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 May 21st, 2007, 08:56 PM   #421
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post

Perhaps certain self-important individuals can stick their noses where they belong. The way I see it, LET THE BUYERS decide who is a good developer and who isn't. Last I checked, we live in a free market society. You're not an elected official, you don't OWN the land, and you're not the developer or hired architect for this project, are you? Didn't think so.
Sounds hypocritical when not too long ago you criticize developers for putting up parking podiums even though the buyers want parking. While it is a free market society, at some point restrictions need to be put in place for good urban planning.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 22nd, 2007, 03:45 AM   #422
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 881

Posted by Loopy in the SSP forums


21st and Prairie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
Fitzgerald and Associates, Architect.















BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 04:50 AM   #423
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

^I can definitely dig it. I think its close enough to Cermak, and far enough away from the majority of the other townhomes and mansions in the prairie district to warrant the height, and evade the nimbys. There is really nothing by there, except the new lakeside lofts. The townhomes look like total add-ons, after thoughts really.

BTW, seems at the eco18 site theyre totally done demolishing the existing building, does anyone know when actual construction is expected to start? It really seems like they are moving fast.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 05:34 AM   #424
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrintersRowBoiler View Post
Sounds hypocritical when not too long ago you criticize developers for putting up parking podiums even though the buyers want parking. While it is a free market society, at some point restrictions need to be put in place for good urban planning.
^ Not at all. I criticize the 1:1 requirement for parking in residential highrises downtown. Developers don't have a choice--they can (and are often strong-armed by the city to) build more parking than that, but not less. Doesn't sound like a free market to me.

I have long believed and will always believe that the highrise boom in Chicago would still have succeeded with half (or less) the amount of parking offered.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 06:43 AM   #425
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

21st and Prairie location - not a bad design except for the height, considering the 9 story planned for the other corner of 21st and Prairie, the 29 story Aristocrat, and the recently almost completed 4 story Lakeside Lofts. How would you like to be the folks in Lakeside Lofts (which Fitzgerald also was architect)? The Lakeside Lofts building is directly east behind the alley of this proposal and will be wiped of a great deal of sun for the first 1/2 of the day.
(2nd photo with shade covering their development)...it's one thing to be across the street, another to be across the alley.

This site proposed, or the property across the street is the first location of Daniel Burnham's first commission, for a Prairie Avenue house for John Sherman, a wealthy industrialist who would conveniently become Burnham"s new father-in-law.
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...ges/10373.html
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 07:45 PM   #426
Latoso
C.B.P.
 
Latoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,189
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
The Lakeside Lofts building is directly east behind the alley of this proposal and will be wiped of a great deal of sun for the first 1/2 of the day.
As a great man once said, "So what!" No one is entitled to direct sunlight at all hours of the day in the downtown area. Plenty of people live full end satisfying lives with only diffused light through most of the day elsewhere downtown, why can't you? If sunlight is your main criteria in a new home, I suggest you look much farther from the city center for it.
__________________
LATOSO
C.B.P. - Citizens for Better Planning

Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will themselves not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die. - Daniel Burnham
Latoso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 08:32 PM   #427
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Breath

Quote:
Originally Posted by Latoso View Post
As a great man once said, "So what!" No one is entitled to direct sunlight at all hours of the day in the downtown area. Plenty of people live full end satisfying lives with only diffused light through most of the day elsewhere downtown, why can't you? If sunlight is your main criteria in a new home, I suggest you look much farther from the city center for it.
dude, take a water pill...it was a non-important whimsical comment about the rendering, pointing out the huge shadow the developer attempts to portray; I find it ironic the the same architect is doing both projects, with the extremely close proximity of both buildings being interesting, especially for the South Loop where there is relative space available. Try not to take yourself too seriously, nor try to insinuate it is of importance to my buying habits.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 08:58 PM   #428
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

I would be happy living in lakeside lofts knowing that tons of development was happening, boosting a blighted area and increasing the property values. And height, why did I have a feeling you, ermdiego, would have a problem with it? What exactly is the problem with the height. Its basically in downtown chicago of all places, so why would people even live here if they are scared of tall buildings? Thats like moving to antartica and complaining about snow. Anyway, theres the Hyatt which is what, 34+ floors?, theres going to be MPII which is around 32, theres Lexington park right across the street at 36+, so how does this not fit in again? you crack me up.

Anyway, even if there is bunch of new development in this one specific area, its all eventually going to get filled in. People need to start getting used to some shade.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 10:04 PM   #429
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Rob

Quote:
Originally Posted by robituss View Post
I would be happy living in lakeside lofts knowing that tons of development was happening, boosting a blighted area and increasing the property values. And height, why did I have a feeling you, ermdiego, would have a problem with it? What exactly is the problem with the height. Its basically in downtown chicago of all places, so why would people even live here if they are scared of tall buildings? Thats like moving to antartica and complaining about snow. Anyway, theres the Hyatt which is what, 34+ floors?, theres going to be MPII which is around 32, theres Lexington park right across the street at 36+, so how does this not fit in again? you crack me up.

Anyway, even if there is bunch of new development in this one specific area, its all eventually going to get filled in. People need to start getting used to some shade.
1. Those developments you mention are all part of the plan to direct taller structures on the edge of the District on Calumet, Cermak, South Indiana (like the Grant Park effect) surrounding the low density and open space areas...this one, like X/O is on Prairie Avenue, where the goal was a lower height and lower density to maintain a "character" scale and streetscape for a better pedestrian feel and lifestyle.
It's not the height of each building, its the sound and logical placement of those heights in context with the surrounding development, which the plans clearly identified. (Think of the outcry if you put a high rise in Dearborn Park). But alas, I know on a high rise forum, there will be little agreement - we can agree to disagree.

2. Blighted? Respectfully, the area of the Prairie District is far from blighted
since about 3 years ago, and it only took about 2 years. Maybe it is just
me, but having lived at near Roosevelt & Wabash in 1997, and seeing the
Prairie District now, the two were never close in "blightness". The "bones"
were easily resurected on Prairie, but that was not the case for
development near Roosevelt. If you remember the old St. James Hotel
that made way for the Jewel...you might agree

3. A question I have is it downtown Chicago? It is just as far from the loop at
most of the Near North Neighorhoods? Why is the South Loop all lumped
together and not allowed distinct development plans and character, but
the Near North is allowed character districts like Gold Coast, Streeterville,
River west, Old-Town, etc., etc. HAs not the South Loop Development
come far enough to respect and concentrate on the quality and sensitvity
of the in-fill left by the existing developments, in contect of the Districts?
It is not the wild west anymore, but some developers will have you believe
so. These are things you can't tell from a computer monitor, its things you
have to feel walking an area.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 11:02 PM   #430
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 07:35 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 11:21 PM   #431
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

St. James

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
You lived at the St. James?

Cool!
I still have the shopping cart with a broken wheel to prove it!!!
That place smelled so bad, that just walking by it, with the hotel door open would knock you down and gag.

Throw in the Roosevelt Hotel, with the old liquor store where Bongo Room now sits; the urine smell really knocked you out when in line to buy a six pack of Colt 45's and a fith of Maddog!
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2007, 12:35 AM   #432
FreeRadical
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 211
Likes (Received): 0

VOID

Last edited by FreeRadical; December 15th, 2007 at 06:52 AM.
FreeRadical no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2007, 06:18 AM   #433
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
3. A question I have is it downtown Chicago? It is just as far from the loop at
most of the Near North Neighorhoods? Why is the South Loop all lumped
together and not allowed distinct development plans and character, but
the Near North is allowed character districts like Gold Coast, Streeterville,
River west, Old-Town, etc., etc. HAs not the South Loop Development
come far enough to respect and concentrate on the quality and sensitvity
of the in-fill left by the existing developments, in contect of the Districts?
It is not the wild west anymore, but some developers will have you believe
so. These are things you can't tell from a computer monitor, its things you
have to feel walking an area.
^ What makes you think that 'character' is pre-ordained? A character district evolves over decades, perhaps a century, in a natural fashion. A vast majority of your Prarie District architecture is about 5-10 year old. What's this 'cherished' district you keep touting? It's gone! The bulldozer pretty much took care of that decades ago.

And in response to this:

HAs not the South Loop Development come far enough to respect and concentrate on the quality and sensitvity
of the in-fill left by the existing developments, in contect of the Districts?


^ Not really. Perhaps when you can say, "My Grandfather owned this house", then we'll talk. Where's the sentimental attachment for the greater Chicago community? Where does this 'district' fit into the Chicago concious? How do you expect a greater society to sympathize with homeowners that make these claims about 'character' and 'historic importance' when they haven't lived there for even half a generation?
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2007, 04:08 PM   #434
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Character Districts Defined by DPD Already

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ What makes you think that 'character' is pre-ordained? A character district evolves over decades, perhaps a century, in a natural fashion. A vast majority of your Prarie District architecture is about 5-10 year old. What's this 'cherished' district you keep touting? It's gone! The bulldozer pretty much took care of that decades ago.

And in response to this:

HAs not the South Loop Development come far enough to respect and concentrate on the quality and sensitvity
of the in-fill left by the existing developments, in contect of the Districts?


^ Not really. Perhaps when you can say, "My Grandfather owned this house", then we'll talk. Where's the sentimental attachment for the greater Chicago community? Where does this 'district' fit into the Chicago concious? How do you expect a greater society to sympathize with homeowners that make these claims about 'character' and 'historic importance' when they haven't lived there for even half a generation?
"What makes you think that 'character' is pre-ordained?" Wow Mr. "Development should be left up to the professionals in DPD", I guess you don't read the Plan your DPD heros have written. It is DPD that has already defined and pre-ordained the 'Character Districts' through the Chicago Central Plan and NEar South Community Plan, Not the residents. I am only using the information your 'Development and Urban Planning Officials" have developed'. Oh wait, now you will claim all of this is optional

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webpor...chapter4_1.pdf

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webpor...Pchapter5c.pdf

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webpor...ad_to_I-55.pdf
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2007, 05:29 PM   #435
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
"What makes you think that 'character' is pre-ordained?" Wow Mr. "Development should be left up to the professionals in DPD", I guess you don't read the Plan your DPD heros have written. It is DPD that has already defined and pre-ordained the 'Character Districts' through the Chicago Central Plan and NEar South Community Plan, Not the residents. I am only using the information your 'Development and Urban Planning Officials" have developed'. Oh wait, now you will claim all of this is optional
^ You didn't answer my question. What makes you think that character is pre-ordained?

This same DPD is letting sensible development (ie X/O condominiums) occur where it should occur, so I don't fault them in the least. They obviously see flaws in the self-serving NIMBY-endorsed Near South Community Plan and thus are basically skirting it by. Tough luck for you guys, but then again you made the mistake of expecting that your neighborhood would remain cute, quiet, and free from the kind of development that has defined the rest of the downtown area.

But I personally don't recognize your neighborhood as having any character, and yes I have actually walked through it on several occasions. Nice houses--although they're all brand new.

Oh, and nor did you come up with an answer to this:

Where's the sentimental attachment for the greater Chicago community? Where does this 'district' fit into the Chicago concious? How do you expect a greater society to sympathize with homeowners that make these claims about 'character' and 'historic importance' when they haven't lived there for even half a generation?

Last edited by The Urban Politician; May 23rd, 2007 at 05:35 PM.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2007, 08:54 PM   #436
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

character

separating the Rokas development at 21st and the actual boundaries of the historic district is an existing warehouse/loft building with an addition on top....a building type that is arguably more of the historic 'character' of the neighborhood then the rowhouses in the 1800 block....

it actually makes the rowhouses that rokas is proposing seem a little silly, but they felt obliged to add due to the nimbys....

an earlier post was quite insightful....either all highrises should be opposed, or none....

each development should be considered on its own merits in the south loop on a case-by-case basis....particularly its height....a position that the majority of those working on the South Loop Community Plan endorsed years ago....

the fact that suggested height limits entered into the plan was a bone to a few minor players that screeched the loudest and was not seriously opposed by the framers of that plan due to the realization that the limits carried no weight of law....
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2007, 10:05 PM   #437
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Townhomes

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
separating the Rokas development at 21st and the actual boundaries of the historic district is an existing warehouse/loft building with an addition on top....a building type that is arguably more of the historic 'character' of the neighborhood then the rowhouses in the 1800 block....

it actually makes the rowhouses that rokas is proposing seem a little silly, but they felt obliged to add due to the nimbys....

an earlier post was quite insightful....either all highrises should be opposed, or none....

each development should be considered on its own merits in the south loop on a case-by-case basis....particularly its height....a position that the majority of those working on the South Loop Community Plan endorsed years ago....

the fact that suggested height limits entered into the plan was a bone to a few minor players that screeched the loudest and was not seriously opposed by the framers of that plan due to the realization that the limits carried no weight of law....
Obliged due to NIMBY's? Respectfully, the city DPD would more than likely require the townhomes for set-back and streetscape in this area, well in advance of any NIMBY outcry. This was a condition of X/O. However, the Rokas design seems to fit a little better with their design, versus the concrete columns juting at the base of the X/O tower, or their pink-tinted concrete townhomes.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2007, 11:44 PM   #438
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 07:35 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2007, 11:57 PM   #439
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 881

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
1. Those developments you mention are all part of the plan to direct taller structures on the edge of the District on Calumet, Cermak, South Indiana (like the Grant Park effect) surrounding the low density and open space areas...this one, like X/O is on Prairie Avenue, where the goal was a lower height and lower density to maintain a "character" scale and streetscape for a better pedestrian feel and lifestyle.
It's not the height of each building, its the sound and logical placement of those heights in context with the surrounding development, which the plans clearly identified. (Think of the outcry if you put a high rise in Dearborn Park). But alas, I know on a high rise forum, there will be little agreement - we can agree to disagree.

2. Blighted? Respectfully, the area of the Prairie District is far from blighted
since about 3 years ago, and it only took about 2 years. Maybe it is just
me, but having lived at near Roosevelt & Wabash in 1997, and seeing the
Prairie District now, the two were never close in "blightness". The "bones"
were easily resurected on Prairie, but that was not the case for
development near Roosevelt. If you remember the old St. James Hotel
that made way for the Jewel...you might agree

3. A question I have is it downtown Chicago? It is just as far from the loop at
most of the Near North Neighorhoods? Why is the South Loop all lumped
together and not allowed distinct development plans and character, but
the Near North is allowed character districts like Gold Coast, Streeterville,
River west, Old-Town, etc., etc. HAs not the South Loop Development
come far enough to respect and concentrate on the quality and sensitvity
of the in-fill left by the existing developments, in contect of the Districts?
It is not the wild west anymore, but some developers will have you believe
so. These are things you can't tell from a computer monitor, its things you
have to feel walking an area.


1. If the city wanted to maintain the character of Prairie Avebue they would have either A. Not allowed the destruction of all the historic structures there 50 years ago or B. Left all the vacant lots as they were 5 years ago. There's no character to preserve, only 1/2 a dozen mansions form the late 1800's. As you can obviously tell, the city's goal has changed. There's nothing wrong with more height and density. Welcome to the city. So what if new developmentisn't in accordance with the South Loop Plan. Plans change, always have and always will. Only a small portion of the Burnham Plan was ever enacted, and I say thank god for that, because in his "PLANS", there was nothing in this city over 12 floors. I'd love to see a highrise in Dearborn Park. In fact Dearborn Park should be buldozed, that shis should have never have been built in the central area. It's totally disconnected and walled off from the rest of the city.

2. 7 years ago, the area was blighted. 5 years ago the renaissance began...There were no families, no dogs, no NIMBY'S. It was a vacant industrial wasteland, forgotten 50 years ago.

3 Downtown directly, no, but indirectly yes... It's a part of the Central Area. Within the next few years though, it will be a part of downtown Streeterville is downtown, Old Town is "A REAL HISTORIC DISTRICT", that mostly intact. The South Loop is a story of it's own. The northern area of the Central Area is already developed, it's had it's characted for years, while the South Loop was in LIMBO. Have you not noticed the skyscrapers in Streeterville? There's one proposed there called the Chicago Spire, heard or it? There are still areas of the South Loop that need help and are ripe for development. This can't be said for it's northern counterparts, because there's not as much room there to build.

Welcome to the Central Area, Welcome to Chicago, where we lile building big and tall, the way they should be. There's 227 square miles to choose from, how dumb was it to decide to move to a developing area where highrises are being built, if you're going to have issues with that?
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 05:12 AM   #440
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Ummm

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
1. If the city wanted to maintain the character of Prairie Avebue they would have either A. Not allowed the destruction of all the historic structures there 50 years ago or B. Left all the vacant lots as they were 5 years ago. There's no character to preserve, only 1/2 a dozen mansions form the late 1800's. As you can obviously tell, the city's goal has changed.
Um, kind of lazy thinking...the cities preservation as a whole only took serious roots in the last few decades (starting with the CSAF in late 60's); even Preservation Chicago was formed in 2001, but then you probably knew this. Character is not just in the buildings remaining, but includes street & grid layout, density, height, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
2. 7 years ago, the area was blighted. 5 years ago the renaissance began...There were no families, no dogs, no NIMBY'S. It was a vacant industrial wasteland, forgotten 50 years ago.
Again, lazy research or you just are afraid to not provide factual context. Blighted? Not even close when compared to almost all of the South Loop. Yes, a few industrial buildings had to go, but the bones were reconstituted by the various Architectural & presevation groups in saving Glessner in 1971, while much of the other tangible borne saplings in the 80's, followed by the Clark House and the Park in the early to mid 1990's. http://glessnerhouse.org/history.html
As well, compared to the remainder of the South Loop, I do not believe any developers received 'direct TIF' funding for specific projects. I believe the only TIF project was the restoration of the 1801 S. Indiana Building as a cultural place for arts and museum use.

As to Streeterville, I did not say it did not have high rises; I just pointed out is is allowed it's unique character of buildings.
ErmDiego 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 04:48 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