Chicago has always loved big plans. It is an enduring legacy of Danial Burnham’s 1909 Plan of Chicago and his oft-quoted exhortation to “think big.” But “big” most certainly isn’t always better, and it hasn’t always worked out well, even here.
We currently have a boom in such fever dreams. At least eight proposed projects could add 128 million square feet of construction covering almost 800 acres as well as billions of dollars to the city’s economy.
The projects include Lincoln Yards on the North Side, the Bally’s casino at Halsted Street and Chicago Avenue, the United Center 1901 project on the West Side, the Bears’ Burnham Park project on the lakefront, The 78 and One Central Chicago in the South Loop, development of the site of the former Michael Reese Hospital on the Near South Side, and the Illinois Quantum and Microelectronics Park at the old U.S. Steel South Works site in South Chicago.
These are all big, bold and ambitious plans that are jockeying for a slice of public subsidies and potential tenants. There’s just one thing that’s certain: There’s not a chance in the world they will all come to fruition at anywhere near the scale now contemplated. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Beyond the usual mix of retail, office and residential uses, some of these plans are attempting to land a 25,000-seat soccer stadium for the Fire, a 35,000-seat baseball park for the White Sox and a 65,000-seat football stadium for the Bears. Some of the projects are already cannibalizing one another or even themselves. The University of Illinois’ decision to withdraw its promising Discovery Partners Institute from The 78 is due to a move to another Related Midwest development at the planned quantum park.
One critical way to evaluate these proposals is a simple one: Are any of these proposed neighborhoods comparable to those that have evolved from Chicago’s basic street and density patterns?
And the answer is no.
While density of the city’s fabric does vary, two- to three-story-high structures dominate, accommodating residential and commercial construction with aplomb. At its most essential, Chicago’s basic form is simplicity: city blocks subdivided into 25-by-125-foot lots with a service alley behind each property. And while Chicago is rightly considered the birthplace of the skyscraper, most neighborhoods don’t have, or need, many buildings of great height.
But that’s not a form that any of these plans contemplate.
Most of the proposed developments hope to capitalize on large properties long devoted to other uses. Lincoln Yards reimagines industrial land west of Lincoln Park. Bally’s casino is replacing the Tribune’s 40-year-old printing plant along the Chicago River’s North Branch. The United Center 1901 Project will eliminate acres of surface parking lots surrounding the United Center on the West Side. The 78 will build on abandoned railroad yards along the river south of the Loop. One Central looks to replace or cover railroad yards between DuSable Lake Shore Drive and the South Loop. Michael Reese Hospital had a sprawling campus in Bronzeville that was demolished for the city’s 2016 Olympics bid. The Illinois Quantum & Microelectronics Park will occupy part of the lakefront property that accommodated U.S. Steel’s South Works until 1992.
Only the Bears’ Burnham Park proposal suggests building on land that was previously “unused,” unless you consider lakefront parkland used.
Among the projects, Lincoln Yards is the most grotesquely overscaled. It’s as if Related’s Hudson Yards in New York City has been imported to the space between Lincoln Park and Bucktown. In South Chicago, the quantum park’s proposed 458,018-square-foot facility at South Works rivals the enormity of McCormick Place’s East Building. Why won’t we regret this new behemoth in this uniquely Chicago location?
And while it occupies about a quarter of the overall South Works site, there don’t appear to be any strategies that will reconcile the quantum park with the broader development or the South Chicago neighborhood immediately to the west. This site has sat fallow for too long to allow the developers to proceed so quickly without considerably more effort given to making it work more harmoniously with its surroundings.
And while it’s encouraging to hear that the Bears are considering the Michael Reese site as an alternate to the unfortunate Burnham Park proposal they unveiled earlier this year, it remains to be seen how that site would accommodate a 65,000-seat stadium.
Finally, it’s critical to consider the “success” of similarly scaled projects in the past. These include Lake Meadows (1948-59), Prairie Shores (1957-61), Carl Sandburg Village (1961-71), Dearborn Park (Phase I, 1979-1987; Phase II started 1988), River East, formerly Cityfront Center (started 1985), Central Station (started 1990) and Lakeshore East (started 2005). Each of these communities have achieved some financial success, but none of these mega-developments has the same fine-grained urbanity as Lincoln Park, Logan Square, Bronzeville, Hyde Park, Austin or many other Chicago neighborhoods.
With a track record like this, it would appear obvious that developers need to more fully embrace Chicago’s long-established urban patterns to create better projects.
Each scheme addresses tracts of land that are large, vacant and available. But realizing their potential doesn’t require another big idea, or even a big tenant or big stadium. We need developers and civic leaders to embrace the potential that exists in extending Chicago’s existing urban patterns — formed by thoughtful and well-designed single-family homes, two- and three-flats on residential streets, and live/work structures on the commercial thoroughfares — to grow the city.
The genius of Chicago’s neighborhoods transcends ideas of “big.” Their patterns are modest, yet thoughtful and well designed. And that DNA is every bit a part of this city as Burnham’s idea of big.
Edward Keegan writes, broadcasts and teaches on architectural subjects. Keegan’s biweekly architecture column is supported by a grant from former Tribune critic Blair Kamin, as administered by the not-for-profit Journalism Funding Partners. The Tribune maintains editorial control over assignments and content.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
