CHICAGO | General Developments

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by denizen467

^ The lakefront in Edgewater is de facto inaccessible to bikers and joggers going along the shore.

No, we don't need more parks, more marinas, more access to the lake. No, we like Sheridan being clogged half the day. No, the highrises east of Sheridan aren't harmed being cut off from their neighborhood by Sheridan and being deprived of a street life like retail and cafes.

If anyone, the people complaining should be Evanstonians, who would be getting an increase in thru traffic.

Not if you know where your going it is not

Also it would destroy some of the nicest, broadest beaches certainly on the North side, and probably all Chicago

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I agree with Adrian's assessment-- well, everything before his trademark melodramatic flourish. (The Big Dig, though an admirably forward-thinking idea, is hardly an example of sound execution and money well spent. And, as I've maintained before, the best design should never be prohibitively expensive.)

A project like this demands novel solutions from the best architecture firms in the world. The city would do well to take a cue from New York's Governors Island competition; Diller Scofidio + Renfro's proposal is simply breathtaking and a perfect example of the caliber of design Chicago should be aiming for for something of this scale.

Chicago already is a first-rate city, Adrian. The problem is that-- with regard to some of these civic projects-- it doesn't always act like one. Maybe my opinion is misguided, but I feel as though Mayor Daley bears most of the burden for this: I get the impression that he's trying to pack in as many ooh and ahh projects during his reign as possible when these are things that shouldn't be rushed.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Not if you know where your going it is not

No, I'm sorry but its still not accessible at all in comparison with how the rest of the lakefront is. Two or three tiny little gaps in the highrises where you can reach the water does not equal accessible. Its bad enough having to cross a busy and dangerous Sheridan rd. to get to the lake, but having a wall of highrises where there should be a beech and some piers is not acceptable.

[harryc]

Parking garage on 400 block of Clark, many belled caissons put in.

[VivaLFuego]

I just don't think selfish NIMBYs should be applauded. I say build it more or less as shown in the plans, ubt make sure there's a full 8-lane LSD extension over the islands, with a series of fans and pipes to direct the exhaust and noise directly into the Sheridan Rd highrises.

Just to prove a point.

Afterwards, I bet we'd get some innovative proposals and community buy-in for the south side lakefront extension.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I just don't think selfish NIMBYs should be applauded. I say build it more or less as shown in the plans, ubt make sure there's a full 8-lane LSD extension over the islands, with a series of fans and pipes to direct the exhaust and noise directly into the Sheridan Rd highrises.

Just to prove a point.

Afterwards, I bet we'd get some innovative proposals and community buy-in for the south side lakefront extension.

.........................


waste money to prove a point?

[honte]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Maybe my opinion is misguided, but I feel as though Mayor Daley bears most of the burden for this: I get the impression that he's trying to pack in as many ooh and ahh projects during his reign as possible when these are things that shouldn't be rushed.

I agree with this... it's part of the "City that works" mentality. Daley wants to be known as a guy who gets things done, and that's a tradition here. Cut to the chase, you know?

Unfortunately, with every project constantly under fire from community groups, budgetary groups, riled-up Aldermen, newspapers, warring suburbs, etc., it's hard enough to even get a basic design accomplished. I can see why the Mayor would see design as a frivolity and getting anything built beyond the most basic as a heroic accomplishment.

Not that this is any excuse... there simply needs to be a higher level of commitment at the government level to design. And preferably action on a community basis to counter the negative forces and hopefully make the DPD's job a bit easier. The is essentially the role that the Grant Park organization fills (too much a yes-organization for Daley, in my opinion). The design community also has a role to play: When the "designed" projects are constantly going over budget, that leaves a bad taste in the government mouth. Daley is still taking the heat for the screw-ups at Millennium Park. Some of the budgetary issues could be addressed by closer scrutiny in the design offices (but man is this a pain in the arse).

It would be nice if a city-wide community group (CAFBA? Chicagoans Advocating For Better Architecture?) could put together some literature to demonstrate that projects with great-to-fantastic design result in fewer community objections. There are many examples of this - Chicago Spire, Trump Tower, W=A, etc. And the reasoning for this is perfectly obvious - it just needs to be spelled-out and there needs to be a body constantly pushing this message. I suppose that's the goal of CBP, while I've never been to a meeting...

[the urban politician]

^ But Chicago needs more density.

I think a lot of people here, with all due respect, are skewed towards really putting a lot of importance on design elements that 95% of people ignore. What matters more is the vitality of a city and expanding the tax base. All else is secondary. I don't blame Daley at all

Having said that, of course architecture matters, but Chicago sometimes isn't always in the position to have the luxury to reject tax-generating city rejuvinating projects.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ But Chicago needs more density.

I think a lot of people here, with all due respect, are skewed towards really putting a lot of importance on design elements that 95% of people ignore. What matters more is the vitality of a city and expanding the tax base. All else is secondary. I don't blame Daley at all

Having said that, of course architecture matters, but Chicago sometimes isn't always in the position to have the luxury to reject tax-generating city rejuvinating projects.

...hah

[honte]

^ TUP, what does lake fill and highways have to do with density?

[the urban politician]

^ Sorry, Honte. For some reason I must have thought you were responding to some of the development photos--not sure how I drew that conclusion.

My apologies--ignore and move on..

[honte]

^ No problem.

Your points are taken anyway - I'm sure we could have the same conversation at another time, as a lot of what I said probably describes my complaints on private development too. I would, however, hold those cases to lofty ideals somewhat less strictly for the reasons you mention.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

No, I'm sorry but its still not accessible at all in comparison with how the rest of the lakefront is. Two or three tiny little gaps in the highrises where you can reach the water does not equal accessible. Its bad enough having to cross a busy and dangerous Sheridan rd. to get to the lake, but having a wall of highrises where there should be a beech and some piers is not acceptable.

Yeah driving your car and parking in a nice big parking lot is just a great use of the lakefront, if you know where to walk the lakefront is very accesible in Edgewater and Rogers Park....they are arguably the most neighnorhood accesible beachfronts in the city....they employ a novel modality of transport...walking

[aic4ever]

Originally Posted by honte

I agree with this... it's part of the "City that works" mentality. Daley wants to be known as a guy who gets things done, and that's a tradition here. Cut to the chase, you know?

Unfortunately, with every project constantly under fire from community groups, budgetary groups, riled-up Aldermen, newspapers, warring suburbs, etc., it's hard enough to even get a basic design accomplished. I can see why the Mayor would see design as a frivolity and getting anything built beyond the most basic as a heroic accomplishment.

Not that this is any excuse... there simply needs to be a higher level of commitment at the government level to design. And preferably action on a community basis to counter the negative forces and hopefully make the DPD's job a bit easier. The is essentially the role that the Grant Park organization fills (too much a yes-organization for Daley, in my opinion). The design community also has a role to play: When the "designed" projects are constantly going over budget, that leaves a bad taste in the government mouth. Daley is still taking the heat for the screw-ups at Millennium Park. Some of the budgetary issues could be addressed by closer scrutiny in the design offices (but man is this a pain in the arse).

It would be nice if a city-wide community group (CAFBA? Chicagoans Advocating For Better Architecture?) could put together some literature to demonstrate that projects with great-to-fantastic design result in fewer community objections. There are many examples of this - Chicago Spire, Trump Tower, W=A, etc. And the reasoning for this is perfectly obvious - it just needs to be spelled-out and there needs to be a body constantly pushing this message. I suppose that's the goal of CBP, while I've never been to a meeting...

This would be helped tremendously if architect's were capable of setting their egos aside and asking contractors for help with budgetary pricing throughout the design process. We do tend to offer it as a consulting service, or for free on private work so long as we end up on the bidder's list.

Unfortunately, where it is not an issue of ego, it is many times an issue of architectural politicking, where the architect will tell the owner some unrealistic price per square foot for the project, in order to be commissioned to do the drawings, without ever intending that the project get built.

Just a couple reasons I've seen projects come in over budget, other than with these nutball developers that think every building should only cost $180/sqft no matter what it is, where it is, or who designs it.

[Tom In Chicago]

Not sure if anyone's noticed this, but since this summer the Plenza fountains at Millenium Park have been in dire need of cleaning. . . well now that fountain season is over they're doing just that. . . using massive amounts of CLR, pressure washers and good ole' fashioned elbow grease, it will take a week to complete one tower. . .

[Taft]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

because it's complete bullshit. the first thing i thought was: causeway. (honte, you and i seem to, at times, think the same things )

this plan seems more the opposite of its intension. it seems a more appropriate design would be to put lsd abutting the shore line (umm... kind of how the rest of the drive is?) and doesn't it make more sense to reorient all the green space together and to the east of lsd? why sandwich 20-30 acre park between lsd and the shore line? no thanks. most of this 'park' land seems more like expressway infrastructure than anything else.

anyway... the main reason i was initially appalled by this, was looking at this i thought: jesus, it's the 21st century! why not a big dig? why not do something that tokyo would have done ten years??? to me, these kind of things are city improvements; rather, they are just dull extensions of more of the same and evidence of even more atrociously stagnated city planning in chicago. yawn.

...and please don't give me that lame argument about how much money a big dig would cost and yada yada... whatever. if we don't have the money to do something grand and wonderful, we have no business taking on the project in the first place. sorry, but i person hate the idea of living a second-rate, econo-city.


i applaud the efforts of stopthelandfill.org

Ah, yes. Who wouldn't applaud rhetoric such as this...

Berger park is a Chicago park district park located on Sheridan Road and is also located directly upon the beach in the "endangered zone". It is a beautiful experience for children to play there. What do we tell the children when they ask us why we let the FOTP extend Lake Shore Drive (US Route 41) right next to their playground? Click here to see what it is like now.

(from http://stopthelandfill.org/endangeredparkspace.aspx)

Won't someone *please* think of the children!

Of course, the idea that Friends Of The Parks wants to extend LSD is a given. Nevermind evidence to the contrary. There must be a secret cabal of highly connected individuals that want to pave every inch of Chicago and they have *clearly* infiltrated FOTP.

What bollocks! Has anyone even bothered to look at the proposals that are on the FOTPs website? Everyone just takes for granted that the drawings on stopthelandfill.org are God's law. Well, folks, take a look for yourself:

http://www.fotp.org/programs/pubtrus...demay28pdf.pdf
http://www.fotp.org/programs/pubtrust/Edgewater0908.pdf

Take note of the fact that none of the 10-odd proposals include any extension of LSD. In fact, any landfill put in would be for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bikes. Also take note of the fact that FOTP has *never* advocated for the extension of LSD.

So by all means, support the NIMBY's when they fall on your side for a particular issue. Just don't be surprised when they stab you in the back the next time a project you like comes down the pike.

Such shortsighted nonsense...

Taft

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Yeah driving your car and parking in a nice big parking lot is just a great use of the lakefront, if you know where to walk the lakefront is very accesible in Edgewater and Rogers Park....they are arguably the most neighnorhood accesible beachfronts in the city....they employ a novel modality of transport...walking

Yes, very logical response seeing as how I was advocating building a giant parking lot along the lakefront...

Seriously, who was advocating building parking lots and more cars? I guess a lot of people use LSD to get to the park . Or maybe you are suggesting that I use a car to get to the park. Yes, I, living on the 50th floor of a building adjacent to the park less than a half mile south of where this proposal would be built, use a car to drive into the park the whole 20ft from the entrance of our garage to the gate in our fence that leads into the park...

No in all honesty, not trying to be mean, but WTH are you talking about?

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

.........................


waste money to prove a point?

Hey, I thought we should demand flawless, uncompromising design for any project. I'm just telling you how we might accomplish that.

Originally Posted by Taft

So by all means, support the NIMBY's when they fall on your side for a particular issue. Just don't be surprised when they stab you in the back the next time a project you like comes down the pike.

Such shortsighted nonsense...

Precisely. They should not be supported or applauded for being right for such a dramatically wrong reason. That website is indeed blood-boilingly selfish and short-sighted. The attitudes on display should concern AXS much more, if the goal is to be forward-thinking, progressive, and welcoming of change and improvement in urban design. Ally with these tools and AXS can surely kiss goodbye his dream of a city full of uneconomical, non-functional, experimentally quasi-modern urban scultpure. :friendly needling:

[honte]

South Side Update: They are currently demolishing the massive and horribly ugly ramp that leads up and over the street to Sox Park. Anyone know what's up? Is this prep work to sell the north side of 35th to a developer for the mixed-use development they hope to attract?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by honte

South Side Update: They are currently demolishing the massive and horribly ugly ramp that leads up and over the street to Sox Park. Anyone know what's up? Is this prep work to sell the north side of 35th to a developer for the mixed-use development they hope to attract?

Unfortunately not. They are demolishing the east half of the ramp structure, and replacing it with a more expansive ramp containing retail space (gift shop). This new structure will be in a postmodern style like the rest of the ballpark, although I really hope it's not the watered-down Wal-Mart quality of the rest of the stadium.

Description and drawings from 'sox102' at White Sox Interactive, who is a glass contractor bidding for the project:

Description

I am still working on the bid for the latest renovations. It is a two story building with the Novelty Store. They are moving the ticket windows and main entry towards the parking lot and looks like they are creating an outdoor area that is fenced in. Maybe for the smokers? Can't really tell. Also installing a new grand stairway that will lead up to the Main Concourse level. Removing one set of escalators (along with the East part of the north ramp). The eastern most bridge over 35th Street will only have access at the Main Concourse level now. There will be access from the new area to the existing West part of the north ramp.

Plan


South Elevation


North Elevation