Lake Meadows Development News

[BVictor1]

Major News

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=27737

Jan. 12, 2008
By Alby Gallun

Developer looks to reshape south lakefront
Lake Meadows would get 7,000 new residential units

http://***************************/random/og011408m.gif

Plans are in the works for one of the city's largest residential developments ever, a 70-acre project that promises to invigorate Chicago's southern lakefront.
Chicago-based Draper & Kramer Inc. wants to clear most of the Lake Meadows apartment complex and build a new neighborhood with 7,000 or more homes, including condominium towers and townhouses, according to Kimbal Goluska, a consultant to Draper & Kramer on the project. A new shopping center also would be built in the neighborhood, which is just south of Michael Reese Hospital and five blocks east of the Illinois Institute of Technology.

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/726/og011408mtj1.gif
High-rises like this one, on Martin Luther King Drive between 31st and 35th streets, would be razed as part of the Lake Meadows redevelopment. Photo: Stephen J. Serio

[The Urban Politician]

I wonder why this huge project can't happen without demolishing the Lake Meadows highrises? Can't we reintroduce the streetgrid and build on the underutlized land, instead of tearing the whole heap down and starting over?

[ardecila]

We had this same discussion over at SSP. Bottom line is that there are hardcore preservationists who like the streetgrid and don't want to see it go, while other people want it ALL to go (I won't name names about who these are, but you can go see for yourself)

I'm kinda with you, TUP. I made a compromise plan last night that tries to address both concerns, but the master plan has already been made, and it includes total demolition of all but one highrise, as well as some sort of "hyper-urban" retail center.

My compromise plan:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8504/lakemeadowsah8.jpg

[urbanpln]

I wonder why this huge project can't happen without demolishing the Lake Meadows highrises? Can't we reintroduce the streetgrid and build on the underutlized land, instead of tearing the whole heap down and starting over?

I think you will like the new proposed plan. The development guidelines in the P.D. are very specific and will help create a solid pedestrian freindly community. It will restore King Dr. back to a prominate address by encouraging development of buildings that have the right scale and look. Not only does it reintroduces the street grid back into the site, it creates a dramatic wall of towers as you drive south down LSD. It encourages tall thin modern towers with great views, has lots of green space and connects the development to the lake. It also has a great pedtrian freindly retail plan. The plan is thoughful about were parking should go so that parking podiums are not as visible on the streets. The plan builds off of Central Station, the Roosevelt Square and attempts to make improvements. It will also introduce densities that have not been seen on the southside. Its not perfect but addresses many of the issues that I've seen you complain about on this forum. I really do believe that is is a good plan and will be viewed favorably when it brought to the public.

[Mr Downtown]

Though I personally like the Lake Meadows Towers, we should remember that Draper & Kramer might have reasons to be ambivalent about them. Though I think they got new double glazing about 15 years ago, undoubtedly the kitchens and bathrooms are not very exciting to prospective tenants. The room layouts may be inefficient or out of fashion, and everything from elevators to utility stacks probably needs to be replaced by now.

Since the existing buildings (unlike Prairie Shores) are oriented with Chicago's grid, it certainly seems like a neighborhood context could be created around them. And certainly they could be gut-rehabbed, one at a time. But Draper & Kramer may see much more potential profit in building new market-rate buildings in that area over the next couple of decades.

[The Urban Politician]

^ Instead of demolishing all of the buildings, perhaps some of them can be kept as affordable housing? Thereby the developer can retain an affordable element that the city will certainly require of him, and with these buildings being older with outdated floor plans, they would be perfect candidates to serve this function.

[urbanpln]

^ Instead of demolishing all of the buildings, perhaps some of them can be kept as affordable housing? Thereby the developer can retain an affordable element that the city will certainly require of him, and with these buildings being older with outdated floor plans, they would be perfect candidates to serve this function.

There will be a percentage of affordable and senior housing.

[The Urban Politician]

There will be a percentage of affordable and senior housing.

^ When it comes down to it, I"m just not a fan of Chicago completely erasing the history of what once existed on this site. It's not necessary, and it's a practice that should have gone away with the mistakes of mid-century planning. There is a certain value to having properties representing various eras of a city's growth and evolution existing side by side.

How long are we going to keep leveling and rebuilding, leveling and rebuilding, etc? There is no sense of place if a neighborhood is not allowed to have some history, no?

[BVictor1]

^ When it comes down to it, I"m just not a fan of Chicago completely erasing the history of what once existed on this site. It's not necessary, and it's a practice that should have gone away with the mistakes of mid-century planning. There is a certain value to having properties representing various eras of a city's growth and evolution existing side by side.

How long are we going to keep leveling and rebuilding, leveling and rebuilding, etc? There is no sense of place if a neighborhood is not allowed to have some history, no?

That was done already, 60 years ago when the neighborhood was wiped out.

As I mentioned on SSP, I've never been a fan of the brick sided ones, but I would like to see a few of the all glass tower retained. I think that we should try to wait and see what D&K has planned before people totally dump over what they want to do.

[urbanpln]

^ When it comes down to it, I"m just not a fan of Chicago completely erasing the history of what once existed on this site. It's not necessary, and it's a practice that should have gone away with the mistakes of mid-century planning. There is a certain value to having properties representing various eras of a city's growth and evolution existing side by side.

How long are we going to keep leveling and rebuilding, leveling and rebuilding, etc? There is no sense of place if a neighborhood is not allowed to have some history, no?

I agree with you but, they wipe out a traditional Chicago neighborhood with graystone walks-ups and other types of archtecture to build what exist there today. Some people believe the current buildings are much worst than what was originally there. I believe we must do a better job preserving our past. Most of the great buildings in this city that are in danger of demolition are located on the south side however, I am not a big fan of this development. Could it be redesigned to be more visually pleasing? Perhaps but, the cost of doing that far exceeds demolishing it and rebuilding a better neighborhood. I do believe you will like this redevelopment plan. It is far better that what is ther now and, as good as anythig that been built for a long time. It will bring many of the qualities you want to see on the south side (density, quality architecture{modern and traditional}, quality retail {urban style lifestyle center}, traditional grid, buildings around a major green space, rental and for sale housing, opportunity to connect to transit{metra metra},etc) .

[The Urban Politician]

^ I don't disagree with you there. If those are the aspects of the new development, then I'm 100% for it.

Pardon me for doing this, but I'm going to take this excerpt from your last post to make my point: "I do believe you will like this redevelopment plan. It is far better that what is ther now and, as good as anythig that been built for a long time. It will bring many of the qualities you want to see on the south side"

^ I can imagine those exact words being used 40-50 years ago by a developer explaining to the city why he plans to tear down large swaths of greystones and traditional Chicago housing to build his futuristic "towers in a park" which, after all, provides the 'quality' of housing that south siders need.

I can imagine that mid-century Chicagoans weren't quite as enamored of prewar development as we are now, and probably even took it for granted in the same way as we take Lake Meadows for granted.

But lets not make hasty mistakes. I've said this before at SSP as well--I'd prefer a plan that preserves at least a few of the Lake Meadows buildings, while demolishing the rest, and still reintegrating the street grid. According to Chicago Shawn, so far the plan is for only 1 to be preserved, but as BVictor said, we can't judge this for sure until we see the latest plans.

[urbanpln]

BTW the only reason D&K is preserving that one building is because it is a condo. The other buildings are rental.

[i_am_hydrogen]

A couple Cushman photos of what was demolished to make way for Lake Meadows:
http://www.gapersblock.com/detour/photo/12102004/600_E_33rd_Place_1950.jpg

http://www.gapersblock.com/detour/photo/12102004/3240_S_Rhodes_1941.jpg

[paytonc]

^ When it comes down to it, I"m just not a fan of Chicago completely erasing the history of what once existed on this site... There is a certain value to having properties representing various eras of a city's growth and evolution existing side by side.

Lake Meadows and Prairie Shores are among the most pristine examples of "towers in a park" planning that exist in the Midwest. Yes, those buildings weren't built with an indefinite shelf life -- many of the early Modernist landmarks are headed for near-replacement, since they weren't built to last forever (look at the overhaul that Lever House needed recently) -- but they do represent important ensembles of urban space which tell us a lot about a particular era in our history. The open space surrounding the buildings is as important to understanding the architecture as the enclosed space within -- just as a piece of F. L. Wright's art glass, or a Sullivan stair runner, makes much more sense within a room than isolated on a white museum wall.

So, I appreciate that ardecila's plan maintains the open lawns between two pairs of the towers. The glass towers were meant to be seen from that kind of distance. Other Modernist ensembles, like Crystal City (outside D.C.), are infilling around the towers but probably not maintaining much of the original plan.

It's the same reason why I'm opposed to new "facadectomies" like the Ritz-Carlton Residences and the Legacy: part of the defining characteristics of Jewelers' Row, for instance, is its relatively lower scale relative to elsewhere in the Loop.

However, I do slightly relish the delicious irony that "the old neighborhood," human scale, and the street grid will have their revenge after all.

[ardecila]

The park along King Drive is beautifully-landscaped, with paths that resemble a Romantic landscape, such as gave birth to Central Park, Jackson and Lincoln Parks, etc. In a denser neighborhood, this park would be a treasured asset, in conjunction with Lake Meadows.

The greenspace around the southern towers isn't as well-designed, which is why I cut it by a third. 34th Place, if it is built through the mall property, should extend east to the horseshoe drive in the apartment complex east of Cottage Grove.

[BVictor1]

For those who are interested:

February 19, 2008, there will be a meeting reguarding the Redevelopment of Lake Meadows.

Location: 600 E. 35th Street
Place: Grace Presbyterian Church
Time: 7:00PM

[mohammed wong]

^ When it comes down to it, I"m just not a fan of Chicago completely erasing the history of what once existed on this site. It's not necessary, and it's a practice that should have gone away with the mistakes of mid-century planning. There is a certain value to having properties representing various eras of a city's growth and evolution existing side by side.

How long are we going to keep leveling and rebuilding, leveling and rebuilding, etc? There is no sense of place if a neighborhood is not allowed to have some history, no?

you took the words right out of my mouth

[NearNorthGuy]

I remember the winter of 1971-72 at Lake Meadows, when there were still hopes for a racially diverse community. Sure, there were some white and Filpino workers in the Lake Meadows and Prairie Shore buildings, some of whom worked nearby at Michael Reeese Hospital or Mercy Hospital. But for the most part the buildings housed African-Americans.

A kid's ice hockey team I was on, made up of kids from the South Side and the Bridgeview/Oak Lawn area, would practice at the Lake Meadows ice rink. It was an ice rink that overlooked the IC railroad tracks. Though outdoors, it was one of the only rinks in the city with refrigeration coils underneath.

As we scrimmaged and did our drills, I remember African-American kids watching us through the plexiglass around the rink. The rink is long-gone, by the way.

[Mr Downtown]

The story I always heard was that Draper & Kramer tried to do a little "benign steering" well into the early 80s to prevent the complex from becoming 100 percent black. Eventually fair housing oversight became so strict that this was no longer possible, resulting in less integration. In 2000, Lake Meadows was 97 percent black.

[PrintersRowBoiler]

For those who are interested:

February 19, 2008, there will be a meeting reguarding the Redevelopment of Lake Meadows.

Location: 600 E. 35th Street
Place: Grace Presbyterian Church
Time: 7:00PM

Is anyone planning on attending this meeting? I have been looking at places in the area and am curious to the project. I cannot make it as I have a municipal meeting to go to that night.

[BVictor1]

Is anyone planning on attending this meeting? I have been looking at places in the area and am curious to the project. I cannot make it as I have a municipal meeting to go to that night.

yes

[The Urban Politician]

^ How'd it go?

[BVictor1]

Notes on Lake Meadows Redevelopment

-This development could span several decades

-Nothing will be demolished for between 3 - 5 years

-New residential units will be built before any are removed

-It was stated that the building have outlived their life expentency

-Later phases will be highrises

-There will be 4 new parks within the development

-There will be a 15 acre park developed between LSD and the Metra Tracks

-Lake Park Avenue will be reconstructed thru the development

-There will be 4-5 story homes along King Drive to extend the context of the streetscape from the south.

-Several different architects will be used (no specific ones chosen)

-It was mentioned that there would be 4-sale rentals, senior units, market rate units and affordable housing.

-There are about 1,870 rental units currently, and the total number of units would be increased to about 7,850 units

-The parking will be surrounded by retail and residential so that it won't be seen.

-34th Street will be extended into the site

-Redevelopment will begin on the southern end with the retail component and move north. They want to begin mid to late 2009 and possibly be done by 2029. It will be done in phases, and there could be up to 500,000 sq ft of retail space


Images from the Lake Meadows meeting

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7902/p1110188sb8.jpg

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/717/p1110190xe4.jpg

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/9613/p1110191nv2.jpg

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7168/p1110192ti0.jpg

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp43236%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B9656nu0mrj

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp43236%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B9658nu0mrj

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp43239%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B965%3Anu0mrj

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp43235%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B965%3Cnu0mrj

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp4323%3B%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B9663nu0mrj

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp4323%3B%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B9664nu0mrj

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp4323%3B%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B9665nu0mrj

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp4323%3B%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B9666nu0mrj

^^Remember that these are just massing structures. Architects for the buildings haven't been chosen yet and the individual structures haven't been designed.

[PrintersRowBoiler]

I am underwhelmed by this project. In 30 years if it is built the way it is designed, it will look great. But I am disappointed in the lack of aggressiveness of this project. I was hoping it would be a similar transformation to Central Station or the area within the river, Clark, Polk, and Roosevelt. What is sad is they have no intention to have the high rises along the lake and the gateway to the lakefront done in time for the Olympics. It sounds like they just want to add townhouses and are showing the high rises like a carrot on a stick to the City. Myself and a few of my colleagues were interested in investing in this area, but I don’t want to wait 15 years before the first high-rise is built.

I am also dissappointed that the streetgrid is not extended more than it is proposed. I was hoping Cottage Grove would be extended and connect at 32nd Street and that 33rd and 34th would be extended to Cottage Grove.

I believe this project will inevitably be another Dearborn Park, except take 3 times as long to develop.

[dvidler]

Although things can change if Chicago is nominated. There may be more of an urgency to develop if that does occur.

[urbanpln]

I am underwhelmed by this project. In 30 years if it is built the way it is designed, it will look great. But I am disappointed in the lack of aggressiveness of this project. I was hoping it would be a similar transformation to Central Station or the area within the river, Clark, Polk, and Roosevelt. What is sad is they have no intention to have the high rises along the lake and the gateway to the lakefront done in time for the Olympics. It sounds like they just want to add townhouses and are showing the high rises like a carrot on a stick to the City. Myself and a few of my colleagues were interested in investing in this area, but I don’t want to wait 15 years before the first high-rise is built.

I am also dissappointed that the streetgrid is not extended more than it is proposed. I was hoping Cottage Grove would be extended and connect at 32nd Street and that 33rd and 34th would be extended to Cottage Grove.

I believe this project will inevitably be another Dearborn Park, except take 3 times as long to develop.

You have to be realistic. First the market is not ther to have this built before the olympics. No developer is going top build a development without the appropiate amount of sale. Lending institutions have requirements. Second, there are towers along the lakefront (ICC Tracks). The towers are on the land that D&K own. You can't build towers on land that you don't own. The land to the south and the north is currently privately owned. The city can't go after the land through emeinent domain. It would be to expensive and can imagine the bad press this would get. The community would be in an uproar. When you consider the racial issues and politics that would come along with this problem, I think this project would never get the support from any elected official including the mayor. Third: Cottage Grove can't go any futher. There is acondominium in the way. And even if you took the condo from the owners you would encounter a row of townhomes followed by a park. The developer would have a political and financial nightmare fighting those three parties. I respectfully disagree with you about this project. I think it has a good chance of being built althought with some minor changes.

[PrintersRowBoiler]

You have to be realistic. First the market is not ther to have this built before the olympics. No developer is going top build a development without the appropiate amount of sale. Lending institutions have requirements. Second, there are towers along the lakefront (ICC Tracks). The towers are on the land that D&K own. You can't build towers on land that you don't own. The land to the south and the north is currently privately owned. The city can't go after the land through emeinent domain. It would be to expensive and can imagine the bad press this would get. The community would be in an uproar. When you consider the racial issues and politics that would come along with this problem, I think this project would never get the support from any elected official including the mayor. Third: Cottage Grove can't go any futher. There is acondominium in the way. And even if you took the condo from the owners you would encounter a row of townhomes followed by a park. The developer would have a political and financial nightmare fighting those three parties. I respectfully disagree with you about this project. I think it has a good chance of being built althought with some minor changes.

I understand that the market is not great right now, and I am not trying to be critical of the developer or suggest how they run a business. However - I thought maybe some of the larger buildings could be apartment buildings (and the market would have little to no impact). The market is not stopping development at Central Station, Lakeshore East, or the area around Clark/Polk. I assumed they would price it aggressively just like they did at Roosevelt Square and Lakeshore East when they started that development. I am just being impatient and at first blush this project resembled Dearborn Park to me. After seeing the rendering at Chicago Business -
http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28266
it looks like 32nd and 33rd will ALSO be extended through the site and overall the development does integrate the grid system well. I was under the impression that just 34th would extend through. Also - I was hoping Cottage Grove would kick west at the existing condos and townhouses and would more or less turn into 32nd St. I was aware that Cottage Grove could not literally extend at the same angle through the existing buildings - but it would be extended into the grid.

[smurf]

I'm afaid that if they start with townhomes and other 4-5 story low-rise buildings, by the time they are ready to build something of decent height, there will be a bunch of NIMBYs going crazy about how whatever it is they will want to build will either cast too much shadow on one side, reflect too much sunlight on the other side, cause to much traffic, take away parking spaces, kill migrating birds, be out of scale and proportion for the hood, the list goes on and on.
From this perspective I would prefer that they not do anything for the time being until they are ready to start with the towers as first stage of the process. That way they can build a neighborhood with enough density to support public transport and retail, instead of a knock-off suburban dream of city living "lite."

[urbanpln]

I'm afaid that if they start with townhomes and other 4-5 story low-rise buildings, by the time they are ready to build something of decent height, there will be a bunch of NIMBYs going crazy about how whatever it is they will want to build will either cast too much shadow on one side, reflect too much sunlight on the other side, cause to much traffic, take away parking spaces, kill migrating birds, be out of scale and proportion for the hood, the list goes on and on.
From this perspective I would prefer that they not do anything for the time being until they are ready to start with the towers as first stage of the process. That way they can build a neighborhood with enough density to support public transport and retail, instead of a knock-off suburban dream of city living "lite."

Once the PD amendment is approved by City Council it will be difficult to stopped the density that has been approved. Its not impossible but I assume D&K could take legal action if someone tries to alter the plan. There were two meetings held this week to present the plan to the community. On monday the homeowners in the one condo building that will not be torn down and tuesday the renters. I got the feeling that most homeowner welcomed the density although, some were a little concerned about their views being blocked. Still, they were optimistic about the project. The renters were more vocal due to their fears of being displaced. The developers assure them that they would have priorty when new buildings are constructed. I think the developers strategy is to start with the retail, take their time to bring in quality businesses and then build along king dr. to spur interest in the development. Once the commercial starts and is somewhat established ,I think it will not take long before people will want to live in this community. iI believe that most people who buy into this new development will buy because it is a well planned community with a diversity of housing options, has a great location and good amenities. I could be wrong but, I don't think central station started with towers first.

[PrintersRowBoiler]

Isn't there a shelf life to a PD? If this spans out over several decades, I think the PD could become obsolete at some point. Living in Printers Row, many developers are building "as-of-right" and are still getting opposition from the neighbors. Plus, it will take one goofy alderman like Bob Fioretti to try to change the zoning over the 20 years.

Are there are any TIF funds associated with this project? Is there any due diligence planned that comes with the PD (i.e. the land bridge and/or park needs to be constructed first)? Will the number of affordable homes always outnumber the ones being replaced (if the population goes up 4+-fold more than the existing affordable housing, and 25%+ of the new homes area affordable, they can maintain the affordable housing if they play their cards right).

[ardecila]

Once the PD amendment is approved by City Council it will be difficult to stopped the density that has been approved. Its not impossible but I assume D&K could take legal action if someone tries to alter the plan.

Look at X/O... the developers have been oddly silent ever since Fioretti threatened to block the development, followed by the developers' threats of legal action against the city.

Can area residents block a new development once it's been approved? Not directly, but their image as a community group standing out against development would have a tremendously negative impact on the public image of the developers. People always root for David in a David-Goliath fight. When you consider that many of the surrounding neighborhood is black, the community can color the discussion with elements of racism as well, whether racism actually plays a part or not.

Well-organized community groups that are highly-vocal, dedicated, and consistent in their message have great power when combined with pandering aldermen, even if their message conflicts with the opinions of the silent majority.

[The Urban Politician]

I believe this project will inevitably be another Dearborn Park, except take 3 times as long to develop.

Where in Dearborn Park do you see a streetgrid like this:

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp43236%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B9656nu0mrj

[ardecila]

I believe this project will inevitably be another Dearborn Park, except take 3 times as long to develop.

With the amount of units they are planning, and the location they are planning them in, I think 30 years is a reasonable amount of time. Transformations of WHOLE SECTIONS of a city as big as Chicago don't happen overnight, and it will take a good 10-15 years more of small-scale townhouse development before the South Side even begins to have the kind of cachet that can support luxury high-rises en masse. The South Loop took a good 7 or 8 years after Dearborn Park II until the first high-rises in Central Station were built.

Don't forget that residential development is only one component in the ultimate gentrification down there. Schools must be improved and/or supplemented, hopefully with magnets. Retail must open up to allow area residents to buy what they need quickly, without a drive up to Roosevelt. Until the community significantly changes with new residents, police presence must be increased to provide a sense of security in the neighborhood. Streetscaping improvements and glaring holes in the urban fabric must be put in place/repaired, in order to allow pedestrianism.

We all want to see something like the North Side, or even denser, put in place on the South Side, but I just can't see that happening in a short period of time. Development doesn't happen that rapidly anymore, at least not in inner cities.

I don't see any of Dearborn Park in the new Lake Meadows. It's connected to the streetgrid at every opportunity except Lake Park Ave, which will be on-axis with a pedestrian promenade in Lake Meadows Park. If D+K push, they might be able to get a Metra station at the 33rd park-bridge, giving the neighborhood a rail link to downtown.

[PrintersRowBoiler]

Where in Dearborn Park do you see a streetgrid like this:

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp43236%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B9656nu0mrj

If you read my second post, I say that I was mistaken in thinking that ONLY 34th extended through. In my second post, I acknowledge that there is a good street grid planned (I believe BVictor only mentioned 34th going through in the text of his message).

[urbanpln]

If D+K push, they might be able to get a Metra station at the 33rd park-bridge, giving the neighborhood a rail link to downtown.

The Alderman and city have been trying to get Metra to add more stops in that area for several years now. Currently there is a stop at 27th Street (Micheal Reese). There have been discussions for stops at 31st, 35th and 39th Streets. Metra has not been very open to this at this time however this could change as more development occurs. Metra does not see itself as a city rail service and it's not. It caters more to suburbanites commuters. I do agree with you that if D&K join this discussion things could move faster but, it will not happen until more development happen along the mid south Lakefront.