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, 09:07 PM   #461
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

Sponsored Links
Old May 24th, 2007, 09:16 PM   #462
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

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.


First off, you attribute a quote to me that I did not state, but instead replied to. having lived in the area since 93 I fully understand the DMZ line that Congress was and the goal behind building the DPI enclave. The problem is that the fortress mentality once established can't be swept away when no longer needed and now the South Loop is stuck with a bunch of whiny, holier than thou, self absorbed we own this place type residents in the Dearborn Park enclaves that see themselves totally separate from City Dwellers. Both of those areas should be open up to through traffic and forced to assimilate with the areas around them. Mr. Daley, tear down those walls!
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 09:20 PM   #463
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

Im not going to hate on Dearborn Park too much, since it was built at a time when unfortunately those kinds of developments were the only thing keeping people in the city. And it was successful. However, it is a little out of place now, as the downtown has expanded around it, making its closed walls seem even more pretentious - and especially when they were refusing to send their kids to school with the kids just south. I guess thats some of this 'character' that some are trying to maintain though. But, the other gated community of Dearborn Park II was probably a mistake, even if it did help draw more people further south. Maybe at least open them up a little? This aint the burbs, even if that was their original intent.

Basically everyone has their own idea for what the south loop should look like. Some seem to want the burbs (which is silly), others want the city. But most would agree that any neighborhood plan should be used only as a guideline, and that it would be in all our best interests to fully utilize the extents of this residential boom and allow the neighborhood to develop as much as possible. And to me that also means building to a height that is congruous with that of equadistant near north neighborhoods- like a river north or streeterville.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 09:36 PM   #464
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Character

The character discussion is an interesting one and I think trumps TUP's point on X/O. Where is there true character in the South Loop if it is defined by ending at Cermak? Surely Printer's Row, and that has largely been preserved although it is under some attack by high rises at the periphery and the student housing in its midst. Where else? Gee, perhaps where the daily tour busses stop and unload on Prairie Avenue for viewings of Glessner House, Clark House, the Kimball mansion and the stroll down Prairie Avenue to read the various placards?
I agree the South Loop lacks character. None of us is living in our grandfathers house. I am living in a poor imitation of a prairie mansion, but that was the best of what the developer offered. Does a brick dominated tower behind me preserve the historic nature? No, but it tries to, is subservient to it and at least doesn't spit on it. Prairie Avenue is one of the few areas in the south loop with character, and X/O especially with those god awful street level townhomes doesn't fit there. It is not a testament to the historic nature, Lucien agreed with that and the new park they propose on the Glessner side was to reduce the sight line fricition between the two -- admitting that the friction is there.

I am not opposed to skyscrapers or density or towers in the South Loop. I agree the area in general has no real character, and I know where my development sits was best known as a cheap or free spot to tailgate before Bears games and to piss on before climbing back in the car afterwards. Forget Black partridge, erect a statue of a drunk overweight Bears fan peeing on a tree with a miller light in his hand if you want to convey true history.

The city has made a quasi commitment to the historic nature of a few blocks. They put in faux gas light lighting, erected plaques, created a museum, and caused developers to at least try and fit with that theme. The drives in the developments are pavers, not asphalt or concrete. Mock stone or brick is usend on the veneers. The ever present black fake iron fencing. Let us have our few blocks of real and quasi character because there isn't enough of even that in this area.

For the rest, let's not go crazy. We don't sit in easy access to beach front or Lincoln park. We have already stretched the area with many single and townhome developments, so let's have some space to breathe between towers and allow sunlight to hit those homes a few hours a day. Roosevelt and Clinton will be the Clybourn corridor soon enough, let's seek green space where we can, high rise developments that will include ground level commercial and retail space in every case, and yes let's see if we can't end the hodge podge of development and proceed with an actual plan in place, fostering development by those with a good track record and freezing those out with a bad. Is there something wrong with that?
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 10:35 PM   #465
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

The City: Continuosly Changing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
The city has made a quasi commitment to the historic nature of a few blocks. They put in faux gas light lighting, erected plaques, created a museum, and caused developers to at least try and fit with that theme. The drives in the developments are pavers, not asphalt or concrete. Mock stone or brick is usend on the veneers. The ever present black fake iron fencing. Let us have our few blocks of real and quasi character because there isn't enough of even that in this area.

For the rest, let's not go crazy. We don't sit in easy access to beach front or Lincoln park. We have already stretched the area with many single and townhome developments, so let's have some space to breathe between towers and allow sunlight to hit those homes a few hours a day. Roosevelt and Clinton will be the Clybourn corridor soon enough, let's seek green space where we can, high rise developments that will include ground level commercial and retail space in every case, and yes let's see if we can't end the hodge podge of development and proceed with an actual plan in place, fostering development by those with a good track record and freezing those out with a bad. Is there something wrong with that?
Nope...nothing wrong with that. However, you said it, the quasi-historic Prairie Ave. district is just a "few blocks"....essentially one block that is already entirely built....when we were putting together the NSC plan a few years ago, we essentially made sure that a small scale would exist from the Glessner on the north, south along Praire, east on Cullerton, and south to the Wheeler Mansion, period. This is the extent of the town house district as Mr. Downtown referred to it and at the time of the Plan preparation, we knew that it was assured.

ErmDiego, "thanks for that valuble contribution...wow"....no, thank you for the valuable sarcasm....the point is that Motor Row is more then just a long block and indeed has just a handful of infill sites to complete it...

Meanwhile, I don't think the amount of density in the South Loop has gotten anywhere near "crazy", nor will it ever....people will stop moving in when it does....the good thing about having a few more neighbors down here is that when we demand more green space (by the way, the Near South Loop Community Plan contains a lot more info and planning goals then just building heights), better access to the lakefront, improved public transportation, etc., our politicians will more likely respond
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 11:07 PM   #466
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

when we were putting together the NSC plan a few years ago, we essentially made sure that a small scale would exist from the Glessner on the north, south along Praire, east on Cullerton, and south to the Wheeler Mansion, period. This is the extent of the town house district as Mr. Downtown referred to it and at the time of the Plan preparation, we knew that it was assured.

Okay so we want to add another half block north on Prairie from Glessner. The townhomes and 1717 fit in with that, as does the Museum at the corner, Clarke house and the park, and the converted building at 18th and Indiana. Why not add to that buffer consistent with what is there now?
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 01:49 AM   #467
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Okay so we want to add another half block north on Prairie from Glessner. The townhomes and 1717 fit in with that, as does the Museum at the corner, Clarke house and the park, and the converted building at 18th and Indiana. Why not add to that buffer consistent with what is there now?
Well that half block includes that ugly office thingy which clearly does not fit in with anyones future plans for the area. I just think, when a guy comes in and presents an interesting, unique building design, rather than some other dull brick townhome development, you go with it. Fine, it doesnt fit in with some peoples idea for the historic area, and in fact cuts it short. But so does what is there now, and building more townhomes will only further dilute the historic nature of the area, not add on to it nor bring back what was there before - so why even try? I dont see how X/O 'ruins' anything that hasn't already been ruined long ago.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 02:05 AM   #468
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

Student tower bonds get lowest investment-grade rating

By Eddie Baeb
May 24, 2007


Municipal bonds for a student housing tower being built in Printers Row were assigned the lowest investment-grade rating by Moody’s Investors Service.

The 16-story building planned for 626 S. Clark St. will target students at Columbia College Chicago and is to have 750 beds when it opens in August 2008, according to a May 18 report by the New York-based credit rating agency.

Moody’s knocked the project, being developed by Smithfield Properties LLC, over its “weak” support from Columbia, which has merely provided a letter of support and no financial guarantees.

Full Story
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 03:57 AM   #469
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 07:37 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2007, 04:37 AM   #470
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

^Yes, besides his silly insults to BVic and others, subtle elitist remarks, and constant insistence that TUP lives in Jersey, he's provided some valuable insight into how alot of , well....antidevelopers/nimbys... feel. Learning how an organization like PDNA was formed and debating with him about some of these south loops projects helps us organize our own thoughts better. A lot of what he has said has helped reinforce my own opinions on projects like X/O and the Rokas, and also allows me to see the other side too. I appreciate some of his commentary, but the silliness and immaturity should stop.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2007, 08:22 AM   #471
Latoso
C.B.P.
 
Latoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,189
Likes (Received): 3

Damn it! The South Loop Dev. thread was closed while I was in mid reply and I'm not letting a good post go to waste. Besides, it is partially realted to X|O......

I suspect that the people at X|O check out this forum. I was at the sales center the other day checking out the model unit and found it funny that much of the decorations and items stocked in the closets were from Target. Perhaps they were trying to make a slight jab at you-know-who?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
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'...
Nothing could be further from the truth. You imply inherent difference where none or only slight difference exists. Streeterville is not Streeterville and the South loop is not the South Loop. They are both Downtown Chicago, and should be treated as such. What you are advocating is for the South Loop to be Naperville, and to paraphrase what you said, Naperville has some great spaces and places, if that is where people desire to be and live. Do us all a favor and give in to your desires, move to Naperville!
__________________
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 26th, 2007, 08:27 AM   #472
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

This thread is temporarily closed. This argument has been monopolizing two threads for too long. It's played out. It's time to move on.
__________________
flickrgallery
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 30th, 2007, 06:01 PM   #473
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 07:30 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 30th, 2007, 06:26 PM   #474
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

Yes, I saw that yesterday as well. I can't be certain, but it seems fairly new. I mean, they have a quote attributed to Kleiman so they must have asked him about the project's status.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2007, 04:10 AM   #475
southloopscotty
Registered User
 
southloopscotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 79
Likes (Received): 0

I'm just glad the thread is reopened!
southloopscotty no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2007, 07:44 AM   #476
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 880

I don't thinks this was posted, but, well, here's your weekly NIMBY rant.

It's a few weeks old...

http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?S...89&TM=48837.36

5/9/2007 10:00:00 PM
South Loop buildings growing like weeds


BONNIE McGRATH

I don't know what's more dominant on the landscape this Spring in the South Loop: irises or cranes. So far, the irises are not as tall and prolific as they will get as the weeks wear on-during the lead-up to a hot, dry summer. And the cranes, I suspect, will crowd us even more as the sun shifts to the north and the grass goes dormant.

We are used to irises in the neighborhood. We watch their flat tight birthing sheaths burst open with sheer cottony fluffs of blossoms.

But a virtual madhouse of new buildings is something that has never been here before. And may not fit in. We are people who want people. We want lights burning in windows.
We want life on the streets and businesses to follow. What we don't want are concrete pilings with little respect for our past-a rough and tumble jumble of roots and history, personality and drama.

A ruthless pile-up of concrete, glass, driveways and air vents, I'm afraid, is what we may wind up with.

Like weeds, these new buildings are going up so fast they turn neighborhood heads in every direction. They are rife with rectangular plates and some odd colors. And one can never be sure that the outer wall is properly attached to prevent the penetration of precipitation.

These structures are robbing us of our Midwest working-class sky. They are putting an overlay of dead-end Houston cowboy real estate judgment on top of a city of big shoulders. They stink like a skunk.

One new building-just about complete-contains a plethora of two bedroom apartments and one-bedrooms with dens. But for some reason, none have more than one bathroom. "Is that a new trend?" I ask my friends. "Are people sick of cleaning sinks and toilets they don't need? Is this what the cool people are doing now-sharing baths with each other, with kids and guests, for the sake of cutting down on global warming-or what?"

(Or is it a sign of getting away from excess? Probably not, because there are plenty of other expensive perks in these places.)

Maybe so little attention paid to the number of baths-almost as if fitting one in is merely an after-thought off the hall-signifies people moving in who will not luxuriate, people who would rather run in and out. And up and down. People who will come and go.

The developers are a greasy bunch-with plans for tall towers and a spreadsheet mentality. With a less than human touch, they seem more aligned with plans for their no liability corporate LLC structure than for a structure that will keep future residents secure. They are tall without stature-and rich without nutrition. They know no history here. And care little about the present, even less about the future. They are fast. They misspell. They are gluttons.

Why can't some of the developers who are hated in Lincoln Park and Lakeview and Wicker Park and Bucktown, villains who are building three flats and six-flats on steroids-of semi-decent masonry and a modicum of character-on tree-lined little avenues, come here and build? For us, those dark red, off white, muted brown brick biggies in the small neighborhoods would be delicate sweet habitats in our lot-laden laps.

But everything's relative in the city of a Soldier Field. And so the builders do their bidding and build the biggest billows. Like vapors-they will keep infusing streets that don't deserve them.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2007, 10:50 PM   #477
southloopscotty
Registered User
 
southloopscotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 79
Likes (Received): 0

Ugh....
southloopscotty no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2007, 01:25 AM   #478
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Problems with her view?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
I don't thinks this was posted, but, well, here's your weekly NIMBY rant.

It's a few weeks old...

http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?S...89&TM=48837.36
Here is an idea, how about instead of calling her names and lables, tell us what specifically is inacurrate and accurate about her article? (Other than the harping on number of bathrooms) Could it be possible that 'good' architecture and and sound development are mutually exclusive?

I have never met the woman, but her observations about the LLC issues are dead on, as well as the comparisons to the Houston Cowboy mentality...In Houston, the crazy zoning ("build anywhere") combined with the lack of an urban plan (or following one) has created areas in Downtown Houston and inside the Beltway that, while there are some nice individual 'pieces', seem to lack soul, life, or harmony. It's the equivalent of building multiple small South Loops at the edge of Berwyn, Oak Park, Hinsdale, and Oak Brook at the same time, and then building a new Soldiers Field near Midway. (Granted Chicago is a far more 24 hour a day hub)
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2007, 06:53 PM   #479
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Here we go again....

There is absolutely no comparison to be made between Houston and lack-of-planning-or-zoning Texas to the South Loop or any other part of Chicago....

Once again, diego, I would strongly suggest you remind yourself that many members of this forum have strong backgrounds in urban planning and architecture, and your ill-informed attempts to justify your nimby agenda by making very broad and ignorant references to 'good urban planning' go a little beyond just annoying....
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2007, 07:21 PM   #480
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

arch

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
There is absolutely no comparison to be made between Houston and lack-of-planning-or-zoning Texas to the South Loop or any other part of Chicago....

Once again, diego, I would strongly suggest you remind yourself that many members of this forum have strong backgrounds in urban planning and architecture, and your ill-informed attempts to justify your nimby agenda by making very broad and ignorant references to 'good urban planning' go a little beyond just annoying....
Why the personal attack? I did not post the original story; nor am I trying to justify any nimby agenda. I just suggested for the goal of decent discussion, why not provide more analysis than the personal attack; in all point of views there is something to learn. As you indicate "members of this forum have strong backgrounds in urban planning and architecture", so then it is quite possible to have considerate discussion versus trashing points with lazy lables.

As one who travels frequently to and across Houston, it is easy to see where the reference may stir a few comparisons; but I suppose not being an urban planner could disqulify my right to comment. However, I have had a great deal of experience in dealing with the headaches of the LLC point she makes.
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 11:27 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