daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



 

 
Thread Tools
Old December 29th, 2008, 04:46 AM   #41
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 1

I found a new site plan for Riverside Park (now called Riverside District) on SCB's website. A 2008 date is given on the plan, making it newer than either the first plan by Pappageorge/Haymes or the second plan by Antunovich.



It shares certain things with the two older plans (including the preservation of the lamentable barrier along Clark ), but overall, it seems to have much more in common with Lakeshore East - it is oriented around a sizable park at the center, and surrounds the park with high-rises. Unlike the previous plans, townhomes are merely kept to mask the towers' parking podiums.

On the one hand, I like this because it places tall towers along the river, effectively extending the density of the Loop southward. On the other hand, towers contain many more units than townhomes and take longer to build, meaning that this development will take far longer to fill in. Also, the existing mega-developments of Lakeshore East, Central Station, and even LaSalle Park/Franklin Pointe are only half-completed, and those developments are far closer to the popular areas of the city than Riverside District will be.
ardecila no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
 
Old February 15th, 2009, 06:24 PM   #42
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 649
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I'm not a fan of the river walk. The old plans had a nice landscaped broader path that really was a great amenity to residents stretching from Ping Tom Park to Roosevelt (and hopefully ultimately onward to the Loop connecting to the river walk currently being constructing). This river walk looks like crap and could be a ghost town during the week and would not spur much development along the river. I wouldn't mind this if they put retail along the riverwalk such as restaurants, plazas, ice cream shops, bars, hotel courtyards, KAYAK RENTAL STATION, etc. This is the best asset of the development and it sucks in this plan(in my opinion). The majority of the frontage is lined with townhomes.

Perhaps extending Wells from Roosevelt (recently constructed north to Polk) to Wentworth by the City as part of the Stimulus (or part of state $5.9B capital improvements program after we jack up our gas tax!) would push this development through and give the City the upper hand in how this Riverfront is developed. Also, by placing high rises along the River, the development can mirror the north development by hiding parking podiums below Roosevelt grade along Wells.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea  
Old November 19th, 2010, 08:47 AM   #43
stevevance
Steven Vance
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 103
Likes (Received): 4

Sorry to bring this up again. I was browsing the Pappageorge Haymes website and saw that the currently displayed design differs slightly from all images in this thread.
__________________
My blogs: Steven Can Plan and Streetsblog Chicago, view my city transportation photos on my Flickr, and download the Chicago Bike Guide.
stevevance no está en línea  
Old November 19th, 2010, 06:15 PM   #44
nicksplace27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 121
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevevance View Post
Sorry to bring this up again. I was browsing the Pappageorge Haymes website and saw that the currently displayed design differs slightly from all images in this thread.
NOOOOOOO!

No townhomes please!!!

This lack of density is disturbing...
nicksplace27 no está en línea  
Old November 19th, 2010, 09:34 PM   #45
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,537
Likes (Received): 4

No townhouses is a pretty extreme criterion for a 62-acre parcel with no transit access.

There are plenty of midrises and highrises in the PD. But any intelligent developer for this parcel is going to include a variety of products to appeal to different markets and life stages. They would probably use the same model for staging as Central Station: start with townhouses, add some midrises to support the retail, then climax with high-end highrises once you've created a desirable neighborhood.

The size of that big box in the middle is alarming. On Wednesday I heard a rumor about Walmart doing a "Near South" store, but when it's a suburban broker talking, he could mean 47th Street. Who else could use a box that size? Meijer? Costco? IKEA again?

Last edited by Mr Downtown; November 19th, 2010 at 09:54 PM.
Mr Downtown no está en línea  
Old November 19th, 2010, 09:53 PM   #46
hadeer992
Registered User
 
hadeer992's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dallas
Posts: 248
Likes (Received): 3

I always wondered why this spot is neglected
hadeer992 no está en línea  
Old November 20th, 2010, 01:13 AM   #47
nicksplace27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 121
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
No townhouses is a pretty extreme criterion for a 62-acre parcel with no transit access.

There are plenty of midrises and highrises in the PD. But any intelligent developer for this parcel is going to include a variety of products to appeal to different markets and life stages. They would probably use the same model for staging as Central Station: start with townhouses, add some midrises to support the retail, then climax with high-end highrises once you've created a desirable neighborhood.

The size of that big box in the middle is alarming. On Wednesday I heard a rumor about Walmart doing a "Near South" store, but when it's a suburban broker talking, he could mean 47th Street. Who else could use a box that size? Meijer? Costco? IKEA again?
I mean detached townhomes. I like the idea of having townhomes cover up the parking base of the larger towers like in Auntonovich's plan that resembles LSE.

That big box is also oppressive as hell. Why can't they have a main street with shops and midrises along them?

And with the no transit access, I imagine once thousands of people move down there, the CTA could run at least one bus route, if not more along that route.
nicksplace27 no está en línea  
Old November 20th, 2010, 04:45 AM   #48
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,537
Likes (Received): 4

Well, that is a "main street" coming south from Roosevelt to the big-box anchor. It can't be a true main street because it doesn't go anywhere, and the experience across the street at Roosevelt Collection is not very encouraging for a destination lifestyle center.

Those buildings between "Riverside Drive" and the river are also midrises with retail bases, but how many high-end restaurant spaces can realistically be absorbed in this area?
Mr Downtown no está en línea  
Old November 20th, 2010, 08:22 AM   #49
paytonc
Pragmatist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: DC
Posts: 433
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Here's the site plan as approved in the PD, with IKEA. It was done in 2004 by Pappageorge/Haymes and RTKL.
And the one posted by Steve differs just a tad, notably in eliminating blocks B14/B15 (which they could easily do without resubmitting the PD). Are we sure that the new owners even have contact with P/H?
__________________
http://westnorth.com
paytonc no está en línea  
Old November 20th, 2010, 04:41 PM   #50
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,537
Likes (Received): 4

I dug out my Riverside Park file, and you're right. The site plan Steve posted appears to be essentially the same one that was in the approved PD. So I think it's very doubtful that this is a current project.

Last edited by Mr Downtown; November 20th, 2010 at 04:53 PM.
Mr Downtown no está en línea  
Old November 21st, 2010, 08:57 PM   #51
mohammed wong
Registered User
 
mohammed wong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chevanston, IL
Posts: 1,897
Likes (Received): 3

Roosevelt is a nightmare

What this area DESPERATELY needs is a bridge.
I think Taylor or Polk would be the best option.

BOTTLENECK on Roosevelt for pedestrians and cars.
I sometimes opt for 18th street but that is pretty backed up as well.
And the other problem for the area is that there is huge gap in entry ways into Lakeshore Drive as well,
its ridiculous that there is no other access to LSD
inbetween 31st street and Roosevelt.

Roosevelt is a nightmare for those reasons,
no other way across the river until you hit harrison
or 18th street and the other being no other access to LSD
until you hit 31st street.
mohammed wong no está en línea  
Old November 28th, 2010, 03:51 AM   #52
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 1

A bridge at Taylor is definitely in the city's long-term plan. Part of it already exists - the city made Southgate Market build the west approach.

The problem is that Roosevelt Collection just blocked the right-of-way with their loading docks, so if the city does build a bridge, all the cars will need to turn north or south on Wells. I suppose they could build a dogleg into Taylor so it meets up with 9th Street and the planned Metra underpass there, but that's just too difficult.

I don't think there's much of a need for a vehicular bridge at Polk after the Taylor bridge is built, but as the area west of the river starts to get more residential buildings, Polk should get a pedestrian bridge.

Last edited by ardecila; November 28th, 2010 at 03:56 AM.
ardecila no está en línea  
Old November 29th, 2010, 05:58 AM   #53
mohammed wong
Registered User
 
mohammed wong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chevanston, IL
Posts: 1,897
Likes (Received): 3

Thats good to hear, because Im around that area alot
and I do like it, but as it is right now its a traffic nightmare.

I remember one fateful day this past summer or so
there was an accident at canal and roosevelt
and that was during rush hour, can you IMAGINE the TRAFFIC
that ensued after that?

I know cars arent the greatest means of transport,
but geez, you do need functioning roadways at the very least
and as it is right now, that area is barely functional.

I wonder when the bridge at Taylor will be built.

Last edited by mohammed wong; November 29th, 2010 at 06:21 PM.
mohammed wong no está en línea  
Old November 29th, 2010, 06:05 AM   #54
mohammed wong
Registered User
 
mohammed wong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chevanston, IL
Posts: 1,897
Likes (Received): 3

http://forgottenchicago.com/features...-out-for-good/

didnt know that both streets Polk and Taylor used to have bridges,
shame they arent bridges there now,
mohammed wong no está en línea  
Old November 29th, 2010, 04:49 PM   #55
ChitownCity
Registered User
 
ChitownCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: CGO, IL
Posts: 1,344
Likes (Received): 83

I don't have the slightest clue wtf is wrong with our planning commission or whoever has the say so on what ultimately gets destroyed outside Daley...
ChitownCity no está en línea  


 

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu