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 February 15th, 2008, 05:54 AM   #421
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

Well, now thats all settled, lets get rolling! Prairie Avenue, I bet you'll actually start to love this thing once its built.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 15th, 2008, 06:20 AM   #422
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by robituss View Post
Well, now thats all settled, lets get rolling! Prairie Avenue, I bet you'll actually start to love this thing once its built.
Okay guys for now probably the 20th time, I never had a problem with the design or location of the Towers even though they are literally in my backyard. The builder is not known for careful planning or execution, no traffic studies were done, I think dragging all the traffic of residents in and out of the Towers through the alley between Indiana and Prairie is a recipe for disaster especially given you have cars parked on either side 24/7 and finally I hate the institutional look of the townhomes that form what LaGrange says is a pleasing streetscape, they neither fit with the glass towers or the surrounding neighborhood. So the devil is in the details as it always is with major projects but I do think the Towers themselves could become quite a landmark for the area. I am not against them, just want appropriate planning and infrastructure in place and you know Haithcock never did anything to compel that.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2008, 06:39 AM   #423
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

^Those are actually all very fair reasons. I have my issues with some of the aspects that you mentioned. Particularly the look of the townhomes. However, I think it will all be an improvement over what is there presently. Also, dont the townhomes in that area, and even that tower at the end of 18th, also utilize small alleys for the residents?
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2008, 04:43 PM   #424
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by robituss View Post
^Those are actually all very fair reasons. I have my issues with some of the aspects that you mentioned. Particularly the look of the townhomes. However, I think it will all be an improvement over what is there presently. Also, dont the townhomes in that area, and even that tower at the end of 18th, also utilize small alleys for the residents?

What tower at end of 18th? The one at 16th and Prairie does not, it uses Prairie. The loft building at 16 and Indiana uses the alley already.
Two XO towers is a lot to put on the alley, especially when traffic on both 16th and 18th will be increasing greatly in the areas where the alley comes out -- you have Tower II starting on Calumet, Museum Tower at 17th and Prairie and either 16th or 18th or both will be used to expand the grid to the new Central Station development planned over the RR tracks. Note, carefully, I am not saying no more density because density brings traffic, I am just saying the current plan looks unsafe with cars edging out of the alley between parked cars with limited sight lines on streets with a lot of vehciles and pedestrian traffic.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2008, 05:17 PM   #425
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

^ Please don't take this as me trying to be a smart ass, but hear me out:

I've got a solution for congested alleys. Work to make your neighborhood less car-dependent!

No, I'm serious. Get people out of their cars. More highrises are going to go up along Michigan, Roosevelt, and eventually south of you towards Cermak. Push for more retail. But that still isn't enough, because a lot of those areas are still a decent hike from many of the townhouses and condos further east & north within Central Station. As we all know, Mr. Fogelson is proposing a giant mixed-use project just east of you guys, and this has the potential to introduce some density but also some community retail that will service the area immediately around it.

If history has taught us anything about NIMBY's, such a potentially great development is likely to spur the Ayersmans and the other bozos of this world to go running to their Alderman crying "congestion" and trying to block a project that actually could do wonders for a neighborhood where people currently get into their cars to buy a bag of potato chips.

If you really want to get cars out of those congested alleys, then lets use our noodles for a sec and find a better solution than not building highrises, a crappy solution with little prospect for long-term success in Chicago's growing central city. Lets find ways to get people to drive less. How about working with these developers, with an open mind, and try to focus on walkability instead of fixating on automobile congestion?

I'm asking people like yourself and others in the community to really take a second look at what some more development can do for the neighborhood as a whole, instead of the often quick response "we can't handle the cars" after an only superficial evaluation.

Those are just my thoughts.

Last edited by The Urban Politician; February 15th, 2008 at 05:22 PM.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2008, 07:07 PM   #426
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ Please don't take this as me trying to be a smart ass, but hear me out:

I've got a solution for congested alleys. Work to make your neighborhood less car-dependent!
I'm asking people like yourself and others in the community to really take a second look at what some more development can do for the neighborhood as a whole, instead of the often quick response "we can't handle the cars" after an only superficial evaluation.

Those are just my thoughts.
A totally planned area that would have enough of everything including public transportation would be ideal, however, it isn't rational to believe it will occur in the south loop. The majority of townhomes are being built in this area with two car garages, none are being built garage free. Street parking in the area has gone from plentiful 3 years ago to full now, even with heavy use of residential zones. XO brings with it zero "community" resources of the type that would strive for your goal of car free. I spent enough time without a vehicle in Hell's kitchen in New York to understand how great the freedom to do everything you ever wanted by walking, hailing a cab or jumping on a subway was, but I don't foresee that reality for the south loop of Chicago. Development is just too hodge podge and driven by whatever is hot at the moment and developers only care about their lot not the community as a whole.

I am working to try and get an "L" stop at 18th which is needed now and will be more needed as years go by. That would kill any claim that "traffic" was intolerable.

But I understand the concern as in Chicago outside of a very few areas with density comes additional traffic. Go sit on Fullerton almost any time any day. No one is controlling planning with a vision to increase density to limit traffic. So the goal is nice but pie in the sky. Traffic and congestion without the benefits of walk to destinations is the reality and people weighing in against that is predictable and understandable. Is there a single area in Chicago over the past 15 years that has paired increased density with reduced automobile traffic? If not, why would the south loop, with a bevy of low density townhome, row home and single family residences ever get there?

Finally, I am not saying no to projects because the area can't handle more cars, just that additional traffic should be handled with the best planning possible, because if you build it the traffic will come.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2008, 08:15 PM   #427
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Is there a single area in Chicago over the past 15 years that has paired increased density with reduced automobile traffic?
River North certainly has not reduced road congestion, but it has gained retail amenities over the past 20 years to the point where car-free living is possible and even convenient.

As for the alley issue - why not just demand no-parking zones for 12 feet east and west of the alley entrance on 18th, to open up sight lines? This would be simpler than redesigning the project and introducing a whole new curb cut for a garage entrance on Prairie.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2008, 04:06 AM   #428
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
A totally planned area that would have enough of everything including public transportation would be ideal, however, it isn't rational to believe it will occur in the south loop. The majority of townhomes are being built in this area with two car garages, none are being built garage free. Street parking in the area has gone from plentiful 3 years ago to full now, even with heavy use of residential zones. XO brings with it zero "community" resources of the type that would strive for your goal of car free. I spent enough time without a vehicle in Hell's kitchen in New York to understand how great the freedom to do everything you ever wanted by walking, hailing a cab or jumping on a subway was, but I don't foresee that reality for the south loop of Chicago. Development is just too hodge podge and driven by whatever is hot at the moment and developers only care about their lot not the community as a whole.

I am working to try and get an "L" stop at 18th which is needed now and will be more needed as years go by. That would kill any claim that "traffic" was intolerable.

But I understand the concern as in Chicago outside of a very few areas with density comes additional traffic. Go sit on Fullerton almost any time any day. No one is controlling planning with a vision to increase density to limit traffic. So the goal is nice but pie in the sky. Traffic and congestion without the benefits of walk to destinations is the reality and people weighing in against that is predictable and understandable. Is there a single area in Chicago over the past 15 years that has paired increased density with reduced automobile traffic? If not, why would the south loop, with a bevy of low density townhome, row home and single family residences ever get there?

Finally, I am not saying no to projects because the area can't handle more cars, just that additional traffic should be handled with the best planning possible, because if you build it the traffic will come.
^ I don't disagree with any of this, but then why not push for more retail? If a true shopping district emerges along Michigan Avenue, as well as (eventually) Cermak, along with more community-oriented retail within Fogelson's planned community, why should a person not be able to live carless in the south loop?

I don't think it's fair to expect a carless community in the south loop this early in its development process. At the same time, though, if NIMBY's are allowed to block everything in sight because of traffic concerns, I'm concerned that such a community will never be allowed to develop.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2008, 09:58 PM   #429
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ I don't disagree with any of this, but then why not push for more retail? If a true shopping district emerges along Michigan Avenue, as well as (eventually) Cermak, along with more community-oriented retail within Fogelson's planned community, why should a person not be able to live carless in the south loop?

I don't think it's fair to expect a carless community in the south loop this early in its development process. At the same time, though, if NIMBY's are allowed to block everything in sight because of traffic concerns, I'm concerned that such a community will never be allowed to develop.

I don't see a true shopping district emerging at S. Michigan Avenue. In fact the shopping is being developed at the Roosevelt and Canal area, and is being done with plenty of parking encouraging drive to.

I don't know of anyone in the South Loop who is against development of walk to amenities. If the Fogelson plan does include boutique retail and some non-car circulator I don't see people in the south loop efforting to stop it. Asking for traffic studies and solutions to manage traffic is different from opposing development because of the traffic it brings. One thing you may not be aware of is that much of the South Loop area is very familiar with bad traffic -- every Soldier Field event, Taste or other major festival brings a ton of traffic issues. People who are here live with traffic issues every day.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2008, 11:57 PM   #430
cbotnyse
Chicago Enthusiast
 
cbotnyse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 2,560
Likes (Received): 26

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
I don't see a true shopping district emerging at S. Michigan Avenue. In fact the shopping is being developed at the Roosevelt and Canal area, and is being done with plenty of parking encouraging drive to.

I don't know of anyone in the South Loop who is against development of walk to amenities. If the Fogelson plan does include boutique retail and some non-car circulator I don't see people in the south loop efforting to stop it. Asking for traffic studies and solutions to manage traffic is different from opposing development because of the traffic it brings. One thing you may not be aware of is that much of the South Loop area is very familiar with bad traffic -- every Soldier Field event, Taste or other major festival brings a ton of traffic issues. People who are here live with traffic issues every day.
You seem to be implying the South Loop is the only place with heavy traffic! And in the winter when there is no activity you mentioned, traffic is barely an issue.

I live in River North on Wabash and Hubbard, where the density is 10x or 20x where you live and traffic has never bothered me and many times it can be very heavy. Ever try crossing Michigan Ave on a Saturday? or ride down Ontario on a Saturday night? Yeah there is a lot of traffic and it may take a few minutes to get where I'm going. But if I wanted miles of open lanes and little traffic, I'd move out to the suburbs.

I'm sorry but I am really tired of hearing anyone complain about traffic issues. This is a major city, its gonna happen from time to time.
cbotnyse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2008, 01:01 AM   #431
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbotnyse View Post
You seem to be implying the South Loop is the only place with heavy traffic! And in the winter when there is no activity you mentioned, traffic is barely an issue.

I live in River North on Wabash and Hubbard, where the density is 10x or 20x where you live and traffic has never bothered me and many times it can be very heavy. Ever try crossing Michigan Ave on a Saturday? or ride down Ontario on a Saturday night? Yeah there is a lot of traffic and it may take a few minutes to get where I'm going. But if I wanted miles of open lanes and little traffic, I'd move out to the suburbs.

I'm sorry but I am really tired of hearing anyone complain about traffic issues. This is a major city, its gonna happen from time to time.
You really missed the point entirely,but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My point was that while this area (South Loop or more specifically Prairie District) often gets tarred with the brush of residents being overly sensitive to traffic, the opposite is true. Every Soldier Field event makes Roosevelt a dead zone. Every major convention at McCormick sends floods of taxis down every side street as they seek to avoid a clogged Michigan Avenue. When festivals shut down Columbus Michigan, State and Clark get the diverted traffic. I have never heard any outcry over these traffic concerns, people in the south loop have lived with them for a long time and put up with them. That was my point, not that traffic here is better or worse than anywhere else. Just that the area residents aren't demanding a free flow to traffic at all, that hasn't existed for a long time. And that residents are pushing for walk to amenities in new developments other than dry cleaners.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2008, 01:12 AM   #432
cbotnyse
Chicago Enthusiast
 
cbotnyse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 2,560
Likes (Received): 26

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
I have never heard any outcry over these traffic concerns, people in the south loop have lived with them for a long time and put up with them. That was my point, not that traffic here is better or worse than anywhere else.
that is your point? People have lived with traffic problems in other areas of the city for far, far longer than the South Loop has. And the traffic problems in the South Loop are far less of a problem than they are in River North, Lincoln Park, lakeview and Wrigleyview. But whatever, not important and off topic.
Quote:
And that residents are pushing for walk to amenities in new developments other than dry cleaners.
this is something to definitely push for.
cbotnyse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2008, 02:35 AM   #433
skobabe8
Registered User
 
skobabe8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 339
Likes (Received): 20

why are dry cleaners so abundant anyway? why are they often the first of any kind of 'retail' to go in anywhere?
skobabe8 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2008, 02:38 AM   #434
Frumie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 717
Likes (Received): 0

22,301 Views and 431 Replies later and not a single spade of earth turned. Wake me when this is over.
__________________
You truly want peace? Be righteous.
Frumie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2008, 05:49 AM   #435
Chitowner245
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Paradise
Posts: 278
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by skobabe8 View Post
why are dry cleaners so abundant anyway? why are they often the first of any kind of 'retail' to go in anywhere?
Dry cleaners don't need a lot of space, and they require small staffs. In addition, there is demand for them, and less permits necessary to start them up. A bar, restaurant need more permits, room, larger staffs, and are more expensive to operate- demand must be very high for entrepreneurs to be willing to take the risks involved. Other retailers struggle, because of a lack of foot traffic on the sidewalks. I walk by the new shops on the east side of michigan ave a block south of roosevelt everyday, and there are never customers in them. Specialty shops tend to struggle in newer neighborhoods like the south loop, but they'll pick up after people move into OMP,1400MP, marquee, and when mich ave tower II is completed. Things may be shaky now, but by adding a couple thousand people to the neighborhood will certainly help.
Chitowner245 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2008, 06:28 PM   #436
skobabe8
Registered User
 
skobabe8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 339
Likes (Received): 20

Nice shots of the model at X/O.



skobabe8 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2008, 07:14 PM   #437
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Traffic Studies

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Asking for traffic studies and solutions to manage traffic is different from opposing development because of the traffic it brings.

Mr. Avenue:
Could you please tell us what you think a 'proper' traffic study of X/O would have revealed?
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2008, 10:16 PM   #438
jboy560
Registered User
 
jboy560's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 82
Likes (Received): 1

the model looks really nice. i'd buy there if, i, ya know, had money
jboy560 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2008, 04:08 AM   #439
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
Mr. Avenue:
Could you please tell us what you think a 'proper' traffic study of X/O would have revealed?
^

No kidding. The answer: LOTS of traffic.

Traffic studies are a joke & they always will be. Expect traffic in Chicago. Total waste of money to study it for seemingly every project..
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2008, 05:11 PM   #440
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

All is well, except it appears that some of the more desperate members of society don't seem to know what the words "get over it" mean. Mr. Ayersman continues to slander the project using different usernames at the Yo (assuming falsely that people wouldn't know that it's him). He's clearly running out of options here, but I guess being pathetic isn't a deterrant to some individuals:

2/27/2008 10:00:00 PM
X/O lawsuit officially ends
Giles: ‘Costly experience;’ Fioretti: zoning change 'unfortunate'

BY MICAH MAIDENBERG
Editor

Excerpt:

PDNA member Jeffrey Ayersman said his group is considering its options, including the possibility of bringing a lawsuit to stop the project.

"I think it's worth a look," Ayersman.
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...61&TM=33374.36

Go get um, Jeff!

Last edited by The Urban Politician; February 28th, 2008 at 05:17 PM.
The Urban Politician 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 01:08 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