Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the South and West Loops, I wouldn't exactly call it mainly abandonment. It's just industrialization. And there is a lot more than just these going on. There's been a fair amount of construction in these areas and as you can see (you quoted only half of what I listed by the way), there's a lot more coming.
As far as River North area, it keeps doing infill. There's a fair amount of large projects being built right now in that area or continuing. However, the problem with what you present and what reality is...is that you seem to discount things when there's say a 20 story building and then a bunch of 3 story ones next to it. I don't think that counts against urbanity.
It doesn't have a "ways to go" because a lot of the buildings west of Wells are low rise, but that doesn't mean it's not urbane. You seem to have a flawed thinking of what is urbane and what is not. I will agree with you on part of the South and West Loops (only partially), but River North, while there are some weird areas (i.e. the gas station, the Rock and Rolls McDonalds, and a few vacant lots), it's in no way as bad as you make it to be. I do live right near here and am quite aware more than you (no offense) of how everything is. I experience it every day and am not blind. I'm not going to claim river north is all good like this because it's not - but it's far more urbane than you'd make people believe on here. Just because you have a collection of 3 story buildings doesn't mean it's not urbane versus a 20+ story building not far away.
Where did I ever say that lowrise buildings make a place less urban? WTF are you talking about? I keep saying that River North has scores of surface lots (which is true), it has gas stations, drive-throughs and even suburban-style big box stores ... that's the issue! There is no problem with its architectural mix. And it may be that only 5-10% of the neighborhood needs work, but that 5-10% makes a big difference in the quality of the urban landscape.
And I appreciate that you live in Chicago but when you say things that are at odds with what I saw with my own eyes... well sorry but I am gonna believe my own eyes.
I was thinking about this the other day. I may be alone on this but I have to disagree with you. San Francisco doesn't go "in all directions". San Francisco's night life is sporadic and highly concentrated within each neighborhood.
The only hoods that have this street life going in all directions is the Mission, Union Square and mmmmaybe the TL.
Let me explain:
In the Richmond, you only have Geary and Clement as two long strips of this contiguous line of vibrancy.
In Chinatown its only through Stockton and Grant. (Okay, sure you also have the connecting streets between Stockton and Grant but that's it.)
In North Beach, you only have Columbus. The street life doesn't really go far from Columbus.
SOMA: Folsom St, the rest is pretty dead.
Sunset: Judah and Irving.
Potrero: its pretty dead there.
Dogpatch: 3rd st... that's it.
Bernal Heights: if you want to Include Cesar Chavez/Mission St fine, but other than that its just Cortland.
Noe Valley: Church St.
Castro: Castro and Market
Alamo Square: Divisadero
Japantown: Geary
Fillmore: Fillmore, Webster
I think you get the point. I wonder how San Francisco would look like if it were all truly connected block by block, street by street. That really would be something. I feel the reason why San Francisco turned out this way is because of its geography. It's very hilly, obviously. So it separates neighborhoods and leaves certain parts dead and unwalked for a good part of it. And you could even make the case that the Mission only goes through Valencia and Mission, but its not entirely true because 16th, 20th, 24th and Cesar Chavez all are pretty vibrant streets.
In what cities is this not the case? These cities all have big 360 degree urban downtowns, but once you get outside those areas, aren't they basically the same? Commercial arterial corridors with dense residential corridors on the periphery and intersecting. It's the same in Philly, DC, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco.
In what cities is this not the case? These cities all have big 360 degree urban downtowns, but once you get outside those areas, aren't they basically the same? Commercial arterial corridors with dense residential corridors on the periphery and intersecting. It's the same in Philly, DC, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco.
I'm not saying that this ONLY happens in SF. Obviously LA has much more of this. I'm simply saying that it isn't contiguous. I also edited my post so you must've missed the part where I said that SF may very well still be 2nd to NYC in this category, albeit despite not really going all over the place as one would assume.
Where did I ever say that lowrise buildings make a place less urban? WTF are you talking about? I keep saying that River North has scores of surface lots (which is true), it has gas stations, drive-throughs and even suburban-style big box stores ... that's the issue! There is no problem with its architectural mix. And it may be that only 5-10% of the neighborhood needs work, but that 5-10% makes a big difference in the quality of the urban landscape.
I'm talking about previous conversations we've had about it. I never said that it doesn't need work, but it's not as abandoned or vacant lot as you think it is in River North. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the building occupancy rate in River North is probably over 99%. There are surface lots, and I never said otherwise, but it's not as much as you lead others to believe.
Quote:
And I appreciate that you live in Chicago but when you say things that are at odds with what I saw with my own eyes... well sorry but I am gonna believe my own
eyes.
Cool story, but I also live a block away from River North and see it with my own eyes every single day. Just stop.
It doesn't have a "ways to go" because a lot of the buildings west of Wells are low rise, but that doesn't mean it's not urbane.
Obviously there are different definitions of urbane, but River North is filled with drive thrus restaurants, drive-thru banks, and various auto oriented uses. It also has many highrises and urban uses, but there's no shortage of suburban-style uses.
If you go to Al's Beef, you can use the drive-thru, or use the parking lot. If you go to Office Depot, or Petco, or most of the big box stores, you park in the surface lot, and the stores are organized in typical suburban format. The MB Bank I used has a drive-thru, and a parking lot.
In contrast, you are very unlikely to see this in core SF. You aren't likely to be using a restaurant drive thru, or parking in a strip shopping center lot. There are a few exceptions close to the freeway in far south SOMA, but nowhere on the scale of River North (or South Loop, or West Loop, or West LP/Lakeview and I haven't even mentioned Clybourn Corridor).
And even the highrises are built very differently from those in, say SF. You may have a 50 floor building, but notice the first 12 floors are parking levels, and the street level retail has the main entrance in the garage (and free parking for customers). It's vertical and dense, but auto-oriented. It's just a different type of urbanity, IMO.
Obviously there are different definitions of urbane, but River North is filled with drive thrus restaurants, drive-thru banks, and various auto oriented uses. It also has many highrises and urban uses, but there's no shortage of suburban-style uses.
Drive thru restaurants and drive thru banks? NO it's not. I'd say there's more surface lots there than say Gold Coast, sure but no...you'd have to be kidding me. I can name exactly one drive through bank there (well it's not technically in River North...US Bank on Chicago Avenue) and two drive thrus (Rock n Roll McDonalds and Portillos). The "drive thru" at Al's Beef on Ontario hardly counts as one. Yes they have a surface lot, but the drive thru is basically "Hey we have a small surface lot let's make it into a small drive thru:
Again, I live one block from River North and I'm there every day. While there is some, it's not full of drive thrus. You'd have to be kidding me.
I don't know why you're being so difficult on this. There are tons of auto-oriented uses all over River North.
The MB Bank I used to use on West Ontario is a drive-thru, with a surface parking lot. Same goes for the New Century Bank on the same block. The Office Depot across the street, is a suburban strip, with a parking lot. The hardware store across from the Office Depot has a huge parking lot. The lofts down the block have a surface parking lot. The dentist office has a parking lot.
All these auto oriented uses are on two blocks of River North.
Now please find me two block in core SF with even half as many auto-oriented uses. Hell, are there any drive-thru/parking lot banks in core SF? I just named two in Chicago in a prime block of River North.
I'm talking about previous conversations we've had about it.
Please cite where I said that lowrise buildings make a neighborhood less urban or urbane (or whatever). That's an absurd statement. Some of (actually, most of) the best neighborhoods in NYC are lowrise. You must be confusing me with someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
Cool story, but I also live a block away from River North and see it with my own eyes every single day. Just stop.
Yes I know you live near River North, you've only mentioned it about 50 times. Doesn't make what you say true though. When you say that River North has only "a few" surface lots, when I know that's patently false, I am gonna question your credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
When did I ever say there's no surface lots there or anything? There's less there than Fitz makes you believe and it's not full of f'ing drive thrus.
"Fitz makes you believe" ? LOL. I said there is at least 20 surface lots in River North. Would you like to challenge that assertion? If so, please tell us how many you think there are. Ballpark figure. Let's test your credibility.
"Fitz makes you believe" ? LOL. I said there is at least 20 surface lots in River North. Would you like to challenge that assertion? If so, please tell us how many you think there are. Ballpark figure. Let's test your credibility.
There are easily 20 surface lots in my immediate old neighborhood (West Ontario/Orleans). I think other parts of River North would be even worse. We had lots of older buildings and new construction towers, but still these auto uses are everywhere.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
