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 24th, 2007, 05:35 AM   #441
BorisMolotov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
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.
Then how come they're letting all sorts of new development in? Including one that's just a wee bit out of context with everything else in Streeterville? And you know what, Streeterville still looks nice; nothings out of context, old mixes with new there just fine, shouldn't the South Loop be no different? Old mixing with new to create a new context?
BorisMolotov no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 24th, 2007, 05:39 AM   #442
Chicagotom
Registered User
 
Chicagotom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 0

I wonder if any thought has been given to adding a new thread that address the current and future development south of Oh lets say 15th to the Stevenson. I know there are many with in the thread that are passionate about new development in and around the Prairie Avenue District, Motor Row and the Cermack corridor. Please sound off if there is interest in this.

I for one would like to give a clearer spot for this ongoing discussion. I believe that it's important but I've noticed a monopoly with in the broad area that we define as the "South Loop".
Chicagotom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 05:50 AM   #443
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

This discussion affects ALL of the South Loop, from Congress on down. Without a clear principle to follow, high-rise development in all of the South Loop will be misguided and vulnerable to NIMBY attacks. From Burnham Pointe to Park Michigan to X/O, it seems that any reasonably tall development in the South Loop is being met with scorn.

I will agree, though, that the South Loop is a HUGE area, and that it needs to have some "sub-districts" so that people can better identify the location of a project. Until those districts are formed, however, all of the South Loop will continue to face the same issues and will continue to be part of the same discussion.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 06:06 AM   #444
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 07:34 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 11:23 AM   #445
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 881

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
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.



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.

Not lazy thinking at all. I just tend to see things with open eyes. As I said, there was no character a decade ago. Vacant lots and 1/2 a dozen mansions. There's no character to be preserved. As you may have noticed, a new character is being created, a mixture of lowrise and highrise. How is street grid and layout not being preserved? It's actually been ****ed with that cun-de-sac on Paairie Ave. There was no real density. There weren't many store, resturants or dog parks to go to, and the area is still seriously lacking on true amenities. I know Preservation Chicago is new, it the past individual neighbors took a stand to preserve something, and no one did so for Prairie Ave.

By 1971, what else was there to save? The area has alreadl lost its ture charm and population.

What do TIF funds have to do with anything?

Yes Streeterville has a unique character of buildings. Low-rises next to loft buildings, next to skyscrapers without bitching about destroyed character or context of neighborhood. You're about to have a 2,000' skyscraper next to a 30' 3-story townhouse. You'll hear rumblings about views and density, but that's all. Some people actually show common ******* sense and realize where they live. While others.....
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 04:33 PM   #446
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

TIF

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
Not lazy thinking at all. I just tend to see things with open eyes. As I said, there was no character a decade ago. Vacant lots and 1/2 a dozen mansions. There's no character to be preserved. As you may have noticed, a new character is being created, a mixture of lowrise and highrise. How is street grid and layout not being preserved? It's actually been ****ed with that cun-de-sac on Paairie Ave. There was no real density. There weren't many store, resturants or dog parks to go to, and the area is still seriously lacking on true amenities. I know Preservation Chicago is new, it the past individual neighbors took a stand to preserve something, and no one did so for Prairie Ave.

By 1971, what else was there to save? The area has alreadl lost its ture charm and population.

What do TIF funds have to do with anything?

Yes Streeterville has a unique character of buildings. Low-rises next to loft buildings, next to skyscrapers without bitching about destroyed character or context of neighborhood. You're about to have a 2,000' skyscraper next to a 30' 3-story townhouse. You'll hear rumblings about views and density, but that's all. Some people actually show common ******* sense and realize where they live. While others.....
TIF funds directed to individual projects are one way to consider 'blightness', while most TIF funds go to infrastrucure, some areas have required TIF funds for the first few projects. Of course most of the residents like the Cul-de-sac, but of course by your standards, the are not allowed to enjoy it,
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 04:43 PM   #447
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Motor Row

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicagotom View Post
I wonder if any thought has been given to adding a new thread that address the current and future development south of Oh lets say 15th to the Stevenson. I know there are many with in the thread that are passionate about new development in and around the Prairie Avenue District, Motor Row and the Cermack corridor. Please sound off if there is interest in this.

I for one would like to give a clearer spot for this ongoing discussion. I believe that it's important but I've noticed a monopoly with in the broad area that we define as the "South Loop".
CHicago Tom & Ardecila apologies for trying to clarify the position of many in the Prairie District. You are correct about the future development from 15th to Stevenson. The development in Motor Row, stagnent to date, is going to go so fast, people are going to wonder what happened. With the already projects under construction, those in sale, a new planned Hotel at 24th and Indiana(renovation of existing building) , a new wine bar, and other un-announced projects, Motor Row is primed for it's boom. What's funny, is that even with zero residents, the Historical restrictions on development are going way beyond anything in the South Loop (already the marginal developers are complaining). Not sure how much of this will be desirable information for the skyscraper forum.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 04:51 PM   #448
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Boris

Quote:
Originally Posted by BorisMolotov View Post
Then how come they're letting all sorts of new development in? Including one that's just a wee bit out of context with everything else in Streeterville? And you know what, Streeterville still looks nice; nothings out of context, old mixes with new there just fine, shouldn't the South Loop be no different? Old mixing with new to create a new context?
Streeterville is Streeterville, and has some great space and places, if that is where people desire to be and live. Not my quote, but most from last weeks GSLA meeting, as reported here, chimed to the City Planner, Bennet Haller, that 'they wanted the South Loop be the South Loop, not Streeterville'...
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 05:20 PM   #449
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
CHicago Tom & Ardecila apologies for trying to clarify the position of many in the Prairie District. You are correct about the future development from 15th to Stevenson. The development in Motor Row, stagnent to date, is going to go so fast, people are going to wonder what happened. With the already projects under construction, those in sale, a new planned Hotel at 24th and Indiana(renovation of existing building) , a new wine bar, and other un-announced projects, Motor Row is primed for it's boom. What's funny, is that even with zero residents, the Historical restrictions on development are going way beyond anything in the South Loop (already the marginal developers are complaining). Not sure how much of this will be desirable information for the skyscraper forum.
Hey, diego, guess what? the historical restrictions in motor row are being enforced by the same beuaracrats you so love to recklessly malign....

The reason it works here is because the motor row district actually has enough existing character to actually preserve.....a quality that the Prairie Ave Historical District (much LESS the greaer Prairie Ave district in general) does not have....
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 05:33 PM   #450
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
ErmDiego, What are you going to tell Alderman Fioretti about Rokas 2020 project? Are you going to ask him to block it?
^ That's laughable. Do you actually think that one guy has even remotely so much importance? Me no think so.

Also, if you read the latest Chicago Journal there's an article about the latest meeting. Per their assessment, the general consensus was approval for the Rokas project. There were a few detractors, but they sounded like the minority.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 06:47 PM   #451
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
TIF funds directed to individual projects are one way to consider 'blightness', while most TIF funds go to infrastrucure, some areas have required TIF funds for the first few projects. Of course most of the residents like the Cul-de-sac, but of course by your standards, the are not allowed to enjoy it,
^ No, they're allowed to enjoy it.

They just aren't allowed to assume it will last forever, or that the city is in any way responsible to protect their right to keep it that way.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 06:54 PM   #452
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
from last weeks GSLA meeting, as reported here, chimed to the City Planner, Bennet Haller, that 'they wanted the South Loop be the South Loop, not Streeterville'...
^ So what?

'The South Loop should be the South Loop'

Yeah, that's a convincing statement. Bridgeport should be Bridgeport. Paris should be Paris. Doughnuts should be doughnuts, left is left, right is right, and boys will be boys!

Everybody has a different view of what the 'South Loop' is, and a growing number see highrises and dollar signs. More money for the city = a winner, always.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 07:13 PM   #453
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Laziness?

ErmDiego,

I think I speak for many in this forum that although we appreciate the dialogue, the references you make to ‘laziness’ etc., are offensive….particularly in light of the many falsehoods, inconsistencies, and ignorance of widely accepted good urban planning principles that you perpetuate:
The Prairie Avenue cul-de-sac I am sure is enjoyed by the majority of residents in the adjacent homes just as the fact that Dearborn Park (which by the way does have not one, but two, high-rises within their midst) is essentially cutoff from the rest of the city is preferred by the mass majority of its residents. This is a classic example of the negative effect of NIMBYism. The DOP and the urban planners composing the Near South Community Plan would have preferred to insert goals that would have ultimately opened up that neighborhood to the surrounding city but, alas, had to bend to the NIMBY pressure and exclude any mention of this. You should know that ANY formally trained Urban Planner will tell you that the urban condition of Dearborn Park (and to a much lesser extent, the cul-de-sac on Prairie) has a significantly negative impact on the quality of the city fabric surrounding it.
You refer frequently to the NSC Plan as well as the Chicago Central Area Plan as if these were not only law, but inspired predictors of the future…..well, let’s take a closer look at these plans (so as not to be too lazy): At closer inspection you will note that contrary to your repeated assertions, the Central Station developers have NOT followed the plan with regard to the recommended building heights but rather have consistently built much taller and usually with the strong and appropriate encouragement from the DOP.
In the Central Area Plan, you are correct in stating that the X/O site is depicted with a mid-rise, what you leave out is that it also shows the retention of the existing warehouse/office structure with what appears to be a lot-line to lot-line addition to the south – arguably this does not maintain whatever character you are seeking. More importantly, this plan depicts a high-rise on the block immediately east of the Glessner and west of Calumet! I am sure you are quite pleased that that part of the plan was not followed.
Furthermore, the Central Area Plan depicts high-rises within the more recently designated Motor Row District at Michigan and Cermak, clearly inconsistent with what everyone agrees should be maintained as a mid-rise block along Michigan.

As Alderman Dowell emphasized at the GSLA meeting last Saturday, the guidelines in these plans are just that, and nothing more. As with any plan, it must be broad and flexible enough to adapt to unforeseen conditions in the future growth of our great city. Would Daniel Burnham be upset to see his plan for maintaining a Washington DC type building height throughout the city with respect to a monumental city hall? Somehow I don’t think so, and rather, I think he would be pleasantly astonished at the advance of technology to allow for ever taller buildings and greater density at the core of what is a very limited resource: a well-planned and beautiful city with a dense and diverse core.

As far as maintaining or, more appropriately, building a character within your neighborhood, I would suggest that the character goal that you seek is much more elusive then you think. The kind of character that I think most want in an urban residential neighborhood is something that can’t be dictated but rather is a result of various influences, often influences that would appear to be very contradictory.

We indeed live in a very exciting city, one in which I believe we have been given an extraordinary power to influence with the various ordinances restricting development along the lakefront and such. You must realize that this is generally the exception and not the rule. Part of living in such a great city is the somewhat unpredictable nature of its growth and changing conditions – growth that generally owners and developers have a right to fulfill without answer to aesthetic concerns of their neighbors. So given this, I hope you can proceed with a little more informative dialogue with regard to the South Loop Community Plan, the Chicago Central Area Plan, and good urban planning principles.
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 08:26 PM   #454
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

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.

I couldn't agree with this more. The long timers in that enclave and in Dearborn Park II are not "city dwellers" and never have been. There are more whiny self absorbed losers in that population than anywhere else in the South Loop, believing that their gated enclaves are precious and their needs and desires should trump all in the South Loop.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 08:38 PM   #455
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
The Prairie Avenue cul-de-sac I am sure is enjoyed by the majority of residents in the adjacent homes just as the fact that Dearborn Park (which by the way does have not one, but two, high-rises within their midst) is essentially cutoff from the rest of the city is preferred by the mass majority of its residents. This is a classic example of the negative effect of NIMBYism. The DOP and the urban planners composing the Near South Community Plan would have preferred to insert goals that would have ultimately opened up that neighborhood to the surrounding city but, alas, had to bend to the NIMBY pressure and exclude any mention of this. You should know that ANY formally trained Urban Planner will tell you that the urban condition of Dearborn Park (and to a much lesser extent, the cul-de-sac on Prairie) has a significantly negative impact on the quality of the city fabric surrounding it..
1. Which two high rises are you talking of, the 80's stuff on State?
2. We can agree to disagree, but The Cul-de-sac while not consistent with
your theme of opening up neighborhoods to rest of city, is counter to
the same plans goals, of more pedestrian friendly routes, and open
spaces. There are many ways to achieve these balances. In this case,
they wanted to frame the remaining historic homes, Glessner House, and
the park to create a respite for the surrounding area.
As well, it is likely, due to the McCormick Place expansion traffic issues,
you may see more of these traffic calming initiatives (traffic circles, etc.)

[/QUOTE]You refer frequently to the NSC Plan as well as the Chicago Central Area Plan as if these were not only law, but inspired predictors of the future…..well, let’s take a closer look at these plans (so as not to be too lazy): At closer inspection you will note that contrary to your repeated assertions, the Central Station developers have NOT followed the plan with regard to the recommended building heights but rather have consistently built much taller and usually with the strong and appropriate encouragement from the DOP. [/QUOTE]

I do not consider them law, but simply bring these up because if the folks who claim "the plans change, they are not followed, etc.", would take a look, surpisingly up until now, especially in the Prairie District, these plans have been followed. Of course we can discuss design or material quality all day, but that is another day, and I could agree with you in some cases.

As to Central station, admitidly, this is not my location of expertise (as some here who do not even live in Chicago seem to be experts about every neighborhood or thought of what the residents needs), the height issue is logical considering the goal to create a stronger block face along Roosevelt and Lakeshore Drive. I have no problem with this, it makes sense.

[/QUOTE] In the Central Area Plan, you are correct in stating that the X/O site is depicted with a mid-rise, what you leave out is that it also shows the retention of the existing warehouse/office structure with what appears to be a lot-line to lot-line addition to the south – arguably this does not maintain whatever character you are seeking. More importantly, this plan depicts a high-rise on the block immediately east of the Glessner and west of Calumet! I am sure you are quite pleased that that part of the plan was not followed. [/QUOTE]
I concede that as well, but it is logical to believe almost any other developer would have done something more integrated based on FAR, and character. The assumption is that this would have been torn down.

[/QUOTE] Furthermore, the Central Area Plan depicts high-rises within the more recently designated Motor Row District at Michigan and Cermak, clearly inconsistent with what everyone agrees should be maintained as a mid-rise block along Michigan.[/QUOTE]
I am not sure I agree, as the area you speak of was always identified as transition location between McCormick Place, PRairie District, Motor Row, and the Cermak coridor as defined in the NSCP, which always called for a strong block face presence on both sides of Cermak from MLK to Clark. Instead, the property owners have placed smaller commercial space, especially on the entry to Motor Row, all though this could be changed.

[/QUOTE] "...that generally owners and developers have a right to fulfill without answer to aesthetic concerns of their neighbors." [/QUOTE]
In a fantasy world we could agree, assuming developers are always accountable, have the greater good of all residents on their mind, they do not need checks and balances or oversight, and there is no corruption in this city from developers or city officials. If you could show me all the above are true, I 100% agree.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 08:41 PM   #456
dvidler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 116
Likes (Received): 0

In my opinion this arguement should be taken to the main page. The South Loop News page should be reserved for any news pertaining to the south loop and not debate. I encourage informative discussions but the page should be cleared of this so any information pertaining to construction, retail, and other sort of infomation can be placed
dvidler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 08:43 PM   #457
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 881

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
TIF funds directed to individual projects are one way to consider 'blightness', while most TIF funds go to infrastrucure, some areas have required TIF funds for the first few projects. Of course most of the residents like the Cul-de-sac, but of course by your standards, the are not allowed to enjoy it,

Damn straight.

There should be no cul-de-sac's within city limits. Speed-humps and traffic circles are okay, but that other shit is for the suburbs. It is the public right-of-way, even if it does go through a residential area
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 08:53 PM   #458
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Dearborn Park . . . should never have been built in the central area.
It's nice to live long enough to see one's most difficult battles--whether defeating global fascism or rescuing Chicago's Near South Side--dismissed by the next generation as unnecessary and inevitable.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 09:00 PM   #459
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
It's nice to live long enough to see one's most difficult battles--whether defeating global fascism or rescuing Chicago's Near South Side--dismissed by the next generation as unnecessary and inevitable.
Yes, indeed their was a need to isolate Dearborn Park I in 1977 to allow for sales.....however, as with any great plan, it is time for a change....

By the way, is it just me, or does anyone else think that ErmDiego has entirely missed the point of my previous post?
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 09:06 PM   #460
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 881

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
CHicago Tom & Ardecila apologies for trying to clarify the position of many in the Prairie District. You are correct about the future development from 15th to Stevenson. The development in Motor Row, stagnent to date, is going to go so fast, people are going to wonder what happened. With the already projects under construction, those in sale, a new planned Hotel at 24th and Indiana(renovation of existing building) , a new wine bar, and other un-announced projects, Motor Row is primed for it's boom. What's funny, is that even with zero residents, the Historical restrictions on development are going way beyond anything in the South Loop (already the marginal developers are complaining). Not sure how much of this will be desirable information for the skyscraper forum.

Motor Row is a hell of a lot more intact then Pairie Avenue
BVictor1 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 05:04 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