"Its 10 residential buildings there are "high-rise islands in a sea of green space," Mr. Goluska says. Draper & Kramer aims to enliven the site by extending city streets through it and more than tripling its density"
I always thought the high rises in a sea of green was the appeal of Lake Meadows. I also like how they include "proposed olympic village" on the map
how incredibly wasteful.
Those towers are still in remarkably good shape and its a clean area. They are even mildly attractive... likely more attractive than the shit they will replace it with...
not to mention that a development so insanely huge by a single owner is destined to be characterless blight.
it really enrages me that these days developers and architects alike constantly rip on the mistakes of modernism. Yet massive single developer planned projects like this are as prevalent as any 'urban renewal' project of the 50 and 60's.
and in my mind, equally if not more dangerous. At least publicly sponsored urban renew projects had to respond to political and social pressures along with economic. Judging by the disgusting nature of the new south loop and china town, its painfully clear that developers these days respond to nothing but economic pressures.
Oh shit - I just read that part - wow - way to bury the lead!! What a fucking joke - that complex is stunning international style at its best. MAPA? anyone?
My aunt lives there and it's pretty nice as is. Good location and views and yeah the green is a big fetaure of the spot. No drastic measures really needed. I think they need to focus more post-34th street redevelopment.
developments of that size are imune to downturns - they're so big they ride out whole decades and redefine parts of cities - lletdown's right - this new method of development is even bigger than the old superblock slum clearance/blight of the 50's.
personally, i really like dearborn park (mentioned in the article) -- we used to live just north of it and used to walk thru it to go to da jewel. it's a much better model of development, frankly, than the tower-in-the-park ideal that spawned lake meadows.
but lake meadows is a far cry from the taylor homes or cabrini-green. for one, it was and is privately owned. second, it's pretty mixed-income from what i remember. third, it's already there. fourth, it's in pretty good shape (from what it looks like from outside).
i wouldn't mind them building around or even beside lake meadows...but they just can't and shouldn't tear it down.
but this will be subject to the vagaries of the economy anyway, so not to worry...for now.
my fear is that if the olympics come, the city will tear down all the midcentury stuff thats kind of unique to this place, and replace it with absolute kitch
some of these develops do stink, but there are some that I've been impressed with.
The urban/pedestrian design is much more sophisticated than many cities have planned in, and, at such a large scale, they can include large amenities like huge parks, ponds, etc.
I am not trying to justify this particular project or any massive developments, just that I've seen a bunch in the last year or two that have been better than most cities - everything you could want within walking distance. Rapid transit, food, entertainment, good coffee, and the live/work possibility.
trace - I think you nailed the underlying success of the recent developments - they are comfortable places to live and people like to buy them. Im starting to think much of the new Chicago is more comparable to Vancouver, with the big base mid rises interspersed with town houses. A strange pairing indeed but not when concidering theyve had residential revivals of new construction rather simultaniously.
I still think recent developments, especially in chicago, have a serious lack of diversity. They may have street level retail/commercial space but they are pricey, and often reserved for chain store tenants. They offer no value to a community beyond beds to sleep in and subway sandwiches to buy.
Large developers would be smart to diversify their developments, either by divvying small portions to assorted architects or sub-contracted teams. increasing the variety of uses, scales and intent. and how bout this for a novel concept! subsidize a retail space or two so someone who actually needs a place to work gets a shot at somewhere other than KFC
Lletdown thats just the economics of the age we live in - no longer, for better or worse, is the city built parcel by parcel like 100 years ago, when it gave our urbis the texture we love today.
i think thats a pretty lame excuse. True, economy of scale is popular now, but we even see the markets shifting that tendency. I see absolutely no problem in the city mandating a shift in development policy. The city is in demand and popular, why not use some of our leverage to ensure quality development. And before you say "you'll slow down developers and scare them off" i would argue it is better for the long term health of the city to diversify development, and ensure quality projects than it is to get quick influxes of cash and short term tax base.
I would never say you'll scare off developers. I fear what I heard when standing with some reletives from NYC on the LSD bridge over chrstmas is too commonplace - they stared wide eyed at Lowenberg's eastlake buildings, the ones with the blue glazing on the fronts, painted conc. on the backs, and said, "Thats so cool, we dont have so many new buildings like that!". The buying public is impressed with what we concider schlock. I dont think mandates are going to help, but we do need to relook at why our cities are developing this way. I think it's possible that to the city this IS quality development. Plenty of parking, close to transit, a subway resaraunt.
Vado - pre the fire and again during the depression that area of eastlake was shanty towns. The original shanty town was called the patch - full of Irish growing caggage. Kidnapping wealthy people was a sport. To this day in Chicago lingo to "Cabbage Patch" someone means to kidnap them.
i would put a lot of money on this project NOT happening. it sounds like half-baked developer new urbanism. can you imagine the politics behind such a massive project? the logistics of displacing the existing residents? the cooperation with the city to rework the street grid. ain't gonna happen. and btw $1 billion doesn't grow on trees.
I would like to open up this discussion again for this reason from the Crains Chicago Business article:
"It's unclear whether the project would face resistance from Lake Meadows' current residents. Because Draper & Kramer plans to demolish almost all of the 10- and 20-story apartment towers on the site, tenants would need to find somewhere else to live, possibly in new buildings on the property. At the same time, the redevelopment would increase the area's population three times or more."
I went to the residents meeting last night and it was BRUTAL!! I feel really sorry for those that live there now. Many of these residents have been there for more than 40 years and enjoy it, and don't really have a problem with mixed races living there. Finally, a place where the two can coexist in a city such as this and it has been that way for more than 40 years! Then this developer and property manager come in and basically tell them what is going to happen with very little consideration of the existng culture that is happening. Many of the concerns that residents had were unanswered. They want a very clear timeline of when things were about to happen, if there would be affordable housing, housing for elderly, and a consideration for existing residents. The only thing that was said was an elderly complex would be built, and current residents would be considered first for rental properties, but no concern for the cost of these rental properties. I feel that the message that went across to these people is you'd better find a place to live that you can afford now, or your screwed! Thats really sad. Why can't these developers wake up and have some consideration for other's feelings? I think as I will enter the work world full time this spring I have an ethical responsiblity as a designer or future architect/planner to take into consideration the existing culture base and to work with and include that base as much as possile such that they feel they have some kind of ownership, or at least have some access to the amenities that anyone can have at an affordable rate and the culture can stay restored. I think that we all have that responsibility. None of us would never want to be forced to live somewhere else if we are satisfied where we live now.....am I right? I guess money always takes precident though.
I think theres a lot of strong arming going on due to the south side possibly getting the Olympics. The whole olympic village area is rather bland and bleak. lake Meadows and Prarrie Shores are right up against it and sit on primo property along the lakeshore. Theyre partly unloved because suburban drivers just see 50/60's era modernist towers from the highwys and think "public housing" tear it down. However, public housing this is not, and a fine realization of the towers in the park plan. Maybe the most beautiful towers in the park was at Roosevelt and Taylor, 5 cruciform corbusian highrises around a kidney bean park. Gone. Replaced by tacky victorian looking low rise public housing. 1 step foreward two steps back.
Developer looks to reshape Chicago south lakefront
"Its 10 residential buildings there are "high-rise islands in a sea of green space," Mr. Goluska says. Draper & Kramer aims to enliven the site by extending city streets through it and more than tripling its density"
I always thought the high rises in a sea of green was the appeal of Lake Meadows. I also like how they include "proposed olympic village" on the map
how incredibly wasteful.
Those towers are still in remarkably good shape and its a clean area. They are even mildly attractive... likely more attractive than the shit they will replace it with...
not to mention that a development so insanely huge by a single owner is destined to be characterless blight.
it really enrages me that these days developers and architects alike constantly rip on the mistakes of modernism. Yet massive single developer planned projects like this are as prevalent as any 'urban renewal' project of the 50 and 60's.
and in my mind, equally if not more dangerous. At least publicly sponsored urban renew projects had to respond to political and social pressures along with economic. Judging by the disgusting nature of the new south loop and china town, its painfully clear that developers these days respond to nothing but economic pressures.
theyre filling in the green space, leaving the towers, just adding more. Prob a mixed bag of townhomes, apt, retail
Oh shit - I just read that part - wow - way to bury the lead!! What a fucking joke - that complex is stunning international style at its best. MAPA? anyone?
My aunt lives there and it's pretty nice as is. Good location and views and yeah the green is a big fetaure of the spot. No drastic measures really needed. I think they need to focus more post-34th street redevelopment.
Of course they'll probably get 1/3 of it done and then the economy will bottom out and a new breeding ground for urban decay will be left.
developments of that size are imune to downturns - they're so big they ride out whole decades and redefine parts of cities - lletdown's right - this new method of development is even bigger than the old superblock slum clearance/blight of the 50's.
personally, i really like dearborn park (mentioned in the article) -- we used to live just north of it and used to walk thru it to go to da jewel. it's a much better model of development, frankly, than the tower-in-the-park ideal that spawned lake meadows.
but lake meadows is a far cry from the taylor homes or cabrini-green. for one, it was and is privately owned. second, it's pretty mixed-income from what i remember. third, it's already there. fourth, it's in pretty good shape (from what it looks like from outside).
i wouldn't mind them building around or even beside lake meadows...but they just can't and shouldn't tear it down.
but this will be subject to the vagaries of the economy anyway, so not to worry...for now.
my fear is that if the olympics come, the city will tear down all the midcentury stuff thats kind of unique to this place, and replace it with absolute kitch
some of these develops do stink, but there are some that I've been impressed with.
The urban/pedestrian design is much more sophisticated than many cities have planned in, and, at such a large scale, they can include large amenities like huge parks, ponds, etc.
I am not trying to justify this particular project or any massive developments, just that I've seen a bunch in the last year or two that have been better than most cities - everything you could want within walking distance. Rapid transit, food, entertainment, good coffee, and the live/work possibility.
Personally, I'd love to have a live/work place.
wow towers in the park, novel idea.
how can a developer make something that doesn't suck? suggestions, please.
trace - I think you nailed the underlying success of the recent developments - they are comfortable places to live and people like to buy them. Im starting to think much of the new Chicago is more comparable to Vancouver, with the big base mid rises interspersed with town houses. A strange pairing indeed but not when concidering theyve had residential revivals of new construction rather simultaniously.
I still think recent developments, especially in chicago, have a serious lack of diversity. They may have street level retail/commercial space but they are pricey, and often reserved for chain store tenants. They offer no value to a community beyond beds to sleep in and subway sandwiches to buy.
Large developers would be smart to diversify their developments, either by divvying small portions to assorted architects or sub-contracted teams. increasing the variety of uses, scales and intent. and how bout this for a novel concept! subsidize a retail space or two so someone who actually needs a place to work gets a shot at somewhere other than KFC
Lletdown thats just the economics of the age we live in - no longer, for better or worse, is the city built parcel by parcel like 100 years ago, when it gave our urbis the texture we love today.
I find it hard to believe one day we may feel nostalgic for the louvred parking garage with a subway and tanning salon in the base but you never know
i think thats a pretty lame excuse. True, economy of scale is popular now, but we even see the markets shifting that tendency. I see absolutely no problem in the city mandating a shift in development policy. The city is in demand and popular, why not use some of our leverage to ensure quality development. And before you say "you'll slow down developers and scare them off" i would argue it is better for the long term health of the city to diversify development, and ensure quality projects than it is to get quick influxes of cash and short term tax base.
I would never say you'll scare off developers. I fear what I heard when standing with some reletives from NYC on the LSD bridge over chrstmas is too commonplace - they stared wide eyed at Lowenberg's eastlake buildings, the ones with the blue glazing on the fronts, painted conc. on the backs, and said, "Thats so cool, we dont have so many new buildings like that!". The buying public is impressed with what we concider schlock. I dont think mandates are going to help, but we do need to relook at why our cities are developing this way. I think it's possible that to the city this IS quality development. Plenty of parking, close to transit, a subway resaraunt.
Id love to see more varied, individualistic parcel by parcel development, if its possible
how bout some shackscrapers for that area?
Vado - pre the fire and again during the depression that area of eastlake was shanty towns. The original shanty town was called the patch - full of Irish growing caggage. Kidnapping wealthy people was a sport. To this day in Chicago lingo to "Cabbage Patch" someone means to kidnap them.
I take it the picture in the article is of structures that exists now?
If so...I don't understand why you would tear down the whole thing...
Multiple towers destroyed...For what more density/higher price point?
What is the developers end game here, besides the obvious (more money/sq ft).
It seems as if the existing development is pretty nice lots of open space etc..
And what about all the construction debri from the teardown?
i would put a lot of money on this project NOT happening. it sounds like half-baked developer new urbanism. can you imagine the politics behind such a massive project? the logistics of displacing the existing residents? the cooperation with the city to rework the street grid. ain't gonna happen. and btw $1 billion doesn't grow on trees.
I would like to open up this discussion again for this reason from the Crains Chicago Business article:
"It's unclear whether the project would face resistance from Lake Meadows' current residents. Because Draper & Kramer plans to demolish almost all of the 10- and 20-story apartment towers on the site, tenants would need to find somewhere else to live, possibly in new buildings on the property. At the same time, the redevelopment would increase the area's population three times or more."
I went to the residents meeting last night and it was BRUTAL!! I feel really sorry for those that live there now. Many of these residents have been there for more than 40 years and enjoy it, and don't really have a problem with mixed races living there. Finally, a place where the two can coexist in a city such as this and it has been that way for more than 40 years! Then this developer and property manager come in and basically tell them what is going to happen with very little consideration of the existng culture that is happening. Many of the concerns that residents had were unanswered. They want a very clear timeline of when things were about to happen, if there would be affordable housing, housing for elderly, and a consideration for existing residents. The only thing that was said was an elderly complex would be built, and current residents would be considered first for rental properties, but no concern for the cost of these rental properties. I feel that the message that went across to these people is you'd better find a place to live that you can afford now, or your screwed! Thats really sad. Why can't these developers wake up and have some consideration for other's feelings? I think as I will enter the work world full time this spring I have an ethical responsiblity as a designer or future architect/planner to take into consideration the existing culture base and to work with and include that base as much as possile such that they feel they have some kind of ownership, or at least have some access to the amenities that anyone can have at an affordable rate and the culture can stay restored. I think that we all have that responsibility. None of us would never want to be forced to live somewhere else if we are satisfied where we live now.....am I right? I guess money always takes precident though.
I think theres a lot of strong arming going on due to the south side possibly getting the Olympics. The whole olympic village area is rather bland and bleak. lake Meadows and Prarrie Shores are right up against it and sit on primo property along the lakeshore. Theyre partly unloved because suburban drivers just see 50/60's era modernist towers from the highwys and think "public housing" tear it down. However, public housing this is not, and a fine realization of the towers in the park plan. Maybe the most beautiful towers in the park was at Roosevelt and Taylor, 5 cruciform corbusian highrises around a kidney bean park. Gone. Replaced by tacky victorian looking low rise public housing. 1 step foreward two steps back.
how many shitty buildings could enterprise and Pappageorge fit on this site?
Insightful article on the development.
South Side Development
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.