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

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



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 16th, 2006, 07:23 AM   #41
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; June 18th, 2010 at 11:12 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 16th, 2006, 10:05 AM   #42
forumly_chgoman
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 10

^Boy , wong's on a roll tonight...he is either ****ed up or as partaked in too much pure O2
forumly_chgoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 16th, 2006, 10:21 AM   #43
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; June 18th, 2010 at 11:11 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 16th, 2006, 10:40 PM   #44
prelude91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago...Soon to be Washington D.C.
Posts: 1,240
Likes (Received): 2

This is essentially Oak Brook Mall with Condo's on top of it...I hate it.
prelude91 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2006, 03:45 AM   #45
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by mohammed wong
I just mourn the loss what used to be there
You miss the wooden grain elevator? Or the Rock Island team track?
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2006, 01:07 PM   #46
edsg25
BANNED
 
edsg25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,195
Likes (Received): 105

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
You miss the wooden grain elevator? Or the Rock Island team track?
oh. you meal a rail yard? well, there's always the proviso yard near o'hare for the nostalgic.
edsg25 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2006, 09:05 PM   #47
FreeRadical
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 211
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheLoop View Post
I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Danthediscoman clarified what I meant pretty well. The last thing I want in my neighborhood is a sterile suburban style shopping center. I am generally glad this project is going to be built, but I feel frustrated that the developer is taking absolutely no architectural risk what so ever. I also feel frustrated that this will essentially be nothing more than a mall, and not a city street with all of it's variety.
Because this will be on private property, the owners can dictate a lot of things including such limitations as to when you can walk down the "street" (it will close at night, you can be sure), or not allowing photography on the "street". You see, it won't really be a street at all, instead it will be a faux street filled with chain stores and will lack any real character. I would rather have a real street and all the good and bad that comes with it, and if that means a few homeless people, then fine.
VOID

Last edited by FreeRadical; December 15th, 2007 at 06:15 AM.
FreeRadical no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2006, 03:57 AM   #48
24gotham
Formerly InTheLoop
 
24gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Upper West Side, NYC
Posts: 485
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRadical View Post
Two points in response to your post:

1. Unless you live on the near south or near west sides, this isn't really your neighborhood at all. You should familiarize yourself with the site before talking about what can or should be done with it. Make sure you walk the Clark Street viaduct, which nominally connects Roosevelt to the grade-level grid, but in practice functions like a meat clever, so you understand why the cul-de-sac solution is superior.

2. This is a mixed-use development, so your characterization of it as a suburban mall is false. I would have much more of a problem if they were trying to pass this off as a typical Chicago neighborhood, ie, a Roosevelt Square on stilts. There is no attempt to do that, and this has the density to (hopefully) attract public transportation. It looks like it will be a nice place to jog or walk the dog.

And finally, to you and all others adamantly opposed to this project because of the "suburbanization" of the near south and west sides that it represents:

The strip of clothing stores on Roosevelt between Canal and DesPlaines are a real hoot. They are ALL originals. They have TONS of character. They are the final vestiges of old Jew Town. You'll no doubt give lip service to the thousand and one reasons why they mattered on the day of their passing - as you drive past them on your way to Target.
Since you don't know me, #1 could be a fair statement, however I have lived on State Street in the center of the Loop since 2003, and recently decided to make Printers Row my home by signing a contract on a unit at Burnham Point, ten blocks from my current home, and only two blocks away from the Roosevelt Collection. So, I think I know a little bit about the area and have a right to speak about it.

On #2: Roosevelt Collection is nothing but a mall with fake lofts plopped on top. Yes it has underground parking, and yes there will be an urban bend to it, but no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it is still a pig.

I don't have any issues with it being a mall with housing above, I actually support the idea of having more mixed use projects. What I take issue with, is the fact that Roosevelt Collection is architecturally bankrupt. This is not just my opinion, there are lots of people that feel this way. This project is about as bland as you can get; and the developer, out of fear of not selling units to suburbanites moving into the city, or retailers fearful of it being too edgy, dumbed the design down to the point of it being pablum for the masses. I also take issue with the fact that this project is being designed almost entirely around the car, and not the street. It will be easy in and easy out for cars, and less focused on pedestrian traffic. They are not building a real city street. It will be a fake one, which will be closed to pedestrians at night, and security will escort you off of their private property if you're not a resident.

That is my issue with Roosevelt Collection. There is a huge opportunity to design a great transit and pedestrian friendly urban destination, but instead, they are going for safe and boring. That is an unfortunate missed opportunity.

That said; will I shop there when I am living on Clark and Polk? Probably, at least on occasion. But, I have always gladly spent my duckets at local businesses first, before going to the national chains, and will always do so. Just like I spend nearly all of my money within the city limits because the suburbs have enough people supporting their tax base, they don't need my money. (Except for the occasional trip to Ikea.)

As for the strip on Roosevelt just west of the Kennedy... Well, I have done business in a few of those shops, and since I don't own a car, it was CTA that carted my ass past Target on my way there.
__________________
24gotham - "Architecture should reflect the time in which it is built, not a previous time that may or may not have existed."

Formerly "InTheLoop" of Chicago.
24gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2006, 05:04 AM   #49
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheLoop View Post
Since you don't know me, #1 could be a fair statement, however I have lived on State Street in the center of the Loop since 2003, and recently decided to make Printers Row my home by signing a contract on a unit at Burnham Point, ten blocks from my current home, and only two blocks away from the Roosevelt Collection. So, I think I know a little bit about the area and have a right to speak about it.
I too get frustrated with people who make ignorant comments regarding development that is regional and site specific, like in this case since it is so isoloated, and it drives me nuts. Or people who complain about a development because it is not 50 stories tall without merit in the South Loop when they live in Schaumburg or Jefferson Park. I think InTheLoop is getting unfairly attacked here and mislabeled... his posts have been well taken by me.

What a lot of people dont get, is that a centralized area of shopping like North/Clybourn is a good area. While they really mucked up North/Clybourn with it being 75% parking lot, the Roosevelt Collection is a much better designed project as it is laid out. I agree the architectural is bland and could use some improvement, but the people they are marketing the lofts to is driving that.
A lot of ignorant people have been complaining about the fact that the street does not match the grid system. It would be nearly impossible to do. Since Roosevelt is elevated by about 30+', it would have to slope down for over a quarter mile to street level to be considered appropriate for retail (halfway to Polk and it probably could not connect to any streets in that quarter mile). It would look horrible from Clark and Wells and would be a grading nightmare. The way the parking is situated is a great idea. It is completely hidden below Roosevelt and will be a good buffer to the tracks on one side. On the West side, the renderings show a promising nice facade facing the rebuilt Wells Street.
This development is going to do a lot of great things for the South Loop, and I choose to overlook the crappy architecture. Although I first try to support local shops, you will probably catch me going to the theater, maybe some of the stores like Trader Joes (I am hoping they put one there), and some of the other stores near there like DSW, Home Depot, and Best Buy.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2006, 05:10 AM   #50
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheLoop View Post
They are not building a real city street. It will be a fake one, which will be closed to pedestrians at night, and security will escort you off of their private property if you're not a resident.
Is the street not going to be dedicted to the city? Do you mean cars will not be allowed on the street at night? Has someone told you that it will be for private residents only? I think the retailers would have issue with this. I am pretty sure the street will be dedicted to the city. I know the park is for sure.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2006, 05:51 AM   #51
24gotham
Formerly InTheLoop
 
24gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Upper West Side, NYC
Posts: 485
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrintersRowBoiler View Post
Is the street not going to be dedicted to the city? Do you mean cars will not be allowed on the street at night? Has someone told you that it will be for private residents only? I think the retailers would have issue with this. I am pretty sure the street will be dedicted to the city. I know the park is for sure.
As I understand this project, the "street" will be solely owned by the developer, and while it may remain open to "traffic" 24/7, it is subject to the land owners own rules and regs. It would be no different than if you parked your car outside of Old Orchard, and wandered around the mall at 2AM. You will be hassled by security.

The park component may be dedictated to the city, but would close like other parks at 11pm or midnight.

Accomodations would be made for resturaunt and theater patrons leaving late at night, but again, security will be prevelant to ensure you don't "linger".

I don't want folks to think that I have a problem with security providing for safety, I just don't want folks to think that this is a real public street either. On the upside, residents of the faux lofts won't be subjected to young men illegally drumming on buckets.
__________________
24gotham - "Architecture should reflect the time in which it is built, not a previous time that may or may not have existed."

Formerly "InTheLoop" of Chicago.
24gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2006, 01:41 PM   #52
edsg25
BANNED
 
edsg25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,195
Likes (Received): 105

Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheLoop View Post
As I understand this project, the "street" will be solely owned by the developer, and while it may remain open to "traffic" 24/7, it is subject to the land owners own rules and regs. It would be no different than if you parked your car outside of Old Orchard, and wandered around the mall at 2AM. You will be hassled by security.

The park component may be dedictated to the city, but would close like other parks at 11pm or midnight.

Accomodations would be made for resturaunt and theater patrons leaving late at night, but again, security will be prevelant to ensure you don't "linger".

I don't want folks to think that I have a problem with security providing for safety, I just don't want folks to think that this is a real public street either. On the upside, residents of the faux lofts won't be subjected to young men illegally drumming on buckets.
Loop, right in the heart of the city, at North and Clybourn, sits C&B's largest store, surrounded by parking lots as is virtually all the rest of the area, highlighted by the shoppng complex a block over with Whole Foods.

OK, true, Roosevelt Collection promises to be somewhat of a suburban life-style center set up, a relative of the Glen in Glenview, for example, but isn't it also a step up on the North and Clybourn set up? At least there is a real interest in creating a more urban sytle environment, of removing surface parking lots with on-street parking, of placing lofts above stores.

Suburbia is not the enemy and learning from suburbia is not necessarily a negative. An earlier comment on the thread about RC being Oakbrook like gave me reason to pause: what's so negative about Oakbrook? Sure it is surrounded by a sea of parking lots (now well mixed with ramps), but its interior space is attractive and almost unique: shopping in almost a garden like setting with grounds that would look good at the botanic gardens. The developer planned it with care and it is actually shopping outside, city like, where it belongs (as opposed to 900N, WTP, Chgo Pl, No. Bridge).
edsg25 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2006, 05:41 PM   #53
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

^ I agree with your point here. RC is a huge step up from other retail centers. It is dense, puts parking beneath grade and is very pedestrian friendly, as well as mixing land uses. All of these are hallmarks of urbanity.

I have also accepted the cul-de-sac as necessary for this site, and perhaps some day in the future this site's layout will be be considered uniquely charming. I'm also betting that some day a future owner, wishing to relieve himself of paying for maintanance of the main "road", will sell or hand it over to the city.

But my one qualm is and continues to be the architecture. It is just bland, monotonous, and horrid.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2006, 08:47 PM   #54
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheLoop View Post
As I understand this project, the "street" will be solely owned by the developer, and while it may remain open to "traffic" 24/7, it is subject to the land owners own rules and regs. It would be no different than if you parked your car outside of Old Orchard, and wandered around the mall at 2AM. You will be hassled by security.

Accomodations would be made for resturaunt and theater patrons leaving late at night, but again, security will be prevelant to ensure you don't "linger".
I still have a hard time restaurants AND BARS will sign a lease or any type of agreement to have a storefront on a "street" that chases away potential patrons. If it is not dedicated to the city, I wonder if there is an easement established.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2006, 11:17 PM   #55
urban_addict
Craving density 24/7
 
urban_addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 141
Likes (Received): 0

This will basically be a destination and nothing else. No different than if I decided to go to Michigan Avenue for shopping, to dine or catch a movie at Loews. The only difference is RC is a purposely created destination on a cul-de-sac where as Mich Ave is a culturally created one on a major avenue. Not to say that RC will have the magnitude or street traffic like MA, but it certainly has comparable aspects. But so do a lot of other things.

You also have to take into account that this area needs a shopping destination badly. The South Loop is incrediably underserved when it comes to major shopping brands and neighborhood destinations.

I feel this is probably the best solution for the area as well. It will stimulate community and retail growth in an area devoid of much. I find that it would be impossible for the developer to just magically create a working street from scratch. Possibly though, the housing portion will help mold it into as much of a working street as it can be... during the day that is. I'm sure there will be a demand for everyday things such as dry cleaners, gyms and salons that will add a little "local" flavor to the corporate retail and restaurant mix.

Hopefully through the years this will become a considerable shopping and entertainment destination for the average Chicagoan and not a generic, sterile plaza filled with the usual Gap, Bath and Body Works and Starbucks.
urban_addict no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2006, 11:21 PM   #56
24gotham
Formerly InTheLoop
 
24gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Upper West Side, NYC
Posts: 485
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrintersRowBoiler View Post
I still have a hard time restaurants AND BARS will sign a lease or any type of agreement to have a storefront on a "street" that chases away potential patrons. If it is not dedicated to the city, I wonder if there is an easement established.
That is just it PrintersRowBoiler... This isn't a street. It is no different than an outdoor mall with auto access. Think Old Orchard with a driveway running through the center. Bars and Resturaunts will sign leases, because when they close at 2 or 3 (or 4)AM, the whole place will close.
__________________
24gotham - "Architecture should reflect the time in which it is built, not a previous time that may or may not have existed."

Formerly "InTheLoop" of Chicago.
24gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2006, 03:26 AM   #57
edsg25
BANNED
 
edsg25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,195
Likes (Received): 105

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ II have also accepted the cul-de-sac as necessary for this site, and perhaps some day in the future this site's layout will be be considered uniquely charming.
perhaps the cul de sac was necessary to make the RC roads "on site" as opposed to a through street that might have had to be publically owned.
edsg25 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2006, 04:58 AM   #58
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheLoop View Post
It is no different than an outdoor mall with auto access.
^ Uhhh, yes it is. People--LOTS of people, will be living there--it will be their home. Not the case with Old Orchard mall.

Quote:
Think Old Orchard with a driveway running through the center. Bars and Resturaunts will sign leases, because when they close at 2 or 3 (or 4)AM, the whole place will close.
^ I'm not feeling this Old Orchard analogy in the least. If this exact same development didn't have a cul-de-sac, I imagine you wouldn't be criticizing it so heavily. It's dense, walkable, mixed-use, and reasonably accessible (all things considered). Absolutely nothing in common with Old Orchard Mall.

But the architecture is crap
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2006, 10:05 AM   #59
edsg25
BANNED
 
edsg25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,195
Likes (Received): 105

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ Uhhh, yes it is. People--LOTS of people, will be living there--it will be their home. Not the case with Old Orchard mall.



^ I'm not feeling this Old Orchard analogy in the least. If this exact same development didn't have a cul-de-sac, I imagine you wouldn't be criticizing it so heavily. It's dense, walkable, mixed-use, and reasonably accessible (all things considered). Absolutely nothing in common with Old Orchard Mall.

But the architecture is crap
by no means am I suggesting the following holds up to urban design, but Old Orchard is currently undergoing a major renovation along its east (Skokie Blvd.) side that inclues the removal of old department store space (Saks, L&T) with its replacement with a life-style center shopping environment.

It should be interesting to see how Old Orchard pulls this one off. It is by far the most urban suburb that will have the life style concept (as opposed to places like the Glen in Glenview or Deer Park in the nw suburbs).
edsg25 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2006, 07:36 PM   #60
Rascacielos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 34
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ Uhhh, yes it is. People--LOTS of people, will be living there--it will be their home. Not the case with Old Orchard mall.



^ I'm not feeling this Old Orchard analogy in the least. If this exact same development didn't have a cul-de-sac, I imagine you wouldn't be criticizing it so heavily. It's dense, walkable, mixed-use, and reasonably accessible (all things considered). Absolutely nothing in common with Old Orchard Mall.

But the architecture is crap
I hear you. I think the closest I've seen to this is Market Common at Clarendon in Arlington, VA. Of course that's in an actual suburban setting, but a dense, close in suburb, and people definitely flock to the place. I suspect RC will be no different.
Rascacielos no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

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

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 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