CHICAGO | General Developments [Archive] - Page 12

bnk

May 16, 2007, 8:49 PM

Interesting article, I'll just plop it in here. I never knew that Chicago magazine is the largest monthly city magazine in the country! I was sure NY had a larger monthly.

Chicago Magazine Visits the South Loop: The Hottest Neighborhood in the Country

CHICAGO, May 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Few neighborhoods in the country can
boast booming condo growth, an influx of chic restaurants and retailers
vying for presence in the area like Chicago's South Loop. This month,
Chicago magazine, the largest city monthly in the country, showcases the
people, the real-estate market and the businesses that helped to transform
what was once a gloomy enclave of warehouses and rail yards into what is
now a dynamic downtown hotspot. The June issue hits newsstands on Thursday.

"The South Loop is going through a remarkable renaissance that is
really unparalleled around the country," said Richard Babcock, Chicago's
editor. "We also track its history and how it managed to reinvent itself
into a flourishing urban community, and we talk to the people who have
moved in to get an idea of what living down there is like."

Chicago magazine's cover story, "South Loop Rising," also features two
walking tours that point out landmarks, restaurants and places of interest
in the neighborhood. Plus, read how residential properties in the South
Loop stack up against other neighborhoods in terms of price per square
foot, taxes, parking, etc.
Elsewhere in the June issue of Chicago:

-- The Wendy City: From eco-activism to politics, Wendy Abrams's roles to
date have been mostly behind the scenes. But her new city sculpture
project, Cool Globes, is already turning heads.
-- The Speech: When Barack Obama began delivering his keynote address at
the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he was still largely unknown
outside Illinois. When he finished, he had captivated the nation and
set the state for a presidential run. Senior editor David Bernstein
gives us a behind-the-scenes look at the maneuvering that led to
Obama's breakthrough moment.

Chicago editor Richard Babcock, managing editor Shane Tritsch and other
members of the magazine staff are available for on-air interviews about
stories in the June issue. Contact Michael Dizon at 312-222-3165 to
schedule an interview.

About Chicago magazine

Chicago magazine is the largest monthly city magazine in the country,
with a circulation of more than 184,000. In addition, the company publishes
a number of other titles, including Chicago HOME and Chicago Fashion
magazines. Chicago magazine has been honored with many awards, including,
in 2004, the most prestigious-the Ellie award for General Excellence in its
circulation category, bestowed by the American Society of Magazine Editors.

Loopy

May 17, 2007, 2:08 AM

^ Didn't Wolf go to SCB from Murphy/Jahn?

Yes. I just looked up his Bio. He was Murphy/Jahn's airport designer among other things.

SamInTheLoop

May 17, 2007, 1:55 PM

Site prep has finally begun for the Village Market Center. I was wondering when this would begin as it had been cleared out (after serving as a staging area for 340) for some time now.......I'm really looking forward to seeing this open, as it will only help future high-rise development at LSE...

nomarandlee

May 17, 2007, 2:24 PM

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/389746,CST-NWS-daley17.article

Daley suggests state tax hike, city casino
SPRINGFIELD SPLIT | 'Everything should be on the table'

........Daley said "everything should be on the table," including his on-again-off-again quest for a Chicago casino. But there's a caveat: It should be government-owned.

"I really believe -- and I've said this repeatedly -- that the taxpayers of Illinois should get the benefit of all the casinos. They do that in Canada very, very successful. ... A bid goes out for the management, maybe 10 or 15 percent. Then, 85 percent of the profits go back into government," Daley said.

"Maybe you can dedicate [new gambling revenues] to the growth factor of education, capital improvements, things like that you could do. Whatever you want."

trvlr70

May 17, 2007, 4:03 PM

firstcranialnerve

May 17, 2007, 9:02 PM

^ I think this downturn in the Condo market is pretty understandable. It isn't mentioned that the Apartment market could make some gains, as there are very few apartment buildings going up. The streeter II (which I think is half hotel) is the only one I know of going up (in streeterville anyway).

Also, in reference to the subways in the Deep Tunnel Project. Would any of this be able to replace parts of the ailing El downtown?

Anyone have a general idea of the likelihood of covering the tracks over in Grant Park/What it would cost?

Busy Bee

May 19, 2007, 5:48 PM

^These people just don't get it. All numbers and no heart. 50% off clearanced crap isn't going to restore the once proud prestige of the former occupant of this building and it certainly won't bring people back. The damage has been done I'm afraid.

VivaLFuego

May 21, 2007, 7:55 PM

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/394940,21abla.article

Committee green lights plan for Abla Homes

May 21, 2007
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
The second phase of a $750 million plan to transform the CHA’s Abla Homes into a thriving mixed-income community was advanced by a City Council committee Monday, but not before the new sheriff in town laid down the law.

“The autocratic method of making decisions is over and the bottom-up process of making decisions is here,” newly elected Ald. Bob Fioretti (2nd) told the Finance Committee, delivering what sounded like a campaign stump speech.

“We should not build until the voices of our community have been heard. That’s the way things are going to be done in the 2nd Ward from now on, whether or not the special interests like it….I’m not in the business of making a few people rich.”

Last week, Fioretti held up a $15 million tax increment financing subsidy to finance acquisition, demolition, remediation and public improvements in Phase 2 of the project known as Roosevelt Square.

On Monday, Fioretti allowed the project to go through after learning that $31 million worth of expiring tax credits were hanging in the balance.

But Fioretti made it clear he would demand a series of “side letters” before Wednesday, when the full Council is expected to sign off on the project.

Fioretti wants: Minority participation well beyond the 25 percent that developers plan; a guarantee of jobs for local residents; and assurances that siding and public utilities are aesthetically pleasing to area residents.

“When I started my campaign, I said that people who live in the community I want to remain in the community. We find them jobs. This is a unique opportunity to have people within the area have jobs,” he said.

Chicago Housing Authority CEO Sharon Gist-Gilliam said the CHA has made every effort to increase minority contracting beyond the bare minimum.

But she said, “At some point, it becomes uneconomical to constantly break jobs into smaller and smaller [bites]….It would be helpful to have some larger minority firms out there and have more than two or three minority general contractors.”

Phase 2 of Roosevelt Square will have 432 units and a pricetag of $163 million. Of that number, 185 are rental units and 247 are for sale, at both market and affordable rates.

The massive project runs from Blue Island to Ashland and Taylor to 14th Street.

During Monday’s Finance Committee meeting, the last before the new Council was sworn in, Gilliam warned aldermen to get used to her appeals.

“We will be coming back to you for years on end as we march through this project. Every couple of years, we’ll be back here for approval of more tax credits, probably more TIF — assuming there’s any left to put in projects out there — and acquisition of more city-owned land,” she said.

“It’s just a very slow, very tedious and….an exceedingly expensive process to build new housing in any urban area.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It'll be interesting to have an Alderman (Fioretti) who cares so much about development in the city. Obviously it's too early to tell if it's a good or bad thing (i.e. I sure hope it doesn't lead to lots of cancellations and developers just giving up), but I'm cautiously optimistic about the level involvement he's apparently going to take with all developments.

Chicago2020

May 21, 2007, 9:36 PM

Check out the videos on this link

http://www.thecha.org/housingdev/abla_homes.html

ardecila

May 22, 2007, 2:33 AM

I personally LOVE the Roosevelt Square development. It's done on a huge scale, and I can't believe I never heard of it before today. It's seriously on par with the original public housing projects in terms of the sheer scale of development - it's a very big area of the West Side they are redeveloping.

Now... just across Ashland from the Abla complex is one of the largest vacant lots in the city, encompassing 22 completely vacant blocks, as well as a few sparsely developed blocks. Let's see what we can do over there.

VivaLFuego

May 22, 2007, 3:29 AM

Now... just across Ashland from the Abla complex is one of the largest vacant lots in the city, encompassing 22 completely vacant blocks, as well as a few sparsely developed blocks. Let's see what we can do over there.

Are there any plans for that huge area? It's been vacant for decades. Between those empty plots and the removal of most of ABLA, this area is quite desolate now, but that just means a clean slate. I can't wait to see it in 10-15 years when it's a fully developed neighborhood and the many thousands of units have been built and occupied (hopefully with an accompanying infill stop at Roosevelt on the Pink Line)

ardecila

May 22, 2007, 4:06 AM

(hopefully with an accompanying infill stop at Roosevelt on the Pink Line)

You mean the Circle Line, right? ;)

honte

May 22, 2007, 4:36 AM

Are there any plans for that huge area? It's been vacant for decades. Between those empty plots and the removal of most of ABLA, this area is quite desolate now, but that just means a clean slate. I can't wait to see it in 10-15 years when it's a fully developed neighborhood and the many thousands of units have been built and occupied (hopefully with an accompanying infill stop at Roosevelt on the Pink Line)

Isn't this all IMD land? I don't think housing is going to ever go over in that area again.

I have to say, I think Roosevelt Square is a total POS. Just NIMBYfied and VE'ed to hell, crap architecture, no vision, etc. All the typical complaints, I guess. I far preferred the planning and architecture of the original projects there. I talked just last month to one of the original City planners who worked on that project, and man, the stories I heard. What a political nightmare. Apparently, the original plan was more cutting-edge and exciting, but it tanked early on due to all of the "interested parties" involved.

Chicago Shawn

May 22, 2007, 6:58 AM

Isn't this all IMD land? I don't think housing is going to ever go over in that area again.

I have to say, I think Roosevelt Square is a total POS. Just NIMBYfied and VE'ed to hell, crap architecture, no vision, etc. All the typical complaints, I guess. I far preferred the planning and architecture of the original projects there. I talked just last month to one of the original City planners who worked on that project, and man, the stories I heard. What a political nightmare. Apparently, the original plan was more cutting-edge and exciting, but it tanked early on due to all of the "interested parties" involved.

And this is exactly what happens when all the parties come to the table and are given the political veto power. I am sorry but the planning department and the architects of the project need more legislative authority over stuff like this. These people know what good development potential is and how to move forward with it. All these other parties be it community groups or whatever water down so many good designs into crap and I for one am really getting tired of it. Roosevelt Square also has no retail along that entire frontage of Roosevelt Road, just cookie cutter stuff on a setback and mid-rises with blank walls covering up the ground floor parking. So, Roosevelt now is one giant suburbanized fuck up from Canal to all the way past Damen, with very little to enguage pedestrian activity. May as well just add some express lanes at this point, perhaps then the #12 bus would actually run on time.

SamInTheLoop

May 22, 2007, 1:32 PM

^ Precisely. Design by Committee is a proven road to failure. The dpd needs to have more power, the aldermen (and thus neighborhood nimbys and other "community" groups), less!!

VivaLFuego

May 22, 2007, 2:22 PM

Yeah, Roosevelt Road is basically a disaster for about its entire length in the city. At this point, though, the recent developments along that stretch (big box to the east, and to the west strip malls, FBI, Juvie court, Med Center) basically dictate that the rest of the development will have to be auto-oriented as well; it doesn't make sense to have one ped-friendly block when the rest of the neighborhood can go blocks at a time without passing the entrace to a residence or shop....street frontage is all walls for insular developments, or parking lots. Perhaps a few ped-friendly basic services like dry cleaners or a bodega could be tucked into part of the housing development. But given the location and development pattern, everyone's going to be driving. Might as well get it built and get the units and their residents on the tax rolls instead of these embarassing decaying lots.

the urban politician

May 22, 2007, 2:47 PM

And this is exactly what happens when all the parties come to the table and are given the political veto power. I am sorry but the planning department and the architects of the project need more legislative authority over stuff like this. These people know what good development potential is and how to move forward with it. All these other parties be it community groups or whatever water down so many good designs into crap and I for one am really getting tired of it. Roosevelt Square also has no retail along that entire frontage of Roosevelt Road, just cookie cutter stuff on a setback and mid-rises with blank walls covering up the ground floor parking. So, Roosevelt now is one giant suburbanized fuck up from Canal to all the way past Damen, with very little to enguage pedestrian activity. May as well just add some express lanes at this point, perhaps then the #12 bus would actually run on time.

All the retail will be along Taylor and, to some degree, along Ashland, per the plan. I'm not really sure what the problem is with that. Roosevelt is already a wide road whose purpose is largely to accommodate traffic, so what's the problem? I guess I just don't see the need to feel so strongly about this

Latoso

May 22, 2007, 3:51 PM

Roosevelt is already a wide road whose purpose is largely to accommodate traffic, so what's the problem? I guess I just don't see the need to feel so strongly about this
That's one of the many advantages of being nearly 1 thousand miles away. You can't get all worked up about something you really don't know about.

Marcu

May 22, 2007, 4:27 PM

honte

May 22, 2007, 4:55 PM

The Roosevelt Square residential buildings are fine. They're not overly PoMo. Just standard issue Chicago architecture. Certainly not something to get overly concerned about. The CHA redevelopment areas are not ideal for experimenting. First, the area needs to appeal to the masses (aka nimbys) so they don't have another reason not to relocate there. Seeing as that they will already be hesitent about living in a "mixed income" development. Second, the city is not in a position to take on the risk of constructing cutting edge architecture. Third, keep in mind that the "tower in the park" design of the original project homes was a the time a development trend. THe last thing we want is for the city to do something like that again. Follow a trend that's not time tested and that will flop.

The first two are very valid points. I discuss this issue frequently. Specifically, is there any chance, given the failures of the past, to bring good design to the table while redeveloping these lots? Certainly, most of the CHA residents I've spoken with (I used to work next to Cabrini Green) just want their housing to look exactly like what's existing in "good" neighborhoods - either yuppie condo garbage, or old flats. Making low-income housing stand out from its neighbors is a way of red-lining an area, at least for those who are not design-inclined.

Hence, I've somewhat given up on the idea of cutting-edge architecture being built in these areas. But your third point about "tower in the park" design being a development trend is a bit misleading: At the time, that represented the best and most radical of new thinking on urban living, not the status quo, as we're seeing now. There is absolutely nothing creative, progressive, or au currant about these new schemes, and that is by design. The very idea of the public housing redevelopment is to somehow return it to the way it "once was."

But there are nagging questions about this way of redevelopment. Are we wasting one of the greatest city redevelopment opportunities that will come along in centuries? All of the good stuff (and bad) from the past has already been cleared, so it's rather painless. More troublesome, are these buildings good enough and built well enough to continue to attract mixed-income tenants? Or are they going to be the slums of the future, avoided by those that can, due to their inferior design and craftsmanship?

Projects like the SOM design for Pershing and State give me a lot of hope. Here we see what is possible when the NIMBY crowd doesn't rear its ugly head, when you have some vision about design, and when a developer is interested in his community. I am crossing all fingers that it is a huge success.

It's also worth noting that many (alas, not all) of most carefully-designed of the old projects are still with us. Loomis Courts, Hilliard Homes, Dearborn Homes, Trumbull Park. These buildings are ones that enriched their communities and residents when they were built, and, as best they can given the funding and upkeep, continue to do so today.

sentinel

May 22, 2007, 5:03 PM

Hopeful news:

Foundation unveils $26M in neighborhood grants

By Johnathon E. Briggs
Tribune staff reporter
Published May 22, 2007, 11:00 AM CDT
Chicago's largest philanthropy, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, announced today that it will invest $26 million during the next five years in 16 of the city's lowest-income neighborhoods as part of a large-scale community and economic development effort.

The New Communities Program seeks to rejuvenate beleaguered neighborhoods, bolster those in danger of losing ground and preserve the diversity of others in the path of gentrification, officials said.

The 16 neighborhoods are Auburn Gresham, Chicago Lawn, Douglas, North Kenwood, Oakland, Grand Boulevard, East Garfield Park, Humboldt Park, Little Village, Logan Square, North Lawndale, Pilsen, South Chicago, Washington Park, Near West Side and Woodlawn.

"Chicago's neighborhoods, even its poorest, are significant assets, holding tremendous untapped human and economic potential," said MacArthur President Jonathan Fanton. "The work of many dedicated community groups and individuals to turn around these neighborhoods is already showing early signs of success."

Coordinated by the Local Initiatives Support Corp., a community development organization, the neighborhood projects were first funded by the foundation in 2002 with about $21 million in seed money that foundation officials said has helped generate more than $255 million in new investment in the 16 communities.

The corporation's consultants met with residents and took them on bus tours of the neighborhoods, seeking to identify their most urgent problems and to draft solutions that would not languish on the drawing board, officials said.

For example, as a result of New Communities, the Logan Square Neighborhood Association helped 54 families keep their homes in the face of redevelopment plans. Meanwhile, the Quad Community Development Corp. is establishing a vibrant commercial district that will bring shops and residences to the city's mid-South Side.

Foundation officials said they expect their second wave of funding to generate $500 million in new investment.

jebriggs@tribune.com

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

forumly_chgoman

May 22, 2007, 5:27 PM

Roosevelt Square

^^^^Ok I am not super-famliar w/ this development as some of you seem to be. Is this new neighborhood to be fully integrated into the flow of the city...ie the street grid etc or is it in anyway walled off, or gated off , or fenced off etc

I guess I want to know if this development will be a stand alone...isolated style communtiy///which I hate & I do not beleive belongs in the city or is it going to be more along the lines of simply a new neighborhood that will flow into what is around it seemlessly much like most neighborhood in Chi do?

ardecila

May 22, 2007, 10:08 PM

Roosevelt Square

^^^^Ok I am not super-famliar w/ this development as some of you seem to be. Is this new neighborhood to be fully integrated into the flow of the city...ie the street grid etc or is it in anyway walled off, or gated off , or fenced off etc.

Yes, they rebuilt the street grid throughout this area.

Roosevelt Square is basically a HUGE area of newly-built rowhouses, between 2 and 3 stories. There are also some smaller midrises, up to 5 or 6 stories. The taller buildings are built along the major streets like Ashland, Roosevelt, Racine, Blue Island, etc. Basically, the same size buildings as those that existed before the Abla projects were built. Of course, the architecture is not nearly as good as those prewar buildings.

SamInTheLoop

May 22, 2007, 10:18 PM

The first two are very valid points. I discuss this issue frequently. Specifically, is there any chance, given the failures of the past, to bring good design to the table while redeveloping these lots? Certainly, most of the CHA residents I've spoken with (I used to work next to Cabrini Green) just want their housing to look exactly like what's existing in "good" neighborhoods - either yuppie condo garbage, or old flats. Making low-income housing stand out from its neighbors is a way of red-lining an area, at least for those who are not design-inclined.

Hence, I've somewhat given up on the idea of cutting-edge architecture being built in these areas. But your third point about "tower in the park" design being a development trend is a bit misleading: At the time, that represented the best and most radical of new thinking on urban living, not the status quo, as we're seeing now. There is absolutely nothing creative, progressive, or au currant about these new schemes, and that is by design. The very idea of the public housing redevelopment is to somehow return it to the way it "once was."

But there are nagging questions about this way of redevelopment. Are we wasting one of the greatest city redevelopment opportunities that will come along in centuries? All of the good stuff (and bad) from the past has already been cleared, so it's rather painless. More troublesome, are these buildings good enough and built well enough to continue to attract mixed-income tenants? Or are they going to be the slums of the future, avoided by those that can, due to their inferior design and craftsmanship?

Projects like the SOM design for Pershing and State give me a lot of hope. Here we see what is possible when the NIMBY crowd doesn't rear its ugly head, when you have some vision about design, and when a developer is interested in his community. I am crossing all fingers that it is a huge success.

It's also worth noting that many (alas, not all) of most carefully-designed of the old projects are still with us. Loomis Courts, Hilliard Homes, Dearborn Homes, Trumbull Park. These buildings are ones that enriched their communities and residents when they were built, and, as best they can given the funding and upkeep, continue to do so today.

Great points. I also think, more broadly speaking, that a lot of people have the misconception that for a new building or buildings to be integrated into its neighborhood, it needs to look just like the rest of its neighborhood. I think this is nonsense and believe fully-integrated, cohesive neighborhoods can have various design styles, allowing new modern additions to relate to the existing stock. I realize special consideration needs to be given to the mixed-income nature of these developments and the public housing they're replacing, but nonetheless...Perhaps if the SOM development on S. State moves forward as proposed and is successful, it will move other redevelopment projects around the city in the right design direction...

the urban politician

May 23, 2007, 2:34 AM

That's one of the many advantages of being nearly 1 thousand miles away. You can't get all worked up about something you really don't know about.

^ Point taken, but those of you who've known me on these forums for a while likely know just how worked up I actually do get about Chicago development issues. And just to give myself credit, I have toured the construction sites and the area around Roosevelt Square personally many times, as well as long ago reviewing the site plan, which has been available for a few years. :cool:

Hence, I've somewhat given up on the idea of cutting-edge architecture being built in these areas. But your third point about "tower in the park" design being a development trend is a bit misleading: At the time, that represented the best and most radical of new thinking on urban living, not the status quo, as we're seeing now. There is absolutely nothing creative, progressive, or au currant about these new schemes, and that is by design. The very idea of the public housing redevelopment is to somehow return it to the way it "once was."

^ Reading this, a question arises. Why must these developments be 'cutting edge' at all? Why not just follow a tried and true model--the traditional Chicago neighborhood?

But there are nagging questions about this way of redevelopment. Are we wasting one of the greatest city redevelopment opportunities that will come along in centuries? All of the good stuff (and bad) from the past has already been cleared, so it's rather painless. More troublesome, are these buildings good enough and built well enough to continue to attract mixed-income tenants? Or are they going to be the slums of the future, avoided by those that can, due to their inferior design and craftsmanship?

^ Aren't we confusing good architecture with quality development? A building can be pretty dull to look at but still sturdy. What gives you the impression that the structures u/c at Roosevelt Square are not going to last?

Regarding the issue of these becoming future slums, you make a good point. But in my experience viewing New York's housing projects versus Chicago's, one of the reasons why New York's have largely worked is because their projects still provide easy access to retail/jobs, etc whereas the Chicago projects were just so isolated.

I like how many of these new communities being developed in Chicago now incorporate mixed-uses. That's how a traditional city neighborhood is supposed to work.

And if you want cutting-edge design, I'm not sure you're going to get it. But that doesn't mean there aren't some interesting new ideas being tried out. For example, in Westhaven Park, there are a handful of live-work townhomes being developed--definitely a new idea (which is funny, because it's actually an ancient practice). A row of townhomes will have commercial space at the base, with residential above. The entire unit will be owned by an individual so that he can live upstairs while plying his trade on the ground floor. It sounds like something out of 1897 but perhaps it will help a person with little means make something of himself. Or perhaps it won't. We'll just have to see--it's an experiment, after all..

honte

May 23, 2007, 3:59 AM

^ Reading this, a question arises. Why must these developments be 'cutting edge' at all? Why not just follow a tried and true model--the traditional Chicago neighborhood?

...

Aren't we confusing good architecture with quality development? A building can be pretty dull to look at but still sturdy. What gives you the impression that the structures u/c at Roosevelt Square are not going to last?

...

For example, in Westhaven Park, there are a handful of live-work townhomes being developed--definitely a new idea (which is funny, because it's actually an ancient practice). A row of townhomes will have commercial space at the base, with residential above.

Yes, of course, good development and good architecture are not necessarily tied, although they often come hand-in-hand. I would take quality development in the case of these redevelopments any day over amazing architecture, for the benefit of the buyers and for the benefit of the surrounding community.

What I didn't make clear in my prior post is that, from personal inspection, I don't think these building are being built well. The neighborhood association has also raised major complaints about alleged differences in construction practice north and south of Roosevelt (most of the public housing is still being clustered south of Roosevelt). We'll see what happens, but I don't expect many of these buildings to age gracefully (or many of the cheap "developer special" three-flats you see all over the north side, for that matter).

The tried-and-true model of a Chicago neighborhood has issues, as much as I love the results that arrived. The good results are very largely due not to the planning, but due to the amazing architecture and incredible craftsmanship that graced Chicago during the original boom years. The inherent issues, meanwhile, are the same that caused trouble to start before the second world war, and to continue afterwards, which led (in part) to the slums in the first place. They are further compounded by new ways of modern living, such as automobile dependence. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I don't think we should arbitrarily say through rose-tinted glasses that everything at the turn of the century was just perfect. If you haven't read The Ghetto, I suggest it, since it talks at length about this exact area and period we are discussing. I think architects should not shy away from offering new ideas and models for urban design and planning, even if some past ideas turned into disasters.

Concerning the live-work units, I think that's great and I didn't know about it. But Chicago's real problem and lack of live-work setups stems from the zoning rigidity that prevents living and working from happening in the same level, in almost all cases. This makes it very hard for up-start businesses, artists, entrepreneurs, etc, as very few can afford the ground floor and the apartment at once. Even just considering this problem, an entirely new model for an urban neighborhood could be developed by a talented team of planners and designers.

One other thought worth mentioning: The Chicago neighborhoods that remain the most desirable are the ones with distinctive features - the "sense of place" that Kamin is always harping about. It is, surprisingly, not always tied to "location, location, location." So, this is another argument in favor of mixing things up a bit, rather than repeating the old model over and over into cloying oblivion.

Latoso

May 23, 2007, 7:06 AM

^ Point taken, but those of you who've known me on these forums for a while likely know just how worked up I actually do get about Chicago development issues. And just to give myself credit, I have toured the construction sites and the area around Roosevelt Square personally many times, as well as long ago reviewing the site plan, which has been available for a few years. :cool:

I know your intentions are good. But you know ChicagoShawn and how he can be, and if he gets worked up about something there's usually something to it. :)

DaleAvella

May 23, 2007, 6:43 PM

nomarandlee

May 24, 2007, 9:53 PM

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/400500,052407redford.article

Redford eyes Fannie May site for theater

May 24, 2007
BY DAVID ROEDER Staff Reporter

Robert Redford’s theater chain that specializes in independent films said Thursday it plans to open an eight-screen operation on Chicago’s Near West Side.

Redford’s Sundance Cinemas has signed a lease to occupy 40,000 square feet in a new building developers hope to put up at 1137 W. Jackson.

The property is the site of old Fannie May candy factory, which closed in 2004. The size of the building is still to be negotiated with the city.

The plan is for the theaters to be part of commercial space on the lower floors, with residential floors on the upper levels, said Gary Pachucki, president of IBT Group, one of the developers. Pachucki said he hopes the theaters can open in 2009.

The property extends a full block south to Van Buren, where it has frontage along the Eisenhower Expressway. Its expected the Sundance Cinemas space will face the expressway.

Pachucki said it will be on the building’s third floor and that a related bar and restaurant will occupy a mezzanine.

It would be the fourth location for Sundance. The company opened May 11 in Madison, Wis., and is renovating a location in San Francisco.

It announced this week plans to open in Denver. Founded by Redford, Sundance has financial backing from Oaktree Capital Management.

Eventually...Chicago

May 24, 2007, 10:05 PM

From one of their blogs...

Architectural Record
Bruce Mau told me last night, at the superbly fun...
Saturday, May 19, 2007

Bruce Mau told me last night,

at the superbly fun benefit for Stanley Tigerman and Eva Maddox's Archeworks,

that he is moving with his family to Chicago in July. He'll open a school called "The Institute for Massive Change."

He'll put it in Louis Sullivan's inspiring department store building on State Street. Carson's - the store in there for decades, recently vacated. Mau's school will be in the same building as, and he will team up with Tony Jones and The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, which recently began teaching architecture on the top floors of the Sullivan masterpiece.

Bruce Mau said he intends to focus his activities on cities. He plans to develop "Chicago prototypes." He hopes city planners and leaders around the world will note his achievements here, come here to study them, and then replicate them where needed. He told me that a developer working on a project in Korea wants to fund the prototype here, and if or when it's successful, replicate the solution in Korea. I have no more details on that.

Mau will live on Chicago's North Shore; he's looking for a grand old house to turn "smart." With all the visitors he expects he joked it'll be something of an "eco-resort." Tell that to the good ladies of Winnetka.

How did this come about? Bruce Mau said that he was gratified by the welcome he received in Chicago when he brought his exhibtion "Massive Change" to the Museum of Contemporary Art. He had lunch with Stanley Tigerman. Tigerman asked him, "What are you doing? Why aren't you here?" Tigerman told Mau he could accomplish in ten years in Chicago what it would take him forty years to acheive in Toronto. Next thing you know, Mau's moving his family to Chi-town and opening a school here.

Bruce Mau says he's a big fan of Mayor Daley and the work he's doing to make Chicago more "green." Daley is also a fan of Mau and his work.

Finally, Bruce Mau says it's too late to tone down the expectations people have for him, but that he'll work here to realize his dreams here.

The "City of Broad Shoulders," "the City that Works;" the city of "Make no Little Plans," and "Build, Don't Talk," welcomes its latest big thinker. I'm so glad to see him come here and help spur the Chicago Renaissance.

Remember, Chicago's motto has always been, "Urbs in Horto" - "City in a garden."

Welcome Bruce Mau and family. Make the place grow.
-E

http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/blogs/post.asp?bbPostId=B4p97UWjLQPKB3k0XCk7cBnVCz21XNNOVPvRuCz9MCcuZVi8Up&bbParentWidgetId=B8hgtgwAXRcJz48YZ7K5qHdr

Chicago2020

May 25, 2007, 12:01 AM

Here is my VERY sad attempt to show if the central area plan goes through. As you can see Grant Park is extended eastward with a new pier next to navy pier. The dark red in Grant Park are areas of where dark red bricks would replace the asphalt, thats my idea of what Grant Park should be like, less roads, more antique light posts and More tree's and flowers. Many thanks to archytype for the pic.

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/3310/lseaerial1xp0.jpg

Busy Bee

May 25, 2007, 12:34 AM

One step closer to Burnham's vision. I like the brick idea, any stone surface would be great as well. I absolutely hate Columbus running through Grant. As far as I'm concerned Columbus is the biggest negative factor facing Grant Park and it should be identified as so in future Park and City Plans with the goal being a shifting of, reducing of or elimination of traffic on the current Columbus Drive. Another more costly solution would be to cut and cover bury Columbus and re-sew East and West Grant Park together... Columbus is a much larger offender in this regard than the IC trench has ever been.

ardecila

May 25, 2007, 3:18 AM

Columbus is a much larger offender in this regard than the IC trench has ever been.

I disagree. You can't jaywalk the IC trench.

The only thing superior about the trench is its design, which muffles the sound of the trains and complements the design of the park and the historic Mich Ave buildings.

Contrast this to the very un-park-like design of Columbus Drive - 6 lanes of whizzing traffic with crosswalks every 1/4 mile.

I don't think Columbus will go anywhere, however, because it gives the city a large paved area to host Taste.

the urban politician

May 25, 2007, 1:52 PM

Busy Bee

May 25, 2007, 2:34 PM

Lake Point Tower actually doesn't bother me at all in regards to sitting in [intentioned] parkland. It's that Boeing hanger MP East that bothers me—I really don't give a hoot about it's architectural merits, I don't think people would be singing its' praises after it's raised once they see how fantastic the new view is.

Moot point really though because I don't think MP officials have any intention on removing it. Not for many years anyway.

honte

May 25, 2007, 4:39 PM

^ New view of what? More undeveloped parkland (Meigs) that we can't seem to fund or develop?

I want to live in a city, thank you very much. Buildings here and there are pleasing.

Busy Bee

May 25, 2007, 7:33 PM

Yeah just not on the lake side of LSD. Ans it's more than a building. We're not talking North Avenue Beach House, this thing is a wall.

ardecila

May 25, 2007, 10:02 PM

Well.. while I absolutely DESPISE LPT's podium, I don't have too much of a problem with the building being there. While it is east of the Drive, it is also at the center of a large peninsula that allows the parkland to flow around it.

nomarandlee

May 25, 2007, 10:13 PM

Eric Sedler and his cadre of NIMBY butt-slaves are going to rip a hole in that Redford Theater plan if it's higher than 10 stories. Prepare for another great development not to happen.

There is an article in today's Sun-Times about it, but I'm too lazy to go and fetch it.

Seriously, the city Govt needs to stop these numbskulls

I'll post it then...Uggh, how these people are able to dictate such shite is a travesty. Many live within easy walking distance of two rail lines and could bike to work due to spitting distance from downtown yet they insist on keeping their hood relatively low density more befitting of a hood five-eight miles away from the city center. Someone should talk to these people about selfish underutilization of resources.

Maybe they think an expresway gives them illusions that they are farther away and differant then the near north and south side and think of themselves exempt from the inner core.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/401360,CST-NWS-redford25.article

Redford cast as villain in cinema development plan?
NEAR W. SIDE | May pit neighbors vs. Sundance firm

May 25, 2007
BY DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com
Actor Robert Redford, proponent of all things environmentally sensitive, could land in the middle of an old-fashioned battle over neighborhood development on the Near West Side.

Redford's Sundance Cinemas LLC, a chain that shows independent films and documentaries, said Thursday it plans to open in 2009 at 1137 W. Jackson. Developers intend to put up a building there to replace the old Fannie May Candy factory that closed in 2004.

But what kind of a building, and how tall, are open for conjecture. The developers have yet to request a zoning change and have not shown plans to neighbors, the standard way of building political support.
Los Angeles-based Sundance said it will open an eight-screen theater. It signed a lease to occupy 40,000 square feet, its space including an attached bar and restaurant.

Gary Pachucki, president of IBT Group LLC and one of the developers, said Sundance will take the third floor and a mezzanine. Other uses in the commercial space will include a health club, grocer, and parking he said.

But he and his co-investors want a mostly residential building on the nearly 4-acre site. Asked how tall he wants to go, Pachucki replied, "Don't go there."

The issue is sensitive because Near West residents have organized against what they see as an encroachment of high-rises into their midst. They gained political muscle in the last aldermanic election when a challenger, Robert Fioretti, defeated an incumbent in part by criticizing her for tuning out residents when development issues arose.

Eric Sedler, president of the West Loop Community Organization, said the developers a few months ago suggested a building of about 25 to 30 stories and were informed the idea "is a non-starter."

The Redford cinemas would be an asset to the area, he said. But he said he hopes the developers "aren't selectively floating out pieces of the project to give an inaccurate picture of what it is."

Pachucki said signing Sundance was "a terrific opportunity" to give the building a commercial tenant. He said the property has few residential neighbors nearby and that a high-rise could take advantage of visibility along the Eisenhower Expy.

Sundance executives were unavailable to discuss the zoning issue. Pachucki said the theater's lease contains customary clauses that let it out of the deal if the building cannot be delivered by a particular time. He declined to discuss those terms.

An aide to Fioretti, Hanah Jubeh, said the alderman is assembling a zoning advisory committee. Once the developers submit their plan, he will give it to the committee for its input, she said.

It would be the fourth location for Sundance. The company opened May 11 in Madison, Wis., and is renovating a location in San Francisco. It announced this week plans to open in Denver.

The company, with financial backing from Oaktree Capital Management, is part of Redford's Sundance brand that grew from the annual film festival he hosts. It uses plush seating and promises no ads before showtime.

ardecila

May 26, 2007, 3:58 AM

Is this the same thing as Metro Center 290, or a different project?

alex1

May 26, 2007, 3:49 PM

mau is an amazing addition to the city's creative community. He'll attract some top flight talent to the city. The kind of people who really care about urban environments/theories, architecture and high-design.

seems that chicago's creative community is getting stronger and stronger by the minute these days.

we're no longer immersed in the days of dearth that we saw so prevelent just 5 or 6 years ago. People like Mau, Gang, Jahn, Valicenti, Towler-Weese, Anke Loh, Garafalo & Paul Preissner make up the new backbone of critical and progressive design.

True that some of these names have been around some years or aren't young (valicenti didn't even start designing until his later years in life), but all of these folks are arguably making their best work at this time. Progressive to the point where the aesthetic isn't always the end all (pushing forms and the concept of beauty is) .

After Yale, I have the knowledge that coming back to Chicago is a good option from a carreer standpoint. I'm no longer bound to London or nYc as I would have been just a few years back.

honte

May 26, 2007, 4:02 PM

^ Yeah, I'm pumped he's coming. I hope the "establishment" listens up.

spyguy

May 27, 2007, 2:53 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/realestate/chi-oakland_re_05-27may27,0,25480.story?coll=chi-classifiedrealestate-hed

Building from 1864 set to be preserved

By Jeanette Almada
Special to the Tribune
Published May 27, 2007

The Archdiocese of Chicago will salvage the city's only known-surviving building associated with the Civil War: A 4-story, stucco-covered brick building in the Oakland neighborhood.

Known as the Soldier's Home, the building at 739 E. 35th St. was erected in 1864 by architect William W. Boyington, who also designed the Old Chicago Water Tower and Pumping Station.

The Plan Commission approved the project, which falls under the Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance.

In Civil War times the building was a hospital for convalescent soldiers, then a residence for disabled veterans.

Five additions were built between 1866 and 1957, a project manager told commissioners.

After the Chicago Fire, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet used the building as an orphanage.

More recently Catholic Charities used it as a home for troubled children.

To accommodate offices and community meetings, the archdiocese will demolish additions constructed in 1873, 1923 and 1957.

A 3-story, 31,000-square-foot structure will take their place.

Aside from being a Chicago Landmark, the building, just south of the Stephen Douglas Tomb Memorial, is important because of its nearness to the planned Olympic Village development site, along Lake Shore Drive from 23rd to 31st Streets, between Lake Michigan and the Illinois Central Railroad.

The archdiocese will restore the original facade, salvage what it can from the interior and build the addition from pre-cast concrete panels.

"We will try to salvage what we can of the building's interior, such as the ornamental railings," the project's architect, Monika Benitez, of Park Ridge-based Jaeger, Nickola & Associates, told commissioners.

"But the building has been through several uses and has been unoccupied for some time."

Working with the Chicago Department of Transportation, the grounds will include a park designed to complement a new pedestrian bridge to the lakefront.

That landscaping effort is expected to create a green gateway to Burnham Park and to extend the park into the neighborhood, the project manager told commissioners.

The Chicago Landmarks' Permit Review Committee approved the restoration in March.

spyguy

May 27, 2007, 3:02 PM

brian_b

May 27, 2007, 11:37 PM

The developers have yet to request a zoning change and have not shown plans to neighbors, the standard way of building political support.
...
The issue is sensitive because Near West residents have organized against what they see as an encroachment of high-rises into their midst. They gained political muscle in the last aldermanic election when a challenger, Robert Fioretti, defeated an incumbent in part by criticizing her for tuning out residents when development issues arose.

Eric Sedler, president of the West Loop Community Organization, said the developers a few months ago suggested a building of about 25 to 30 stories and were informed the idea "is a non-starter."

No need to rush into things. West Loop foreclosures are up 440% so far this year. If Redford can wait a few months, Sedler and whatever is left of WLCO will be begging for anything at all to prop up their local area - so they can sell and move somewhere else.

Redford should announce a humanitarian plan to buy up all the West Loop foreclosures and turn them into section 8 rentals. Sedler and Co would be mortified of their new neighbors, but even they're smart enough to know what they'd look like if they opposed it.

Suddenly a 25 to 30 story building won't seem so bad.

BorisMolotov

May 28, 2007, 12:20 AM

Could this be the fall of the WLCO? What they've tried to avoid for so long, now comes to bite them in the ass...
Maybe this will send a message to other NIMBY organizations.

Marcu

May 28, 2007, 1:30 AM

Could this be the fall of the WLCO? What they've tried to avoid for so long, now comes to bite them in the ass...
Maybe this will send a message to other NIMBY organizations.

Not just that but it tells all the other NIMBY groups to not take investment and development in their community for granted. As the number of foreclosures continues to climb and as abandoned factories continue to sit (see fannie may), wlco will realize what kind of opportunity it missed. And to think they could've had the type of development in central station or lakeshort east. What idiots.

Chicago Shawn

May 30, 2007, 5:32 AM

Grant Park Advisory Council and Grant Park Conservancy public meeting

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 6:30 p.m.

Daley Bicentennial Plaza - 337 E. Randolph just east of Columbus Drive.

Chicago Children's Museum

Please come out and give us your input on the newest plans for the museum.
Thank you very much for your interest and participation.

Please contact:
Bob O'Neill
Phone: 312-829-8015

I went to that this evening, and holy hell was there tension in that room. I can understand comments about not putting a larger structure in Grant Park to replace Daley Bi. Plaza, which is a base for discussion. But all through the presentation it was people interrupting to irrationally bitch, and then bitch some more when it came to public comments, and then bitch even more at people with supportive comments. The main complaints were "This is our community park, and its too crowded." "Too much new construction" "Lake Shore East has negitively affected our quaility of life." "I want a quiet place to raise my kids without thousands of other screaming kids." "Too much traffic"

I HATE THESE FUCKTARD ASSHOLES! These complainers all act as if "The New Eastside" is some gated subdivison in Naperville. I swear I heard "we want our quiet bedroom community and our neighborhood park" at least 50 times this evening. I reminded all of them that thier community was originally APPROVED to be twice as dense, so they should not be complaining.

There were a few supportive people with awesome comments to fire back at all the complainers.

We saw a few renderings of the concept design. It is by the same architects as Spertis, and took a few design cues from the facade of faceted glass. The building would replace Daley Bi. Plaza and would be built into the hillside. Two stories would be exposed above grade, with two floors below carved into the existing parking garage. All drop off zones would be from Lower Randolph, so the traffic would not evening be visable. Of course, that still drew traffic complaints. So far the concept has loads of potential with lots of intergrated public spaces that flow into the shape of the building. The musuem will include construction of a brand new Grant Park field house.

The architects will be having a presentation in mid-June. Sparks will fly on that evening, so bring some popcorn if you attend.

ardecila

May 30, 2007, 5:38 AM

Krueck + Sexton are masters of glass, I'm sure they can pull this off very well.

honte

May 30, 2007, 7:10 AM

alex1

May 30, 2007, 12:25 PM

while i think that NYMBYism is a healthy reaction (public discourse of a neighborhood should be debated), I don't think a neighborhood that opposes an adjoining public space is of their concern. Especially when that space is the city's "front-lawn".

What the LSE crowd doesn't understand is that Grant park is a public space with the sole purpose of bringing people in for cultural, relaxation and other activities. Anything to improve on those things is a great thing IMO.

the collection of museums on our lakefront have been successful in bringing people downtown to enjoy Chicago's lakefront and amenities. While the plan should be debated from an architectural standpoint (and how it is implemented), I don't think that voicing concerns for it not being at a Grant Park location are valid.

trvlr70

May 30, 2007, 1:29 PM

What I find annoying is the sense of entitlement some folks have in regards to Grant Park. As if it is a private space given for their use only? Give me a break!

dvidler

May 30, 2007, 2:09 PM

Do you remember what else was said in the meeting in regards to other projects? I saw the email and it stated discussion on reforestation of Grant Park and Columbus Drive rehab. Can you give us more details on this?

SamInTheLoop

May 30, 2007, 2:29 PM

I went to that this evening, and holy hell was there tension in that room. I can understand comments about not putting a larger structure in Grant Park to replace Daley Bi. Plaza, which is a base for discussion. But all through the presentation it was people interrupting to irrationally bitch, and then bitch some more when it came to public comments, and then bitch even more at people with supportive comments. The main complaints were "This is our community park, and its too crowded." "Too much new construction" "Lake Shore East has negitively affected our quaility of life." "I want a quiet place to raise my kids without thousands of other screaming kids." "Too much traffic"

I HATE THESE FUCKTARD ASSHOLES! These complainers all act as if "The New Eastside" is some gated subdivison in Naperville. I swear I heard "we want our quiet bedroom community and our neighborhood park" at least 50 times this evening. I reminded all of them that thier community was originally APPROVED to be twice as dense, so they should not be complaining.

There were a few supportive people with awesome comments to fire back at all the complainers.

We saw a few renderings of the concept design. It is by the same architects as Spertis, and took a few design cues from the facade of faceted glass. The building would replace Daley Bi. Plaza and would be built into the hillside. Two stories would be exposed above grade, with two floors below carved into the existing parking garage. All drop off zones would be from Lower Randolph, so the traffic would not evening be visable. Of course, that still drew traffic complaints. So far the concept has loads of potential with lots of intergrated public spaces that flow into the shape of the building. The musuem will include construction of a brand new Grant Park field house.

The architects will be having a presentation in mid-June. Sparks will fly on that evening, so bring some popcorn if you attend.

Shawn - I really must have missed something in the evolution of the new Children's Museum plan - I had thought the location was moved from Daley Bi to the NE corner of Monroe and Columbus??? Did I just imagine that??

Chicago3rd

May 30, 2007, 2:40 PM

spyguy

May 30, 2007, 4:18 PM

Put the Museum somewhere where it really can make a positive impact, like over the Metra tracks in Grant Park.

How much would that cost?

BVictor1

May 30, 2007, 5:22 PM

My opinion hasn't changed: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Daley Bi is beautiful as it is, especially the planning and very subtle integration of fieldhouse and park / plaza. The interiors could be updated and made perfectly wonderful.

Put the Museum somewhere where it really can make a positive impact, like over the Metra tracks in Grant Park.

The fieldhouse is a piece of shit. It leaks like the pecker of an old man with a swollen prostate.

Daily Bi Plaza itself is beautiful, but it's about to be ripped out anyway for the rebuilding of the parking garage which lies below it.

Putting it over the Metra track in the park is just adding another building to the park which is always frowned upon.

The current idea is to replace an existing structure with an updated and expanded structure which will also remove several hundered parking spaces. This is rebuilding and expanding the current fieldhouse with no cost to the taxpayers.

Shawn - I really must have missed something in the evolution of the new Children's Museum plan - I had thought the location was moved from Daley Bi to the NE corner of Monroe and Columbus??? Did I just imagine that??

You didn't imagine that.

It's been changed again back to its originally proposed location.

Chicago3rd

May 30, 2007, 5:43 PM

The current idea is to replace an existing structure with an updated and expanded structure which will also remove several hundered parking spaces. This is rebuilding and expanding the current fieldhouse with no cost to the taxpayers.

You didn't imagine that.

It's been changed again back to its originally proposed location.

Will there be a lose of open space with the new building? Sounds like there will be no loss...that the building is for the most part going to be built into the hill?

BVictor1

May 30, 2007, 8:55 PM

Will there be a lose of open space with the new building? Sounds like there will be no loss...that the building is for the most part going to be built into the hill?

The ice ring directly to the south of the fieldhouse will be removed. They are looking at how and where that can be replaced. The CM would also have a green roof, but other than that, I don't believe any significant amount of open space will be affected.

honte

May 30, 2007, 9:18 PM

The fieldhouse is a piece of shit. It leaks like the pecker of an old man with a swollen prostate.

Sorry, I just don't buy that argument. Same one I heard for tearing down 63rd and Halsted for the new KKC / demolishing the old one (which is very nice, and yes, I've taken classes there)... "It leaks, we have to tear it down." Sorry to say it, but all buildings leak some time. The city probably has never done any maintenance. Such a sad, typically-American mentality: disposable architecture.

Sorry to hear they will be ruining Daley Bi anyway. Of course, there's nothing except bureaucracy preventing them from replacing it when they're done. Again, these are preprogrammed responses hoping that the average joe won't question what's going on.

The free fieldhouse thing is an obvious carrot with little sense behind it. They make it sound like they're being sooo generous. Rather, it's what they should do as new neighbors who will be relying on the park's beauty to better their establishment. And I do not see what's the difference between building anew, or just contributing money toward rehabbing the existing fieldhouse.

Spyguy, I do not know how much it would cost to build over the tracks, obviously. I'm sure your question is rhetorical. I think if one were smart about it, it wouldn't be too much more than screwing around with the parking lot and below-grade building, etc. But really, it's a huge public benefit to cover the tracks / connect Grant Park - I would support TIF or whatever other funds were being considered to make that happen.

If you guys don't mind, let me ask a question: Why are you so gung-ho about this proposal? BVic, you sound like you're working for the developer. ;) Are you sure this is the ideal place for this thing? Presumably, K+S would still get the job, no matter where the building goes, so I'm not worried about a loss of good design. Are you just annoyed because my opinion happens to coincide with some of the NIMBY jerks?

BVictor1

May 31, 2007, 4:38 AM

Sorry, I just don't buy that argument. Same one I heard for tearing down 63rd and Halsted for the new KKC / demolishing the old one (which is very nice, and yes, I've taken classes there)... "It leaks, we have to tear it down." Sorry to say it, but all buildings leak some time. The city probably has never done any maintenance. Such a sad, typically-American mentality: disposable architecture.

Sorry to hear they will be ruining Daley Bi anyway. Of course, there's nothing except bureaucracy preventing them from replacing it when they're done. Again, these are preprogrammed responses hoping that the average joe won't question what's going on.

The free fieldhouse thing is an obvious carrot with little sense behind it. They make it sound like they're being sooo generous. Rather, it's what they should do as new neighbors who will be relying on the park's beauty to better their establishment. And I do not see what's the difference between building anew, or just contributing money toward rehabbing the existing fieldhouse.

Spyguy, I do not know how much it would cost to build over the tracks, obviously. I'm sure your question is rhetorical. I think if one were smart about it, it wouldn't be too much more than screwing around with the parking lot and below-grade building, etc. But really, it's a huge public benefit to cover the tracks / connect Grant Park - I would support TIF or whatever other funds were being considered to make that happen.

If you guys don't mind, let me ask a question: Why are you so gung-ho about this proposal? BVic, you sound like you're working for the developer. ;) Are you sure this is the ideal place for this thing? Presumably, K+S would still get the job, no matter where the building goes, so I'm not worried about a loss of good design. Are you just annoyed because my opinion happens to coincide with some of the NIMBY jerks?

What's nice or special about this fieldhouse? Throw some mildly tented glass and black mullions on something, and all of a sudden it's a modern beauty?! I don't think so. Not in this case.

I've never met the developers.

I think people are so "gune-ho" as you put it is because most of us are just sick and tired of residents trying to claim something that's "PUBLIC" as their own. It's everyones and they aren't the only ones who have a say. Their argument isn't about the architecture, it's about "800,000 kids infiltrating THEIR park", playing on THEIR CHILDREN'S" playground equipment. Their arguments are for selfish reasons, not for public benifit.

They said put it somewhere else so we don't have to deal with the kids. They were bitching that it would take away park land, but they certainly didn't have a problem saying "put it on the museum campus or another park" taking away from parkland somewhere else.

If this museum is to be build within a park, this is the most sensitive and centrally located place.

ardecila

May 31, 2007, 5:27 AM

I agree that this is the best spot within Grant Park to build the museum. It replaces an existing structure, and since it occupies a good number of parking spaces, it will reduce the traffic going into the Bicentennial garage. All traffic will use Lower Randolph anyway, keeping Upper Randolph delightfully sterile and devoid of traffic. It's the only 4-lane street in Chicago that I can jaywalk at any time of the day without worrying about oncoming cars.

If anything, the Metra tracks south of Adams ought to be covered and landscaped. Steely Dan made the point in another thread that Grant Park is too stiffly formal to be good for anything but photographs. We have the opportunity to add new land to the western segments of Grant Park and turn it into a park that people can enjoy. I was walking around in the South Loop a few months ago with some chicken for lunch, and to be quite honest, I had a hard time finding a nice bench in Grant Park to eat it on.

alex1

May 31, 2007, 6:14 AM

I agree that any new structure would probably be cost prohibitive to build above the tracks. but if it can be done, why not? it's a logical solution to a problem.

regarding the Daley Bicentennial placement debate, I really don't get it. Then again, there's plenty of dead space throughout Grant Park and the Daley bicentennial area is sort of "cute". Then again, a children's museum would be an upgrade to a building that isn't distinguished in many ways/forms.

or maybe a new Children's Museum is justification for the Ghery Bridge. It can become a bridge to "somewhere" vs. the bridge that takes you across the street only to have people migrate back to the park via sidewalk en masse.

Via Chicago

May 31, 2007, 1:09 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-thu_cbotmay31,0,4372608.story?coll=chi-business-hed
ICE opens new front in battle for CBOT
Offers for options rights sweetens bid

By Robert Manor, Tribune staff reporter: Bloomberg News contributed to this report
Published May 31, 2007

In an effort to outflank the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's bid for the Chicago Board of Trade, the IntercontinentalExchange Inc. has offered $665 million to settle a dispute between CBOT and the Chicago Board Options Exchange.

Although ICE already is offering substantially more money than the Merc to full CBOT shareholders, the Atlanta-based exchange on Wednesday offered $500,000 each to CBOT traders in exchange for their exercise rights to the options exchange. Half the money for the payments would come from ICE, half from the options exchange.

Chicago Board of Trade members spun off the options exchange in the 1970s, and full members retained the right to trade on the exchange without having to buy separate memberships. Traders also argue they have an ownership interest in the options exchange.

A long-simmering dispute over the right to that interest, now in the courts and before federal regulators, is complicating the option exchange's efforts to convert into a publicly held company, with CBOE claiming that the Merc's acquisition would nullify the rights. The dispute also casts uncertainty on the value of the rights for CBOT members.

On Wednesday, ICE and the options exchange said the offer would clear up those problems. If accepted by CBOT, it also could help sink Merc's efforts to merge with its longtime Chicago competitor, analysts said.

"With this offer on the table, Chicago Mercantile Exchange's offer is substantially inferior," said Nick Neubauer, a former CBOT chairman and current shareholder. "CME will have to do something to match it, otherwise IntercontinentalExchange has moved considerably farther to acquiring the Board of Trade."

"This puts IntercontinentalExchange in the catbird seat," said Larry Tabb, CEO of the Westborough, Mass.-based consultant Tabb Group. "It's a huge achievement. It's going to be more challenging for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange."

ICE has offered $11 billion for the CBOT Holdings Inc, compared with a $9.5 billion offer from the Merc. The CBOT's board of directors has endorsed the Merc's offer. But on Wednesday, the exchange was not rejecting ICE's proposal.

"The CBOT has read today's press release with interest, but we have not had any communication from ICE or CBOE on this announcement," said Maria Gemskie, a spokeswoman for the CBOT. "We look forward to seeing the details of this announcement in order to make a measured evaluation."

The offer comes at a critical time. ICE Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Sprecher is trying to convince CBOT shareholders to reject the offer from their Chicago rival. Shareholders of CBOT vote on the Merc proposal in July. ICE plans to meet today with CBOT members, who hold a vast block of shares in the exchange, to pitch its offer.

A solution to the dispute would free the CBOE to go public, said Jake Morowitz, a Board of Trade member for 33 years and head of Chicago-based USA Trading. CBOE, which trades options on individual equities, is planning a share sale and has filed with regulators to convert to a for-profit company.

"As long as it's in court, they can't go public," he said.

The offer by ICE and the CBOE gives several choices to CBOT traders in exchange for their financial interest in the options exchange. Traders simply could accept $500,000 in cash. Or they could accept $250,000 in cash and the right to $250,000 stock in the merged CBOT and ICE, or stock in the options exchange when it goes public.

The offer comes on top of a stock-for-stock offer by ICE that as of Wednesday valued CBOT at $211.17 a share. The Merc offer, in comparison, valued the CBOT stock at just $184.75 a share.

Neubauer and Morowitz said Sprecher was smart to try to resolve the exercise right issue.

"He listens and understands what the problems are," Morowitz said.

The Merc, meanwhile, sought to reassure CBOT traders.

"The Chicago Mercantile Exchange and CBOT are prepared to defend the value of CBOE trading rights to the benefit of CBOT members," said Allan Schoenberg, CME director of corporate communications.

Also on Wednesday, ICE reiterated that, if its offer is accepted, it would adopt the name of the Chicago Board of Trade, a brand known worldwide, would have headquarters in Chicago and move a substantial number of employees to the city.

One analyst said the extra money and resolution of the dispute would appeal to some CBOT traders. "It marginally strengthens ICE's argument specifically with the board of trade members," said Patrick O'Shaughnessy, equity analyst with Morningstar.

"I am not sure it strengthens ICE's case with the CBOT board of directors," he said.

Those directors say they favor the Merc merger because it presents less risk of integration, will cut costs and because the two exchanges already share back-office services.

Mark Wolfinger, a former options trader who closely follows the exchanges, said he believes traders will probably take the deal that pays the best.

"I think most people are motivated by money," Wolfinger said. "That doesn't make them selfish or mean."

"A half-million dollars is nothing to sneeze at," he said. ---------- rmanor@tribune.com

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

Tom In Chicago

May 31, 2007, 2:35 PM

I HATE THESE FUCKTARD ASSHOLES!

Shawn. . . that kind of out-burst will likely kill your political career before it gets started. . . seriously though, I have the same complaints. . . but you can't reason with them because they don't show up to these things to do anything but complain. . .

SamInTheLoop

May 31, 2007, 5:26 PM

What's nice or special about this fieldhouse? Throw some mildly tented glass and black mullions on something, and all of a sudden it's a modern beauty?! I don't think so. Not in this case.

I've never met the developers.

I think people are so "gune-ho" as you put it is because most of us are just sick and tired of residents trying to claim something that's "PUBLIC" as their own. It's everyones and they aren't the only ones who have a say. Their argument isn't about the architecture, it's about "800,000 kids infiltrating THEIR park", playing on THEIR CHILDREN'S" playground equipment. Their arguments are for selfish reasons, not for public benifit.

They said put it somewhere else so we don't have to deal with the kids. They were bitching that it would take away park land, but they certainly didn't have a problem saying "put it on the museum campus or another park" taking away from parkland somewhere else.

If this museum is to be build within a park, this is the most sensitive and centrally located place.

Yeah ^ these people are certifiable - acting like this corner of Grant Park is intended primarily for their use!! :hell: There is an article on the meeting the other night in Crains online today...one clown who runs some New Eastside website basically states that the area is becoming too developed, and the Children's Museum in this location would just encourage more development!! Oh, the horror!! What a jackass!! These morons need to be shut down asap!! I shutter to think what will happen when Magellan needs a residential unit boost at Lakeshore East.......the city needs to educate these Cretans, pronto!!

SamInTheLoop

May 31, 2007, 5:50 PM

I thought those Prairie Ave. Douchebags were quite safe in their position as the most congenitally insufferable NIMBYs in the city - these E. Randolph closet-exurbanites give them a run for their money....

Mr Roboto

May 31, 2007, 6:09 PM

^Yeah, its sickening to think that these people are trying to dictate discussions over public spaces, like they own it. And this coming from people who only moved in, what, 1-5 years ago? Last week? Where do they get the sense of entitlement? The PDNA is pretty tough to beat, but I think these guys take the title.

honte

May 31, 2007, 6:13 PM

What's nice or special about this fieldhouse? Throw some mildly tented glass and black mullions on something, and all of a sudden it's a modern beauty?! I don't think so. Not in this case.

I've never met the developers.

I think people are so "gune-ho" as you put it is because most of us are just sick and tired of residents trying to claim something that's "PUBLIC" as their own. It's everyones and they aren't the only ones who have a say. Their argument isn't about the architecture, it's about "800,000 kids infiltrating THEIR park", playing on THEIR CHILDREN'S" playground equipment. Their arguments are for selfish reasons, not for public benifit.

They said put it somewhere else so we don't have to deal with the kids. They were bitching that it would take away park land, but they certainly didn't have a problem saying "put it on the museum campus or another park" taking away from parkland somewhere else.

If this museum is to be build within a park, this is the most sensitive and centrally located place.

I agree 100% with the anti-NIMBY sentiment, but I don't think that's reason to jump behind this project simply to fight their idiocy. But I accept your explanation.

Concerning the architectural merit of the plaza and fieldhouse design, it's about the overall master planning and minimalist aesthetic, not about the materials or form of the building itself. If you take a moment to think about it, there are almost no formal, Modernist park designs in the city. Alas, minimalist architecture (which Chicago helped give to the world) is rarely appreciated here any longer.

In 30 years, people will be wondering how we destroyed so much of our Modernism, just like the Prairie architecture and Chicago School that most people now cherish.

spyguy

May 31, 2007, 8:44 PM

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/business/408150,311BIZ3.article

Builder eyes land near Midway Airport for condos

May 31, 2007
By David Roeder and Fran Spielman

A mostly open five-acre tract just a couple of blocks outside the walls of Midway Airport would become a construction site for 212 homes under a zoning request filed with the city of Chicago.

Developer Glenn Azuma heads a partnership that is asking permission to build condominiums in three- and four-story buildings. The property runs from 55th to 59th streets about two blocks west of Central Avenue, which marks Midway's western boundary.

Part of the property is former right-of-way of the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad. An active rail line of the Belt Railway Co. of Chicago runs along the site.

Azuma said the new homes will appeal to seniors who want to stay in the neighborhood but give up their single-family homes. He said the complex also would serve as a sound buffer between existing homes and the railroad.

Sound from the airport is often a more pressing concern, but Azuma and Ald. Michael Zalewski (23rd), who represents the area, said that shouldn't be a deterrent to new residents. The project is not under one of the airport's flight paths.

Zalewski said residents of the Garfield Ridge and Clearing areas have learned to manage Midway noise with the help of soundproofing and quieter aircraft. He said he will require adequate soundproofing in Azuma's development.

"I'm in favor of it as long as the city signs off on all the required permits," he said.

The plan call for 12 townhouses, with the rest grouped in condo buildings. The developer also is proposing 285 parking spaces, more than the one-per-unit rule that is standard.

Azuma has invested in shopping plazas and small-scale housing developments in the Chicago area.

His zoning application will be reviewed by the city's planning department, which can recommend approval to the city council.

wrab

May 31, 2007, 9:27 PM

^^^ You know that Chicago must be in the midst of one of her grand transformations when even the area around Midway is getting new development.

nomarandlee

May 31, 2007, 9:56 PM

I gotta go with Honte on this one. No so much because of deep reverance for the FieldHouse and Plaza which I find a somewhat overesimated by some but because I like the idea of covering the tracks or even putting it on the south end somewhere to draw people the sothern end of the park.

I am not too concerned with building another building in the park especially if they would cover some of the tracks. If someone can show me plans or renders or serious discussions of covering the tracks otherwise then show me. Putting one more well designed cultural building lining Michigan Ave. and covering the tracks would be a positive.

If the choice is between the current idea and the previous then its a bit more of a toss.

Chicago103

May 31, 2007, 10:33 PM

I HATE THESE FUCKTARD ASSHOLES! These complainers all act as if "The New Eastside" is some gated subdivison in Naperville. I swear I heard "we want our quiet bedroom community and our neighborhood park" at least 50 times this evening. I reminded all of them that thier community was originally APPROVED to be twice as dense, so they should not be complaining.

You told me about it, the part that astounds me the most was how there was this guy from 400 East Randolph talking about how he likes his "bedroom community". A BEDROOM COMMUNITY?! WTF?!?! This guy lives in the fucking LOOP! Thats still the largest residential building in the entire city I believe. I mean I would like to ask this guy "what is not a bedroom community to you?" A bedroom community is usually a suburb or city neighborhood that is primarily residential in character without significant commercial usage. A residential building does not count as a bedroom community, if it did then Marina City is a bedroom community, Presidential Towers, hell the Hancock from the 45th to 92nd floors is a bedroom community. If these people live in a bedroom community then who doesnt live in one? I suppose unless you are literally squatting in an office building it qualifies as a "bedroom community":shrug:

Oh and all this crap about Grant Park being their "community park" is also absurd, just because you live next to it doesnt make it "MINE" unless you are so entrenched into the exurban gated subdivision mentality to comprehend the notion that something right next to where you live is public land. I mean what next, I suppose I can say that the Magnificent Mile is "MY COMMUNITY SHOPPING DISTRICT", Oak Street Beach is "MY COMMUNITY BEACH!, the Signature lounge is "MY COMMUNITY PUB DAMNIT!"

Also this bullshit about people being hyper sensitive about people "being from the neighborhood" in order to attend these meeting and speak. People treat ward boundaries as if it is the fucking Berlin Wall or something, fuck that if I as a resident of the 42nd Ward as they are but live way out in the Hancock building would probably piss them off. Its as if these people are literally only concerned with their little corner of the universe consisting of a few square blocks and anyone like us that is concerned with something outside of our own little pods of existence no matter how public and visitied it is is viewed as the enemy, an elitest that has no business there. I am a resident of the city of Chicago, the downtown area and the 42nd Ward, it matters not if I dont have a condo facing Grant Park because it is a place that is visited by millions of city residents, suburbanities and tourists alike, this is about the interests of the entire city and not theirs. I give people who live out in the neighborhoods alot more leway but when you live downtown you must learn to give up some notions of private space and "community this and that", downtown is communal by its very nature if you dont understand that or like it then get the hell out and dont let the door hit your ass on the way out.

I suppose to some people the very notion of "residential space" whether it be single family homes or a highrise condo building is inherently supposed to be the same everywhere just like in Naperville, it must be a quiet place with privacy from outsiders and there must be plentifull parking and be easy to drive everywhere. There is no "urban residential" and "suburban residential" to them, its just "residential" which to us means auto-centric suburban style and a 50 story highrise is meant to be nothing but the suburban ideal on a vertical scale, you dont have to adapt to your environment at all in fact its the city that must adapt to your borg collective notions of existence.

simcityaustin

May 31, 2007, 11:10 PM

It was nice seeing the Chicago skyline during the NBC Nightly News. 340 OTP really livens things up, it's amazing. The skyline will be awesome in a couple years.

BorisMolotov

Jun 1, 2007, 1:31 AM

You told me about it, the part that astounds me the most was how there was this guy from 400 East Randolph talking about how he likes his "bedroom community". A BEDROOM COMMUNITY?! WTF?!?! This guy lives in the fucking LOOP! Thats still the largest residential building in the entire city I believe. I mean I would like to ask this guy "what is not a bedroom community to you?" A bedroom community is usually a suburb or city neighborhood that is primarily residential in character without significant commercial usage. A residential building does not count as a bedroom community, if it did then Marina City is a bedroom community, Presidential Towers, hell the Hancock from the 45th to 92nd floors is a bedroom community. If these people live in a bedroom community then who doesnt live in one? I suppose unless you are literally squatting in an office building it qualifies as a "bedroom community"

Oh and all this crap about Grant Park being their "community park" is also absurd, just because you live next to it doesnt make it "MINE" unless you are so entrenched into the exurban gated subdivision mentality to comprehend the notion that something right next to where you live is public land. I mean what next, I suppose I can say that the Magnificent Mile is "MY COMMUNITY SHOPPING DISTRICT", Oak Street Beach is "MY COMMUNITY BEACH!, the Signature lounge is "MY COMMUNITY PUB DAMNIT!"

Also this bullshit about people being hyper sensitive about people "being from the neighborhood" in order to attend these meeting and speak. People treat ward boundaries as if it is the fucking Berlin Wall or something, fuck that if I as a resident of the 42nd Ward as they are but live way out in the Hancock building would probably piss them off. Its as if these people are literally only concerned with their little corner of the universe consisting of a few square blocks and anyone like us that is concerned with something outside of our own little pods of existence no matter how public and visitied it is is viewed as the enemy, an elitest that has no business there. I am a resident of the city of Chicago, the downtown area and the 42nd Ward, it matters not if I dont have a condo facing Grant Park because it is a place that is visited by millions of city residents, suburbanities and tourists alike, this is about the interests of the entire city and not theirs. I give people who live out in the neighborhoods alot more leway but when you live downtown you must learn to give up some notions of private space and "community this and that", downtown is communal by its very nature if you dont understand that or like it then get the hell out and dont let the door hit your ass on the way out.

I suppose to some people the very notion of "residential space" whether it be single family homes or a highrise condo building is inherently supposed to be the same everywhere just like in Naperville, it must be a quiet place with privacy from outsiders and there must be plentifull parking and be easy to drive everywhere. There is no "urban residential" and "suburban residential" to them, its just "residential" which to us means auto-centric suburban style and a 50 story highrise is meant to be nothing but the suburban ideal on a vertical scale, you dont have to adapt to your environment at all in fact its the city that must adapt to your borg collective notions of existence.

I agree! Now at their next meeting, run and resay what you just said to their faces.

Alliance

Jun 1, 2007, 4:58 AM

^^^ You know that Chicago must be in the midst of one of her grand transformations when even the area around Midway is getting new development.

:haha:

bnk

Jun 1, 2007, 6:39 AM

And people wonder how transportation assets like airports get land locked. Very short sighted because I believe the city should be actively buying land around Midway as it becomes available for possible capacity increases 10 to 20 years from now.

I thought the same thing. I thought there was a long term plan to expand MDW to add additonal runnways. Perhaps these developers are looking for an overmarket bid for their developments.

Greed=ICE+COBT= We will give every member 500 K to sell your soal.:(

Eventually...Chicago

Jun 1, 2007, 1:02 PM

I've never started a thread or anything but i was wondering if this was possible...
It seems like i always hear about public meetings and hearings the day after they happen, is it possible to create a calendar type thread where people can post dates and times of upcoming public meetings so that way we can try to populate them with at least one or two ANT's (Anti-Nimby Team)?

I'll post this in the 12+ story thread to see if anyone has any ideas.

BorisMolotov

Jun 1, 2007, 4:34 PM

Anti-Nimby Teams... ANTs, consisting of
FANs ... Forumers Against NIMBYS (i thought of that myself)
I like it...

BVictor1

Jun 2, 2007, 3:06 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070603bridgeport1-story,1,615397.story?coll=chi-news-hed

TRIBUNE INVESTIGATION

Clout helped build flawed luxury homes
City missed defects in Bridgeport Village plans

By Laurie Cohen and Todd Lighty
Tribune staff reporters
Published June 3, 2007

Four years ago, a gusty wind raced through a luxury housing development near the Chicago River, tearing apart a two-story home in the later stages of construction.

The debris was quickly swept away, and the project—the largest development of single family homes in the city—went on to win awards and attract more than 100 buyers, some of whom paid more than $1 million for their homes.

But the 2003 collapse eventually led to the conclusion that the buildings had structural problems so severe that they needed to be supported by towering steel braces between the homes—an unprecedented engineering fix designed to prevent their wood frames from twisting in strong winds.

Many residents are wondering why the city allowed such flawed houses to be built in the first place and why the defects did not come to light sooner.

The answer, pieced together through interviews, court records and city documents obtained by the Tribune through the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, involves the familiar Chicago mix of political clout and lax oversight.

The homes are in Mayor Richard Daley's native Bridgeport neighborhood in the 11th Ward and their creation feature a cast of political heavy-hitters with close ties to the mayor. Daley himself took an unusual interest, at one point asking his aides for a list of those buying homes in the project, known as Bridgeport Village.

The project was monitored by an understaffed Buildings Department that paid little attention to single-family home construction, especially when it came to making sure a politically connected development complied with the building code.

When the city quietly approved the plan for 15-foot-high braces—without notifying homeowners—officials made it clear that the decision was aimed at shielding the mayor from embarrassment.

"We are concerned above all with the safety of all the citizens and … also to protect our mayor," John Agrela, then chairman of the Building Board of Appeals, said at an April 4, 2006, meeting. "I mean, we don't want anything to look bad in the eyes of the public that, you know, these things are done."

The Daley administration already had been hit by a series of building-related scandals, including the collapse of a Lincoln Park porch that killed 13 people and the hiring of a teenage building inspector whose father was a top union official. Since late last year, 10 city employees have been charged with taking bribes or lying in connection with building permits and inspections.

City officials said that the houses are in no danger of falling down and that the braces were designed for improbably high wind speeds. Officials said homeowners were not immediately notified of the need for braces because they are common elements of the development, which individual residents do not own.

Residents aren't satisfied with the way the city handled the project.

"The city missed everything that was going up," said Bridgeport Village resident J.B. Bruederle, a veterinarian. "They just dropped the ball."

Others worry that bad publicity could hurt the value of their homes.

But the publicity has come anyway. The development filed for bankruptcy in March, claiming it needed protection from creditors while it sells nearby industrial property so it can raise money to repair the homes. One of the partners, Thomas Snitzer, alleged in a federal lawsuit that the city forced him out as manager because he refused to give favors and kickbacks to 11th Ward operatives.

Clout at ground floor
Early on, the development appeared to be stalled.

The partners were no lightweights: John Kinsella, a longtime Daley supporter and former chief executive of the advertising agency Leo Burnett; Sidney Diamond, a novelty candymaker; and Snitzer, a real estate developer.

Still, they didn't have the City Hall access they needed. Ald. James Balcer (11th), whose blessing was required for the project to proceed, had refused for a year to even discuss it, according to Snitzer's suit.

Court documents now show that the project's dealings with the city began to click after Kinsella brought in as an adviser Timothy Degnan, an 11th Warder and former top aide to the mayor, to steer the project through official channels. Degnan's business associate, Thomas DiPiazza, was hired as a consultant, to be paid up to $1.3 million.

According to Snitzer's suit, Degnan, DiPiazza and Kinsella attended a 1999 meeting at City Hall to talk about plans for the project with Balcer, Daley and the mayor's brother John, the 11th Ward committeeman and Cook County commissioner.

At the meeting, the mayor pledged to have the official in charge of the sale of city-owned land expedite the project, the suit says.

Jodi Kawada, a spokeswoman for Daley, said the city had no record of the meeting, but added that "the mayor frequently attends planning meetings that cover a range of developments all over the city."

Kawada said the mayor did not ask that the sale of the land be expedited.

City records show that the mayor's office kept tabs on the project's progress. In May 2001, Sheila O'Grady, then Daley's chief of staff, asked the building commissioner for an update on the status of the development's permits.

Many of the proposed homes were as narrow as Chicago's squat brick bungalows—20 feet wide—but were taller and had wood frames. Their first floors had large windows and open floor plans.

Despite the updated design, the city did not make sure the architectural plans for the houses met structural engineering requirements, including the ability to endure winds without swaying. Unlike many suburban communities, Chicago does not typically do structural reviews for single-family homes. The city says it puts its resources elsewhere because homes have a relatively small risk of structural failure.Since 2004, city officials said, plans for big housing developments get structural reviews from outside architectural and engineering firms.

As building got under way, problems began cropping up. Inspectors placed stop-work orders on 70 homes that did not have building permits. But for reasons that are unclear, the city allowed the work to continue.

Homes sold rapidly, and the project was hailed as a symbol of rejuvenation for blue-collar Bridgeport. It attracted buyers from across the city, including doctors, lawyers, former Chicago Bear Chris Zorich and former Daley aide Victor Reyes.

But problems kept coming.

Storm damage
On May 11, 2003, a storm blew over one partially built house and caused another to shift on its foundation. Anthony Splendoria, a subcontractor who left the project in a dispute over payment to his Brickcraft masonry company, noticed the damage and hired a structural engineering firm to review plans for the homes.

Stuart K. Jacobson & Associates concluded that the design did not have enough rigid walls to withstand the wind.

"We thought it was a serious issue," Jacobson said in an interview. "We believed the buildings to be structurally deficient as shown on the drawings."

The engineers found that wind pressure could cause "racking," a gradual twisting of the frame that can cause cracks in the masonry and drywall and dislodge windows and doors, leading to chronic leaks. In extreme cases, the buildings might collapse.

After receiving the report, Splendoria and his brother Robert say they became concerned about the safety of the houses.

"The houses were safe as long as it was not too windy," Robert Splendoria said.

For the next two years, the Splendorias crusaded to get the developers to respond to Jacobson's report, but their efforts went nowhere.

Snitzer hired engineers who vouched for the structural soundness of the homes, and the project architect said changes in the field during construction had strengthened the walls.

After years of allowing construction to proceed despite code violations, City Hall finally brought work on the project to a halt in 2005. To make sure that all work really stopped, the mayor told his aides to post an inspector at the project all day and bill the developer, city records show.

The reasons for the city's long-delayed move are in dispute. City officials said they halted work and helped persuade a state court judge to remove Snitzer as manager because they were getting complaints from homeowners and Snitzer was not moving quickly enough to fix problems.

Snitzer, in his federal suit, claims the city cracked down after he refused DiPiazza's demands to pay him more money and to stop acquiring real estate that 11th Ward power brokers had intended for others.

But the city still hadn't figured out that there were structural problems.

On May 9, 2005, the Splendorias met with then Building Commissioner Stan Kaderbek, giving him the Jacobson report and photos of the wind-damaged homes. Kaderbek, a structural engineer, immediately called in consultants at Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates to review the plans for Bridgeport Village.

The consultants agreed with Jacobson that the homes did not meet code. The firm recommended in May 2005 that the homes be reinforced within a year.But Kaderbek did not mention structural stability when he met with Bridgeport Village homeowners to announce that the new management team, led by Kinsella, had signed an agreement with the city to fix all problems. Instead, he said there were "serviceability issues" with some of the houses that could be fixed with a "low cost, minimal impact solution," according to a copy of his statement.

Kaderbek, who is a defendant in Snitzer's suit, declined to comment, but his lawyer, Mark Rotert, said in an e-mail that Kaderbek "acted properly in all respects."

A quick fix
Ralph Schmidt, an engineer hired by the project at the city's direction, came up with a plan to fix the buildings: braces installed between the homes, anchored in concrete and attached by steel bars at the second floor. Schmidt has told homeowners that such braces have not been used before but are similar to stone buttresses used centuries ago.Even with the braces, the plan did not meet the building code. It had to go before the Building Board of Appeals, a little-known agency that reviews requests to build in ways that don't comply with city law. At the meeting in April 2006, the main spokesman for the project was lawyer Jack George, whose partner at the firm of Daley & George is the mayor's brother Michael.

Approval was never in doubt, with Balcer and a handful of other city officials on hand to give support. The residents, who by that time had occupied 93 homes, were not told of the need for the braces until three weeks later.

Kinsella has since acknowledged that the braces are the cheapest solution and the only one he would pay for. So far only a handful have been installed.

Kinsella refers to the braces as "gates" because they are designed with ornamental gates at the bottom.In meetings with residents, Kinsella has acknowledged water leaks in many homes but said they were caused by construction flaws relating to windows and roofs and not by structural defects.

As part of the deal that allowed construction to continue, the developers had agreed to get certificates of occupancy for each home to show it met code. Usually such certificates are not required for single family homes in Chicago.

But Jose and Sandra Ruiz, who live in Bridgeport Village, were sold a larger home there in March 2006 even though it had no certificate of occupancy.

They have not moved in because of a series of problems: buckled floors, leaky windows and doors, an unconnected sewer line and a wood frame that was not attached to the concrete foundation. They blame the city for not alerting them to structural flaws.

"When we make an investment in something like this, we rely on the city to protect us," Jose Ruiz said.

lcohen@tribune.com

tlighty@tribune.com

ginsan2

Jun 2, 2007, 7:08 PM

:previous:
Ugh. I know it's that way here in many of the newer homes, especially the pre-fab ones. One has to wonder why someone would have a home built and then not have it examined periodically along the way.

spyguy

Jun 2, 2007, 7:31 PM

Civil War landmark on 35th St. will house Catholic Archdiocese

By Patrick Butler

Over nearly a century and a half, the landmark building at 739 W. 35th St. has been a Civil War hospital, a home for disabled veterans, an orphanage, and a treatment center for special needs children. By the end of 2008, it and the complex of buildings adjoining it will start yet another life as the main offices for the Chicago Roman Catholic Archdiocese, once the City Council changes the buildings' zoning from residential to business use.

Archdiocesan spokesman James Accursio said he knows of no opposition to the plan and expects prompt approval.

According to Accursio, the move to the “Old Soldiers' Home,” as it has been known since long before the last veteran moved out, is part of a plan to consolidate several Archdiocesan offices. About 150 church employees will move to the refurbished buildings in the complex once the zoning change becomes official.

Another 250 workers will move to the recently shuttered Quigley Preparatory Seminary building at 103 W. Chestnut St. in August 2008, Accursio
added.
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/2120/newsst16au9.gif
Full article (http://www.nearwestgazette.com/Archive/0607/Newsstory060716.htm)

------

De La Salle to acquire, save Pickford Theater

By Lisa R. Jenkins

An ordinance recently introduced to the Chicago City Council by Mayor Richard M. Daley means the historic Pickford Theater, located at 3445-59 S. Michigan Ave. and 100-114 E. 35th St., will be saved. With City Council approval this City-owned land now can be sold to De La Salle Institute to create a new academic building and auditorium.

The school plans to combine its existing parking lot with the new property to permit construction of a four-story, 100,000-square-foot facility that will contain classrooms, laboratories, and school offices.

The Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois (LPCI) considered the Pickford one of the ten most endangered historic places in Illinois. De La Salle plans to use the theater’s original shell and its interior terra cotta in constructing the new building.
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/2620/newsst1ke7.jpg
Full article (http://www.nearwestgazette.com/Archive/0607/Newsstory060702.htm)

BVictor1

Jun 3, 2007, 1:25 AM

That image isn't even of the Pickford Theatre

Chicago103

Jun 5, 2007, 1:05 AM

Maybe I am missing something but isnt the civil war hospital that old building across from Douglas' Tomb, which would put it at 739 EAST 35th St and not west? 739 west would be in Bridgeport near 35th and Halsted.

honte

Jun 5, 2007, 2:24 AM

^ Correct.

nomarandlee

Jun 6, 2007, 9:56 AM

http://www.suntimes.com/business/415374,CST-FIN-steel06.article

Developers seek OK for South Works housing, retail
ZONING | 530 lakefront acres is largest open tract in the city

June 6, 2007
BY DAVID ROEDER AND FRAN SPIELMAN droeder@suntimes.com/fspielman@suntimes.com

In the most detailed plan yet submitted for the largest open tract in Chicago, developers have proposed more than 17,000 housing units on the site of the old U.S. Steel Corp. South Works plant on the lakefront.

A zoning application for the roughly 530-acre property that runs from 79th to about 91st Streets also allows for retail buildings, a public high school, park land and an extension of Lake Shore Drive.

But the lead developer, Daniel McCaffery, president of Chicago-based McCaffery Interests, said the application is just the first formal volley in long-term negotiations with the city that will shape the project over the next 30 years.

"There is a sense with everybody that this is somewhat malleable," McCaffery said.

Market forces will decide the speed of the construction, and other uses could come up later. McCaffery said one example is that a large institution, such as a university, could speak up for part of the property. A research park is another possibility.

Sources said the University of Chicago is interested in a South Works satellite campus, but McCaffery declined to comment on specific prospects. He also said no one has approached him about incorporating a casino or an Olympics-related use in connection with the city's bid for the 2016 Summer Games.

"None of that has even been modestly suggested," McCaffery said.

He controls most of the site through a partnership that includes U.S. Steel, the Lubert-Adler investment funds and Westrum Development.

The same partnership is working to close a purchase of 118 acres on the site's southern part that was owned by Solo Cup Co. Solo canceled plans for a new plant on the property.

McCaffery said that despite the long-term nature of the project, Chicagoans will see progress at the site soon. He said construction should start this fall on the extension of Lake Shore Drive into the site, and some retail buildings could be under way by next year.

He said talks haven't begun with the city over a taxpayer subsidy. The site has been certified as environmentally safe, but it contains numerous foundations and is mostly slag, meaning that tons of soil must be brought in for landscaping.

The zoning application triggers a Planning Department review and hearings that lead to a vote in the City Council.

alex1

Jun 6, 2007, 10:54 AM

http://www.suntimes.com/business/415374,CST-FIN-steel06.article

[SIZE="4"]
developers have proposed more than 17,000 housing units on the site of the old U.S. Steel Corp. South Works plant on the lakefront.

if there's about 2 people per household, we're looking at about 34k people in a piece of land tht's about 5/6 of a square mile, or over 41k folks per square mile extropolated (very respectable).

many suburbs take about 10 sq. miles of land to achieve this population.

This can be a prime example of reusing brownfields to relieve develpment pressures from open lands.

nomarandlee

Jun 6, 2007, 1:21 PM

I agree. From this article and the first rough diagrams of layout plan so far my fears have been mitigated about worst case scenarios such as a burb in a city. The basic layout, good density, mix of urban and green space seems well planned. I have a very preliminary optimism about the road it is taking so far.

sentinel

Jun 6, 2007, 1:42 PM

Agreed. Are there any good renderings of the PUD yet? Has anything been posted already?

Busy Bee

Jun 6, 2007, 2:28 PM

17,000! Wow, that is a very welcome number, I honestly was expecting something an amount well under 10,000 with a butt load of open underutilized "open space" built in. I vote to round up to 20,000.

About the average household size, I think with 17,000 units you could potentially see a build out population of >50,000!

honte

Jun 6, 2007, 5:15 PM

Great news about South Works. I just love that 'hood.

In other news, the Humboldt Park Receptory and Stable Building, 3015 W. Division Street, will be granted Preliminary Landmark Status tomorrow.

Marcu

Jun 6, 2007, 5:16 PM

I am very excited about this project but ss the extension of LSD really necessary with 90 and 94 about 5 and 10 minutes away? And what will Hyde Park NIMBYs have to say about that?

Overal it's great to see the far south-side getting so much new development. It's projects like this that make us all truly doubt those census population numbers.

honte

Jun 6, 2007, 5:23 PM

^ I am guessing he means extension of highway 41, not LSD. After all, LSD as a divided highway stops far further north, and I don't think there's any plan to extend it down to the South Works.

VivaLFuego

Jun 6, 2007, 8:01 PM

^ I am guessing he means extension of highway 41, not LSD. After all, LSD as a divided highway stops far further north, and I don't think there's any plan to extend it down to the South Works.

Yep, extension of South Shore drive (US 41), not LSD, from 79th st down to the bridge at 92nd. Check an aerial photo and you can see some of it has been started with the widening of Harbor Ave and Avenue O. Still, I hope they do it right, because such a large high-speed 4-lane road would be murder to any hope of pedestrian traffic if they dont incorporate friendly crossings and streetscaping.

honte

Jun 6, 2007, 8:06 PM

^ Would it make any sense to split it into two roads, one northbound and one southbound? They do this in Denver (not intentionally, but due to lack of space/planning), and it seems to work much better.

ardecila

Jun 7, 2007, 12:59 AM

Well, splitting up high-traffic roads can be bad, too, if done improperly.

Kunstler in one of his books mentions a commercial street in Miami Beach that withered because most of its business came from commuters driving home from work in the evening. Splitting the traffic meant that most of the evening commuters ended up on the next street over and didn't see or think about stopping at those businesses.

South Works should have no such problem, since it's being built from the ground-up.

spyguy

Jun 7, 2007, 3:20 AM

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=3099&TM=82911.7

St. Boniface dodges the wrecking ball again

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER

The future of the shuttered St. Boniface Church in West Town still remains uncertain, but a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Chicago says it won't be turned into senior housing as earlier planned.

Spokesman James Accurso said this week that the Archdiocese has decided not to lease the property at 1358 W. Chestnut to Smithfield Properties, who he proposed putting in senior housing.

Smithfield could not be reached for comment.

The Romanesque Revival-style church was closed in 1990, and has slowly eroded for lack of upkeep.

Accurso gave little more information on the topic, but the Archdiocese revealed to a former parishioner of the 105-year-old church last month that it was ready to move on a deal with the developer by June 1.

East Village resident Richard Maskoff, the former parishioner who lives three blocks away from church, said he contacted the Archdiocese for fear that the building would be demolished to make way for condominiums.

The letter he received in response states: "Part of the negotiations [with the developer] entailed keeping at least the façade of the church and the towers, which are neighborhood landmarks." But many questions are still unanswered in the development project.

Maskoff, 69, said he remembers singing in the church choir as a child and attending Mass with his parents, but more than anything he said he wants to see the architecture preserved.

"If they would keep the entire building and make it condos, then I would say, 'OK, at least the building is safe, but the fact that they want to tear down most of the building-that upsets me," Maskoff said.

The letter signed by Archbishop Francis Cardinal George says a number of Eastern Catholic churches have approached the Archdiocese with plans to reuse the church, adding that, "none had the sufficient funds to repair the building."

A group of Coptic Orthodox Christians, however, has expressed interest in rehabbing the building and using it as a church, but the group says its offer has been largely ignored by the Archdiocese.

Nefrette Halim, a Coptic Christian who attends church in the north suburbs, says she first heard about the church in mid-2005 from Jonathan Fine, president of Preservation Chicago. She said the church would help support the Copt's growing congregation, which is largely located in the suburbs.

Halim said the Copts have not made a formal proposal to purchase or lease the land, but she and members of her church have inquired about fixing the building. Last August, Halim and other members of the Coptic Church toured the building with representatives of the Archdiocese.

But Halim says their offer to restore the building was ignored.

She estimates that the building could be restored for $5 million.

"I feel that from a construction point of view this is a great building to pursue," she said. "I think the location of the building is perfect for a community building."

Halim, a developer with Wilmette Real Estate, said her company has specialized in the rehabilitation of historic buildings, but she noted that it would be unlikely that her firm would be involved in the rehab of St. Boniface if the Archdiocese decided to sell to the Coptics.

The Archdiocese did not respond to questions concerning the Copt's offer, but in the letter to Maskoff it stated, that it is "too late to begin negotiations with them."

Michael Moran, vice president of Preservation Chicago, said the city considered taking the church through the power of eminent domain in 1999, when plans first surfaced to demolish the building.

"It would be ideal if buildings could retain their historically recognized use, but we realize that's not always possible," Moran said. "Because it fronts on a park, St. Boniface Church has a commanding presence that is seen by anyone that passes through the neighborhood. It can still enhance the future neighborhood if it becomes something other than a church."

Twenty-seventh Ward Alderman Walter Burnett said he was unaware of the pending plan to develop the church into senior housing but noted that converting the building into residential housing would require a zoning change.

"They are going to have to talk to the community," he said.

spyguy

Jun 7, 2007, 3:23 AM

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=3089&TM=82911.7

Children's Museum has some worried
Park would get new field house, but some residents are concerned about congestion

By HAYLEY GRAHAM

Some neighbors living near Grant Park say the relocation of the Chicago Children's Museum from Navy Pier to the park will bring congestion and pollution to the busy downtown area. But others argue that the new museum would enhance the park and facilitate construction of a new field house.

Bob O'Neill, president of the Grant Park Conservancy, brought the proposal to last week's Grant Park Advisory Council meeting, giving neighbors a chance to ask questions and voice their opinions. The proposal calls for the 100,000-square-foot museum to be built on the site of Daley Bicentennial Plaza, located at 337 E. Randolph. The building also would double as a field house that would be twice the size of the existing building. The new building would have two levels above ground and two below.

O'Neill said he believes he can win over opponents with a little tweaking to the proposal. At the meeting an aide to the new 42nd Ward Alderman Brendan Reilly said that unless local residents embrace the new proposal, "he will not endorse the plan."

The museum expects about 800,000 visitors annually, which neighbors of the park are worried will add congestion and increased traffic to the area. But O'Neill said that since the traffic will be routed below Randolph, it should not be much of an issue, adding that many visitors will walk or take public transportation.

The plan calls for the building to take the place of the current 30-year-old field house and adds a new $15 million field house. O'Neill said the current condition of the field house is terrible and has been in need of a revamp for years.

"When it rains the roof leaks; I've had complaints from parents who had birthday parties with water dripping down on their birthday cakes," O'Neill said.

If the Children's Museum moves to Grant Park, it will create revenue for neighborhood parks, O'Neill said. And the $15 million that it would take to replace the current field house could go toward building one in a neighborhood that would not otherwise have the opportunity, he said.

"The Children's Museum will help contribute to what we have a duty to support," O'Neill said. "It's Grant Park doing its part for neighborhood parks."

However, O'Neill said he is concerned with replacing the number of trees that would have to be removed from the current rooftop garden of Bicentennial Plaza.

"My concern is that in no way do we loose any trees, but what we're asking is that they that they buy several trees to put in Grant Park," he said.

Even though the new plan includes a rooftop garden, it will not compare to the trees with a 10- to 12-inch-trunks that would be removed, O'Neill said.

Nearby resident Paula Upshaw is in favor of moving the Children's Museum to Grant Park, but still believes there are a few concerns that need to be addressed.

"I think there are a few things that need to be worked out," she said.

Upshaw's biggest issue with the plan is the possibility of added pollution from an increased number of school buses in the area. She, like other residents in the area, worry that the added exhaust fumes from idling school buses could be a problem. However, Upshaw said this could be solved simply by finding a place for them to park while waiting for the children.

Even though Upshaw has a few concerns with the plan, she thinks many of the complaints from her neighbors are absurd and come from a "not in my back yard" mentality.

"My feeling is that when you buy in the city it's lovely to have a park across the street, but you can't consider it your community neighborhood park," Upshaw said.

Mary Zavett, who lives at Michigan and Van Buren, said she cannot understand why some residents are so adamantly against having the Children's Museum in Grant Park.

"I have grandchildren in the city, and I think it would be wonderful not to have [the museum] tied up with the commercialism of Navy Pier," Zavett said. "In the long run I think it will be excellent."

O'Neill said there is incredible potential with Millennium Park, a world class field house and the Children's Museum all within a few blocks of each other. And there is going to be a kindergarten through eighth grade school built in the Lake Shore East Park, which is also just one block away, he said.

"The ability for all of those institutions to work together for children's education is amazing," O'Neill said. "There is nowhere in the world where that can be rivaled."

The Children's Museum is not currently commenting on the plan, but issued a statement saying that it is currently in the process of completing the conceptual design of the new museum and will have a series of community meetings within the next few months.