSD just kill Grant Park. Do we really need 16 lanes of traffic cutting through the heart of the park?

Mr Downtown · #**5628** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 3:34 PM**

Some of you are misunderstanding the problem. Tourists walk east over the BP Bridge, logically expecting to continue onward to the lake and then north to Navy Pier. By the time they're standing at Upper Randolph and Field Boulevard, telling them to walk all the way back to Michigan Avenue and start over is not perceived as all that helpful.

cbotnyse · #**5629** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 3:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Some of you are misunderstanding the problem. Tourists walk east over the BP Bridge, logically expecting to continue onward to the lake and then north to Navy Pier. By the time they're standing at Upper Randolph and Field Boulevard, telling them to walk all the way back to Michigan Avenue and start over is not perceived as all that helpful.

hell no it isn't, or as you said earlier, walk back south in the opposite direction to Monroe and wait for the light to change. Its embarrasing actually.

Chicago3rd · #**5630** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 3:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Some of you are misunderstanding the problem. Tourists walk east over the BP Bridge, logically expecting to continue onward to the lake and then north to Navy Pier. By the time they're standing at Upper Randolph and Field Boulevard, telling them to walk all the way back to Michigan Avenue and start over is not perceived as all that helpful.

Logically? Since when was Grant Park the link to Navy Pier? And if that is the only goal for the BP bridge then put signs on the walking path...it is easy....take a left at the end of the bridge...walk 50 feet take a right pass through the cancer garden and follow trails diaganal under Lake Shore drive to lake front take left.

Priority on the parks should be in this order:

1. Citizens of the city of Chicago
2. Citizens of the Chicagoland Area
3. Tourist

I am sad to see all these changes....I love that area...especially in the summer. I hope it doesn't get too thought out...and become another Disneyland.

cbotnyse · #**5631** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd

Priority on the parks should be in this order:
1. Citizens of the city of Chicago
2. Citizens of the Chicagoland Area
3. Tourist

you don't think all residents of LSE would use this? I am a citzen of Chicago and a resident of the area and I think its exactly what the area needs. The lakefront needs better pedestrain access from Roosevelt to Chicago Ave.

Loopy · #**5632** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 4:50 PM**

.

Chicago3rd · #**5633** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 4:52 PM**

I was discussing the bridge to nowhere that for some reason people feels needs to be made into the bridge to Navy Pier.

Am in agreement with you...historically I am for the pedestrian right a way at the Buckingham fountain (Queens Landing).

Closing of Columbus Drive period.

Hell I am the person who wants LSD gone. Or at least turned into a normal Blvd.

I am just opposed to things being planned around the needs of the tourist. Yes LSE deserves to be heard in this discussion and their concerns should be taken seriously, but Grant Park was not ever designed to be a neighborhood park...and shouldn't be treated as one.

cbotnyse · #**5634** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd

I am just opposed to things being planned around the needs of the tourist. Yes LSE deserves to be heard in this discussion and their concerns should be taken seriously, but Grant Park was not ever designed to be a neighborhood park...and shouldn't be treated as one.

so if its not designed for tourists or as a neighborhood park, then who should it be designed for? When Grant Park was designed, I don't think it was envisioned that there would be so much residential development surrounding it.

I also think Columbus should be at least down to 4 lanes (not 8) with a 20 MPH speed limit, and at least 2 pedestrain crossings to the lake over LSD from the fountian to Chicago Ave.

Loopy, do you have a link or more info to the planned bridge at Randolph. why has nobody mentioned this before?

brian_b · #**5635** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 5:05 PM**

The residents of LSE would most likely use the already-existing path at the Lancaster. There's a driveway with a sidewalk down to the parking facility, but if you continue on you've got the wide [paved] alley leading to the parking lot underneath LSD, which has a faded pedestrian walkway painted on it that leads directly to the lakefront bike path. People that find themselves on Harbor Drive can use the staircase right there at the Lancaster to walk down and be deposited right at the entrance to the above-mentioned driveway.

No, it's not well-marked and it's not ideal, but it's easy and already exists and to anyone already in LSE it's going to be a lot more convenient than crossing all the way down at Queen's Landing.

cbotnyse · #**5636** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 5:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian_b

No, it's not well-marked and it's not ideal, but it's easy and already exists and to anyone already in LSE it's going to be a lot more convenient than crossing all the way down at Queen's Landing.

I'm not talking about Queen's landing, I'm taking about a bridge over LSD at Randolph.

Loopy · #**5637** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 5:27 PM**

.

cbotnyse · #**5638** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 5:50 PM**

^^ thats why I don't understand why a bridge or underpass cant be included in the $35 million. Are we really spending $35 million dollars on landscaping???

Loopy · #**5639** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 6:22 PM**

.

Chicago3rd · #**5640** Posted **Dec 22, 2008, 7:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

so if its not designed for tourists or as a neighborhood park, then who should it be designed for? When Grant Park was designed, I don't think it was envisioned that there would be so much residential development surrounding it. ?

Name one neighborhood park that will get as much money from the city as this part of the Park will. Clearly it isn't a neighborhood park. After Wells Park gets $35 million then that neighborhood can have their $35 million dollar park...well after all the other neighborhood parks in the city get their $35 million. I am all for that.

It should be planned as a City park for the entire city and the uses the city needs.