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 20th, 2006, 08:40 PM   #61
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheLoop View Post
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.
I don't understand why this is a problem. (I also don't agree with the analogy). If anyone is allowed to hang out there when any store is open, which I assume all restaurants/bars have a 2 am liquor license, why does it bother you that they will not want people who don't live there around after everything is shut down? As long as John Q. Public is allowed to be there during say 6AM when Starbucks opens and 2AM when the bars shut down, what is your issue?
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 20th, 2006, 10:02 PM   #62
FreeRadical
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 211
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ 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.
VOID

Last edited by FreeRadical; December 15th, 2007 at 06:14 AM.
FreeRadical no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2006, 08:03 AM   #63
forumly_chgoman
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 10

architecture is aesthetics.....aesthetics is not necessarly architecture
forumly_chgoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2006, 08:39 PM   #64
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by forumly_chgoman View Post
architecture is aesthetics.....aesthetics is not necessarly architecture
I completely disagree with your logic here... and Free Radical is right on with his post I think.

An architects job is to design a facility that meets their clients needs and functions. While, part of the job is to come up with how the building looks, it is usually driven by how the owner wants to present it to their market. The market is the people who will PAY the client, not neighbors or kids sitting behind a computer with their blinders on.

A good architect will design a product that is economically feasible, will sell, functions efficiently, and is carried to fruitition (getting past the permitting and constructability hurdles).

Many of the people posting on this website have no clue how much an architect (or engineer) is involved and needs to consider. You should not be confused with good architecture and good asthetics.

The architect on this project is doing a great job.
1. He came up with a solution to hide the parking
2. He was able to come up with a product to market to the retailers to sign leases
3. He was able to design a product that has rather easily been passed through the permit process with few concessions (that I know of) along the way.
4. He has provided a product that has started to sell fairly well (from what I have been told).
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 24th, 2006, 12:54 AM   #65
geoff_diamond
Live from the Loop
 
geoff_diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,578
Likes (Received): 2

Looper - certainly not attacking you here, as PrintersRowBoiler already pointed out your posts have been well articulated and well taken (at least by some). However, I've got to ask the same question as above: where are you getting the information regarding the 'street' being 'private?' Is this just speculation or do you have some tangible evidence that this will be the case?

I agree with every one of your assessments regarding the architectural banality of this project, but, sadly, these decisions are up to the developers and nobody else. And, in all honesty - that's fine with me. It's their money and their asses on the line, so, who are we to tell them how to run their business? The real fault lies with the consumers and the retailers - if the target audience of developments like this was a little more open-minded and the retailers a little more willing to be involved in something risky (again - they're just doing what's best for their business and we can't fault them for that) then we would certainly be getting something a bit more architecturally significant out of this whole thing. The bottom line, however, is that this development (while certainly not perfect) has decent underpinnings and will be a welcome replacement to a huge tract of empty land. I'd rather have something that works (even if it's not necessarily aesthetically noteworthy) than nothing at all.
__________________
Straight from Michigan and Monroe in downtown Chicago!
geoff_diamond no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 24th, 2006, 01:48 AM   #66
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_diamond
The bottom line, however, is that this development (while certainly not perfect) has decent underpinnings and will be a welcome replacement to a huge tract of empty land. I'd rather have something that works (even if it's not necessarily aesthetically noteworthy) than nothing at all.
^ Exactly, and that's the same conclusion I've come to. It's still an urban-designed retail center; even while it accommodates the car it certainly doesn't discourage the pedestrian or bus-rider. I'll drink to that
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 24th, 2006, 08:19 AM   #67
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
regarding the 'street' being 'private?'
I'm quite certain it will be private. It's atop a private parking garage, and I don't think the city has any interest in being responsible for it.

I asked recently for a copy of the PD, but Roosevelt Collection was actually just approved as an amendment to the old LaSalle Park PD, so there was no "public" paperwork on it.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 24th, 2006, 07:40 PM   #68
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

^ According to a video posted a while back, it seems like at least there will be street parking in this development. That's kind of an important 'urbanizing' element, if you ask me
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2006, 02:50 AM   #69
wrabbit
Registered User
 
wrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,162
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRadical View Post
Like most non-practitioners, you seem to confuse aesthetics with architecture...
You've done a survey, then, of "non-practitioners", to determine the percentages that are similarly confused? Or perhaps your sense is merely anecdotal.
wrabbit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2006, 09:49 PM   #70
FreeRadical
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 211
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrabbit View Post
You've done a survey, then, of "non-practitioners", to determine the percentages that are similarly confused? Or perhaps your sense is merely anecdotal.
VOID

Last edited by FreeRadical; December 15th, 2007 at 06:13 AM.
FreeRadical no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2006, 10:32 PM   #71
wrabbit
Registered User
 
wrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,162
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRadical View Post
OK, here's the survey. Its an essay question and you can be the first to take it:

Can a well-designed building be ugly?
On the internet, no one knows if you're a dog...or an architect, or whatever - ya just don't know who the other forumers really are or what they do - so you make points with strength of argument, rather than by asserting credentials, or by disparaging other forumers...and we are now officially off topic. Does your client find it "ugly"? Who is your client and what is the program? Are you getting paid, or is there a hold on the check? My point is that the high tone is rather pissy and adds nothing to the discussion.

Back on topic, I recall that the roads which run through Rockefeller Center are privately owned as well, but continue the grid so as to seemlessly merge with it; its owners must close down the streets for one day each year, so as to prevent public use from converting the private property to public...not sure if this is the case in IL as well?

Last edited by wrabbit; December 26th, 2006 at 10:48 PM.
wrabbit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2006, 04:17 AM   #72
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrabbit
the roads which run through Rockefeller Center are privately owned as well, but continue the grid so as to seemlessly merge with it
The only private street in Rockefeller Center is Rockefeller Plaza, which cuts the long blocks between Fifth and Sixth Avenues. It intersects the two intervening streets, if that's what you mean by "seamlessly merge."

Merchandise Mart Plaza is a good Chicago example of a Rockefeller Plaza-type private street. A lot of people don't realize that was supposed to be part of a Wacker Drive equivalent along the north bank of the river.

Chicago had a lot of private streets in the Central Manufacturing District (and later CMD developments), but most of those have been taken over by the city in recent years. A more troubling trend has been the city allowing private control of public streets, usually ones that serve one specific industrial operation. A good downtown example is Hubbard east of Desplaines, now controlled by Blommer Chocolate.

Quote:
its owners must close down the streets for one day each year, so as to prevent public use from converting the private property to public...not sure if this is the case in IL as well?
In Illinois, the period of adverse use (for a prescriptive easement) must be at least twenty (20) years, but does not arise if the owner of the servient estate posts a conspicuous notice on the real estate stating that the use of it is permitted and subject to his/her control. Illinois Code §735-5/13-122. This is why you see little bronze plaques noting the property lines and saying "permission to pass by control of owner" on downtown plazas in Chicago.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2006, 08:28 AM   #73
wrabbit
Registered User
 
wrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,162
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
The only private street in Rockefeller Center is Rockefeller Plaza, which cuts the long blocks between Fifth and Sixth Avenues. It intersects the two intervening streets, if that's what you mean by "seamlessly merge."
I mean that it is on the grid - not a cul-de-sac - and not otherwise obvious to traffic that it is a private road (until it shuts down )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Merchandise Mart Plaza is a good Chicago example of a Rockefeller Plaza-type private street. A lot of people don't realize that was supposed to be part of a Wacker Drive equivalent along the north bank of the river.
Cool!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
In Illinois, the period of adverse use (for a prescriptive easement) must be at least twenty (20) years, but does not arise if the owner of the servient estate posts a conspicuous notice on the real estate stating that the use of it is permitted and subject to his/her control. Illinois Code §735-5/13-122. This is why you see little bronze plaques noting the property lines and saying "permission to pass by control of owner" on downtown plazas in Chicago.
That is the open & notorious element of adverse possession. I'm referring to state control. Thanks though for posting it.
wrabbit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2006, 03:50 PM   #74
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

I'm not sure what "state control" has to do with it. Rockefeller Center closes its street one day a year so New York's adverse possession period can never be reached.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2006, 05:32 PM   #75
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Can you guys clarify what you are talking about here in regards to 'prescriptive easements' and 'possession periods'?

So tying this all together, can the city of Chicago eventually 'seize' control of the Roosevelt Collection's central road?
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2006, 06:28 PM   #76
wrabbit
Registered User
 
wrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,162
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I'm not sure what "state control" has to do with it. Rockefeller Center closes its street one day a year so New York's adverse possession period can never be reached.
The adverse possession statute you cite is for a civil action (private citizen v private citizen). States (city, county, state, fed governments) do not adversely possess - they have other constitutional mechanisms at their disposal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
...So tying this all together, can the city of Chicago eventually 'seize' control of the Roosevelt Collection's central road?
Bingo - this is what I'm asking, too. Is there a mechanism here in Chicago, as there is in NYC, for the city to take control? Mr Downtown has helpfully posted a statute above, but not the correct one. Just curious, really - no biggy.
wrabbit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2006, 07:30 PM   #77
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Governments normally take control through dedication of streets, done when property is subdivided into smaller parcels. In this case the city would probably decline to accept "South LaSalle Street." It's built atop a private parking garage with complicated cross-easement and maintenance issues, and it doesn't really serve as a thoroughfare.

A city can also condemn property for public use, to create a new street. A good Chicago example would be the extension of Ogden Avenue from Union Park to Lincoln Park in the 1920s. During that same period, hundreds of miles of streets were also widened by condemning property.

In other cases, the public acquires the right to travel on roads through long periods of use not protested by the owner. This right is known as an easement by prescription, and in Illinois requires 20 years uninterrupted and notorious use. A number of Chicago streets are simply shown on the Sidwell's maps as "open on the ground." Ownership of those streets never vests in the city (unless the city sues for possession), but the city nevertheless improves and maintains the streets on behalf of the public. If they chose to protest, utilities and street railway companies could probably avoid paying a franchise tax for using those streets.

It appears that the original downtown streets in the School Section (the area bounded by State, Madison, Halsted, and Roosevelt) were never properly dedicated. So technically the city (and the public) have only an easement to use them rather than a true fee-simple ownership. This came to light when lawyers for First National Bank were discussing with the city the proper fees for building the tunnel to Two First National Plaza. Because First National owned the land under and above the streets, they were able to put tellers in Three First National Plaza in the early 80s without violating the prohibition against branch banking.

Last edited by Mr Downtown; December 27th, 2006 at 09:24 PM. Reason: typo in adverse possession period
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2006, 08:45 PM   #78
FreeRadical
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 211
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrabbit View Post
On the internet, no one knows if you're a dog...or an architect, or whatever - ya just don't know who the other forumers really are or what they do - so you make points with strength of argument, rather than by asserting credentials, or by disparaging other forumers...

[snip]
VOID

Last edited by FreeRadical; December 15th, 2007 at 06:12 AM.
FreeRadical no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2006, 09:04 PM   #79
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Governments normally take control through dedication of streets, done when property is subdivided into smaller parcels. In this case the city would probably decline to accept "South LaSalle Street." It's built atop a private parking garage with complicated cross-easement and maintenance issues, and it doesn't really serve as a thoroughfare.

A city can also condemn property for public use, to create a new street. A good Chicago example would be the extension of Ogden Avenue from Union Park to Lincoln Park in the 1920s. During that same period, hundreds of miles of streets were also widened by condemning property.

In other cases, the public acquires the right to travel on roads through long periods of use not protested by the owner. This right is known as an easement by prescription, and in Illinois requires 10 years uninterrupted and notorious use. A number of Chicago streets are simply shown on the Sidwell's maps as "open on the ground." Ownership of those streets never vests in the city (unless the city sues for possession), but the city nevertheless improves and maintains the streets on behalf of the public. If they chose to protest, utilities and street railway companies could probably avoid paying a franchise tax for using those streets.

It appears that the original downtown streets in the School Section (the area bounded by State, Madison, Halsted, and Roosevelt) were never properly dedicated. So technically the city (and the public) have only an easement to use them rather than a true fee-simple ownership. This came to light when lawyers for First National Bank were discussing with the city the proper fees for building the tunnel to Two First National Plaza. Because First National owned the land under and above the streets, they were able to put tellers in Three First National Plaza in the early 80s without violating the prohibition against branch banking.

I thought the duration for a prescriptive easement for Illinois was 20 years?

"In Illinois, the period of adverse use must be at least twenty (20) years. This type of easement does not arise if the owner of the servient estate posts a conspicuous notice on the real estate stating that the use of it is permitted and subject to his/her control. Illinois Code §735-5/13-122."

Also, I am pretty sure the city could use the adverse possession mechanism to claim title to the streets.

"In Illinois, the duration of such possession is seven (7) years when made under color of title and twenty (20) years otherwise. Illinois Code §735-5/13 through 101, 107, 109, 110."

Color of title is basically when the actual title or deed for the property was not recorded properly.

Has this been resolved? Obviously the streets are considered right-of-way and are either dedicated to the city or IDOT at this time.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2006, 09:40 PM   #80
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Sorry for the typo on 20 years; I've fixed it.

Quote:
Has this been resolved? Obviously the streets are considered right-of-way and are either dedicated to the city or IDOT at this time.
No, there's no need for the city to take fee-simple possession or title. The public simply has the right to cross the property of abutting property owners.

IDOT generally owns nothing except the ROW under purpose-built state highways. In Chicago, I can't think of any other than the expressways.
Mr Downtown 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 05:17 AM.


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