HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #15841  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 3:24 AM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawfiqmp View Post
What's the next big thing in Chicago that has a realistic chance of getting built? If there isn't one, are we likely to see something in the near future? I've heard a few ideas about the old post office development having some sort of large mall.
Search: Chicago

And NOTHING is happening at the Old Post Office. Its all just posturing for resale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15842  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 3:54 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
It absolutely needs to be decked all the way to St. Clair. As is, the street and stair configuration is bad for business. No one wants to go down Grand that way because it looks unfriendly.
I agree, the balconies suck. A plaza would be a challenge though, since Grand slopes upward towards St. Clair while the balconies are level. You'd have to either depress Grand or rebuild the upper-level tenant spaces a few feet higher.

Essentially, you'd need the full cooperation of the adjoining land owners. I'd also love it if, at the end, the city extended the sidewalk into the parking lanes and built comfortably wide staircases on each side. No reason this needs to be ugly.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15843  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 5:01 AM
tawfiqmp tawfiqmp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Chicago, IL/Houston, TX
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality View Post
Search: Chicago

And NOTHING is happening at the Old Post Office. Its all just posturing for resale.
Was just an idea I saw a user threw out there, not that it was true or going to happen.

But I'm wondering if this city has any plans for creating another attraction for tourism. A big mall would be nice but then again, that would take away from what Michigan ave is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15844  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 5:28 AM
markh9's Avatar
markh9 markh9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawfiqmp View Post
But I'm wondering if this city has any plans for creating another attraction for tourism. A big mall would be nice but then again, that would take away from what Michigan ave is.
The impending Navy Pier redevelopment will be the shiny "new" tourism attraction. Thread here.

Malls are inherently anti-urban and should not be subsidized by the city - especially under the guise of becoming a 'new tourist attraction'. Read: B37.

That, and Boul Mich already has 2 (or more?) major malls as it is...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15845  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 6:40 AM
tawfiqmp tawfiqmp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Chicago, IL/Houston, TX
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by markh9 View Post
The impending Navy Pier redevelopment will be the shiny "new" tourism attraction. Thread here.

Malls are inherently anti-urban and should not be subsidized by the city - especially under the guise of becoming a 'new tourist attraction'. Read: B37.

That, and Boul Mich already has 2 (or more?) major malls as it is...
Ah that makes sense. I'm just feel as some parts of downtown needs to revamped with people, especially at night. I know some of the places in the loop close early also which has partly to do with that. I just want to know if Chicago will be heading in the direction of making this an energetic at night, especially in some parts of the downtown area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15846  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 12:58 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawfiqmp View Post
Ah that makes sense. I'm just feel as some parts of downtown needs to revamped with people, especially at night. I know some of the places in the loop close early also which has partly to do with that. I just want to know if Chicago will be heading in the direction of making this an energetic at night, especially in some parts of the downtown area.
What separates a big city from a small city is that a big city has nightlife districts that don't necessarily correlate with being downtown. In a small city, the only place you can put nightlife without irritating residents is in a dedicated business district. In Chicago, there's nightlife just north of the Loop, just west of a the Loop, a little just south of the Loop, plus in 4-5 other districts away from the Loop. Even parts of the Loop are pretty energetic until 10pm or so when the theatres let out.

If you've been spending time at LaSalle and Jackson in the middle of the night thinking Chicago's a dull town for nightlife then, well, you've been missing out on quite a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markh9 View Post
...
That, and Boul Mich already has 2 (or more?) major malls as it is...
Depending on what you consider major, there's North Bridge at Grand/Michigan anchored with Nordstrom's, there's Watertower at Pearson/Michigan anchored with Macy's, there's 900 North, at Delaware/Michigan anchored with Bloomingdale's, and there used to be Chicago Place, at Superior/Michigan anchored with Saks but that one no longer functions as a mall but it still has some big stores on the lower floors, including Saks still being there. Malls don't have to be anti-urban, it's just that most try to force focus into them, which is an inherently anti-urban strategy. I wouldn't say North Bridge is anti-urban, though, since at the street level they have retailers with doors on the sidewalk along every heavily pedestrian street they front. In fact most of the malls on Michigan do. Watertower is probably the least urban of the malls, but it's also the most successful financially, so you can see why developers wouldn't necessarily volunteer to build them as urban as possible.

Last edited by emathias; Jun 1, 2012 at 1:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15847  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 3:22 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawfiqmp View Post
What's the next big thing in Chicago that has a realistic chance of getting built? If there isn't one, are we likely to see something in the near future? I've heard a few ideas about the old post office development having some sort of large mall.
Realistically, I don't think you'll be seeing any more large malls downtown... especially in that area. Michigan Ave and State Street are the city's primary shopping destinations and I can't imagine there being a 3rd one downtown.

The building would best be a casino + hotel with parking.



Burberry 6/1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15848  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 5:26 PM
tawfiqmp tawfiqmp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Chicago, IL/Houston, TX
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
What separates a big city from a small city is that a big city has nightlife districts that don't necessarily correlate with being downtown. In a small city, the only place you can put nightlife without irritating residents is in a dedicated business district. In Chicago, there's nightlife just north of the Loop, just west of a the Loop, a little just south of the Loop, plus in 4-5 other districts away from the Loop. Even parts of the Loop are pretty energetic until 10pm or so when the theatres let out.

If you've been spending time at LaSalle and Jackson in the middle of the night thinking Chicago's a dull town for nightlife then, well, you've been missing out on quite a lot.



Depending on what you consider major, there's North Bridge at Grand/Michigan anchored with Nordstrom's, there's Watertower at Pearson/Michigan anchored with Macy's, there's 900 North, at Delaware/Michigan anchored with Bloomingdale's, and there used to be Chicago Place, at Superior/Michigan anchored with Saks but that one no longer functions as a mall but it still has some big stores on the lower floors, including Saks still being there. Malls don't have to be anti-urban, it's just that most try to force focus into them, which is an inherently anti-urban strategy. I wouldn't say North Bridge is anti-urban, though, since at the street level they have retailers with doors on the sidewalk along every heavily pedestrian street they front. In fact most of the malls on Michigan do. Watertower is probably the least urban of the malls, but it's also the most successful financially, so you can see why developers wouldn't necessarily volunteer to build them as urban as possible.
Great points you make. Thank you for responding. That makes sense about surrounding areas being vibrant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
Realistically, I don't think you'll be seeing any more large malls downtown... especially in that area. Michigan Ave and State Street are the city's primary shopping destinations and I can't imagine there being a 3rd one downtown.

The building would best be a casino + hotel with parking.
Yeah, that's exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about. I'm not saying Chicago has to go all out and be Vegas or anything, but something like New Orleans where they have some nice Casinos in spots.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15849  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2012, 6:28 PM
george's Avatar
george george is offline
dream fast
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east village, chicago
Posts: 3,290
Goodman Center as of 5-18

__________________
To have ambition was my ambition - Gang of Four
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15850  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 4:52 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
There is construction fencing and I think jersey barriers on the south side of Illinois a bit west of State (at the surface lot). I can't remember what was announced there - which makes me think the announcement was just about more parking?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15851  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 7:54 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,352
This is for a 2-story bar/restaurant out of Scottsdale called American Junkie.

Opening was scheduled for September but if you didn't see anything resembling a building, they're probably behind schedule.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15852  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 11:31 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ Yes, Spyguy provided renderings of that many months ago.

It's impressive how much this area has filled in over the past few years. From parking lots & plazas to a veritable mini restaurant row
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15853  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 1:26 PM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,210
New Loyola B-School building

Chicago Trib

Former McDonald's CEO gives $40 million to university's business school

Quinlan's $40 million donation — the largest gift to Loyola from an individual — will enable the school to begin construction soon on a nine-story building at the northeast corner of State Street and Pearson Avenue.

The building is the latest development in the university's downtown location, known as the Water Tower campus. Since 2005, the university has added a dorm and student center, expanded the law school and built a new School of Communication.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15854  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 5:25 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ Seriously?

Parking lots everywhere and a historic building has to get knocked down for this?

Total bullshit
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15855  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 6:03 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Seriously?

Parking lots everywhere and a historic building has to get knocked down for this?

Total bullshit
Yeah, I like the 4 story building on the corner. The small scale contributes to the neighborhood's character. I'd hate State Street to become institutional looking. It's just not appropriate. The best thing would be this building flipped to Chestnut and State. That nasty 1-story lowrise would be torn down, and maybe they could get cafe or restaurant space on the ground level. The former Mike's Bar would be left in place along with its neighbors

This is a case where Loyola is rounding off its campus corners. Connecting bits of urban fabric where it can mostly easily control campus connectivity. That's understandable, so it's not surprising you'll see buildings with less intensive uses get sacrificed.

Rendering we've only seen to date

SCB.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15856  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 6:08 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ Looks like you beat me to it with the rendings, but I'd like to add that the Chestnut and State site is reserved for a future highrise. They were originally talking about doing dorms in the bottom that would have an entrance on one side of the building and Condos on top that would have an entrance on the other side. I would not be surprised to see it revised to dorms + apartments as Loyola continues to have housing shortages. Anyhow, that site could see up to a 50 floor building depending on what they end up doing with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Seriously?

Parking lots everywhere and a historic building has to get knocked down for this?

Total bullshit
Only one of the buildings that is coming down is worth saving and even it is barely usable as is. The corner building is pretty much falling down right now and was horribly mutilated in a series of renovations in the 60's and 70's.

In addition to that it's not like Loyola can just put this building two blocks away on a parking lot. It's a college campus, they can't just have random buildings all over the place, they need to be close together in order to form any semblance of a campus.

I lobbied hard when they were planning that building (and I was helping with the new campus plans) to be saved, but in the end they made a pretty convincing argument that it really wasn't worth it.

Finally, the building they are replacing it with is actually going to be pretty sweet and probably a more interesting design. It's one of the few SCB designs lately that don't fit the "glass box deluxe" mold:


scb.com


scb.com


scb.com

Overall it's an improvement for the area IMO and probably the best location for this new building. Also, it's good for the city because Loyola's goal is to make its business competitive with the likes of U of C and Northwestern. It has already made huge strides in the quality of its students and the size of its schools and the business school has never had a real home of it's own (being bounced around between McGuire Hall, Corboy Center, and The Claire, some courses used to even be held in Lewis Towers). Hopefully this will help them push into the top tier of business schools globally from the upper second tier where they are now. They'll probably never be ranked higher than U of C or NW, but if they can get anywhere close it will be a huge gain for the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15857  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 6:36 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ I can understand your arguments, but this really institutionalizes this stretch of State St, as Hayward lamented.

It is nice to have some stores/restaurants on the ground level to make the area more appealing to passersby on foot.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15858  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 7:02 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
In addition to that it's not like Loyola can just put this building two blocks away on a parking lot. It's a college campus, they can't just have random buildings all over the place, they need to be close together in order to form any semblance of a campus.
While I can get this argument for a land-grant style cornfield State U campus, I just don't follow why this goal is considered necessary, or even desirable, for an urban campus. It's detrimental to the public as it (a) results in monotous land-use, the "institutionalization" others have lamented and (b) maximizes the concentration of valuable land being removed from the tax rolls. The market distortion in (b) is of course self-inflicted, and between Loyola and the Arch-Diocese, the area near Chicago-State will basically be completely off the tax rolls.

A truly urban campus gradually weaving itself into an existing neighborhood absolutely and precisely should consist of random parcels and buildings scattered amongst all the other land uses and property owners.
</jane jacobs>

Quote:
I lobbied hard when they were planning that building (and I was helping with the new campus plans) to be saved, but in the end they made a pretty convincing argument that it really wasn't worth it.
This is a good example of the sorts of arguments historic preservationists will almost always lose in Chicago --- for this exact reason. Saving the mixed character of a district is never about a single building nor is saving a single building ever economically justifiable --- it's the drip-drip-drip demolition over time that suddenly results in an area being institutionalized or otherwise sanitized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15859  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 8:04 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
At this point, I only hope Loyola can be a partner in its town-gown relationship. They shouldn't be creating a "campus," nor do they deserve to consider it as one since the term is an insult to the neighborhood. Rather consider their downtown cluster a presence.

Their buildings can still contribute to the street presence by leasing out lower levels to other businesses and minimizing lobbies to academic structures. Ideally, you'd have a nice glass entrance shifted East down Pearson with a reception desk, a stair, an elevator.....and that's all. It would draw you up into a massive second floor lobby. The SCB renderings absolutely suggest this, but I still think the commercial component needs to break away from the rest of the design as to suggest a totally different use and scale in relationship with State Street.

Again, I'm cautiously optimistic. The drip-demolition example is an excellent way to describe neighborhood transformation. If you look at past photos, that area was far more lively in commercial activity, and more fine grain architecturally than it is today. For the sake of improvement new condo towers are built, but you also can't tip the scales too far where it's a monotonous sea of large buildings. There needs to be a balance, and I'm concerned our supply of smaller buildings may be far too diminished where the neighborhood loses some of its interestingness.

But you can't avoid the inevitable. This is the same as inviting a hospital downtown. Once these institutions need to expand, negotiating a good urban solution is almost impossible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15860  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 8:19 PM
Dan in Chicago's Avatar
Dan in Chicago Dan in Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 612
If the rendering is accurate, it means they will also demolish the little 3-story house right next to Baumhart Hall. Originally the Frank Schofield House, it was built in 1934 and has a very quirky, almost modern design with a lot of interesting brickwork - similar to the Carl Street Studios in Old Town. I'll try to get photos soon so everyone can see what's being lost.
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 > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:38 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.