[DHamp]

^^ I don't want to destroy old stuff in good condition for it; just fill in vacant lots and crumbling buildings with good urban infill with progressive architecture like that.

[honte]

Yeah, given that there is a great building on that corner, and since Cottage Grove is essentially a giant vacant lot, I cannot get very excited about this project.

Directly to the west of that site, there was a large Sullivan commercial building. Now, it is the world's most hideous one-story state facility. I'd love to see that thing replaced.

[headcase]

While not really development, I thought someone might find this interesting ...

Building on Brach Candy factory site to be imploded for "The Dark Knight" (http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/2007/08/scooper-says-four-story-building-will.html)


Here is the biggest information of all. Mark Aug. 29, 2007 down on your calendars. They will implode a four-story building on the former Brach Candy factory site.

I have been told this will be a day shoot. A typical building implosion does not have any flames. This will be different.

They will load the building with large amounts of gasoline and other flammable material for a huge explosion and ultimate implosion of the building.

This explosion/implosion will then be added to a CGI building for the film.


There is some more information about filming TDK and Wanted in the link. The building is located a 401 N Cicero, unfortunately I won't be able to make it out, but hopefully someone will.


EDIT : I found more recent info. (http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/)


The new date is Thursday, Aug. 30. It is scheduled to happen between 10:30 a.m. and noon.

This will be two buildings. The larger building is to be filled with flammable liquids and the second smaller, four-story building will be imploded.

[the urban politician]

Yeah, given that there is a great building on that corner, and since Cottage Grove is essentially a giant vacant lot, I cannot get very excited about this project.

Directly to the west of that site, there was a large Sullivan commercial building. Now, it is the world's most hideous one-story state facility. I'd love to see that thing replaced.

^ Yeah, BVictor mentioned that a long time ago.

However, this project is much bigger than that one building. If memory serves me, it will fill up a whole square block (which means a lot of vacant lots will be filled in). Take the good with the bad, I guess

[Mr Downtown]

Just saw a few low rise 1920 era low rises being demolished at 16th and Wabash today for a BS type highrise


16th and Wabash? What was still there from the 1920s? The Firestone store?

Or do you mean the Paramount Film Exchange in the 1300 block? The terra-cotta arch is being saved and will become part of Columbia's new film production center.

[DHamp]

^ Yeah, BVictor mentioned that a long time ago.

However, this project is much bigger than that one building. If memory serves me, it will fill up a whole square block (which means a lot of vacant lots will be filled in). Take the good with the bad, I guess

Aside from Hyde Park, NIMBY/preservationist groups don't seem well-organized... not yet anyway. For those who want to see progressive architecture and other ambitious developments in Chicago neighborhoods and not just downtown and nearby, this is the chance. There are a lot of south side gems that I would hate to lose, but then there's a lot of garbage that needs to be replaced. In a perfect world, the garbage would be in jeopardy first, but we all know that doesn't happen. I would love to see newer multi-story towers, lofts and town homes coexisting with existing pre-war buildings -- just fill in the gaps.

[VivaLFuego]

^47th and Cottage,
Yes the project is for the entire square block, which is great, so I'm ok losing the decent corner building for some excellent (5-story tall) density and redevelopment on that block. A few other non-descript and bombed out buildings would also come down, and I think 3 or 4 greystones would remain on the block and are not part of the project.
EDIT: siteplan: http://skilken.com/pdfs/CHIC.pdf

^Brachs explosion
The Cicero Green Line platform should be an excellent spot to view this from.

[the urban politician]

^47th and Cottage,
Yes the project is for the entire square block, which is great, so I'm ok losing the decent corner building for some excellent (5-story tall) density and redevelopment on that block. A few other non-descript and bombed out buildings would also come down, and I think 3 or 4 greystones would remain on the block and are not part of the project.
EDIT: siteplan: http://skilken.com/pdfs/CHIC.pdf


^ Not to get picky, but one of my biggest gripes about these retail centers with rear parking is when they also provide rear entrances to the retail space.

It really aggravates me, because it's nothing short of an inverted strip mall. People simply drive into the parking lot, walk into the store, get back into their car, and leave without ever stepping foot onto the sidewalk.

To sometimes makes matters worse, store owners even close 1 entrance (usually the sidewalk one) so that pedestrians actually have to walk around to the back of the building to get into the store--not good for the streetscape. IMO, it's not enough to 'maintain the streetwall' as a formality; we must also encourage sidewalk activity. If you look at the PDF, there are sidewalks behind the store. What ever happened to alleys being the ugly afterthought whose sole purpose was storage and delivery?

The city needs to step up and do something about this, perhaps making it illegal to have public entrances in the backs of buildings. It's a really bad precedent

[ardecila]

^ Not to get picky, but one of my biggest gripes about these retail centers with rear parking is when they also provide rear entrances to the retail space.

It really aggravates me, because it's nothing short of an inverted strip mall. People simply drive into the parking lot, walk into the store, get back into their car, and leave without ever stepping foot onto the sidewalk.

To sometimes makes matters worse, store owners even close 1 entrance (usually the sidewalk one) so that pedestrians actually have to walk around to the back of the building to get into the store--not good for the streetscape. IMO, it's not enough to 'maintain the streetwall' as a formality; we must also encourage sidewalk activity. If you look at the PDF, there are sidewalks behind the store. What ever happened to alleys being the ugly afterthought whose sole purpose was storage and delivery?

The city needs to step up and do something about this, perhaps making it illegal to have public entrances in the backs of buildings. It's a really bad precedent

Here I strongly disagree with you. Parking is gonna come whether you want it or not. The ONLY question is, parking lot in back, or in front? The choice is easy for me.

Also, try telling someone who just parked their car, in the middle of a snowstorm, or late at night, that they need to walk around the building through some dank little corridor to get to the front. It's not pleasant, it's not safe, and it will only discourage commercial activity and development.

[DHamp]

The parking behind shops doesn't bother me so much, It might be difficult to attract the amount of business they want without SOME parking. I don't like the parking behind the town homes so much. I appreciate that they are going to keep those older homes on the Evans side of the block. I wish the town homes had similar lot depth as those older homes and if anything, garages instead of parking lots. With the underground parking and street parking, it seems to me that there should be plenty of parking and no need for a sea of asphalt in the interior of the block.

[Marcu]

^

The city needs to step up and do something about this, perhaps making it illegal to have public entrances in the backs of buildings. It's a really bad precedent

I think the last thing we need at this point is additional regulation on new commercial buildings on the south side of Chicago. In the future when things pick up a little? Maybe. But at this point we should be thankful to get any new retail we can in that area. It may not be the best idea in the world from strictly an urban planning stand point, but most residents of the south side have been underserved by retail for over 50 years and we don't want to discourage development.

[the urban politician]

^ While I agree, I think you guys are sort of missing my point.

I don't have a problem with rear parking, and in theory I don't even mind a REAR entrance to shops (bear with me here). What I MIND, however, is when the store owner CLOSES the sidewalk entrance and forces pedestrians/bus riders, etc to walk around back and use the rear entrance. It kills the sidewalk, and it's basically a strip mall in disguise.

Also, try telling someone who just parked their car, in the middle of a snowstorm, or late at night, that they need to walk around the building through some dank little corridor to get to the front. It's not pleasant, it's not safe, and it will only discourage commercial activity and development.

^ On the same token, is it fair to ask a pedestrian in "the middle of a snowstorm, late at night" to walk around back to get to the entrance? I can easily flip that argument around, you see. It's just a matter of who you want to roll your red carpet out to--drivers or pedestrians.

In my experience in some parts of Queens and NYC suburbs (where the same model of parking behind new stores applies), one can clearly see that shop owners prefer to use 1 entrance--the parking one. And the shop turns its back on the sidewalk.

Take an extreme example--the Aldi which is part of Uptown's Wilson Yard development. To make the community happy, renderings showed a nice sidewalk entrance. But the actual store? THe pedestrian gets the shaft--no sidewalk entrance, just an entrance to the rear parking lot. Broadway gets a brick wall.

[the urban politician]

Deception (happy pedestrians entering Aldi's, at right):

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/3021/obwy01ts9.jpg


Painful reality (stupid flowers and an impenetrable brick fortress. Thanks for caring):

http://wibiti.com/images/hpmain/979/188979.jpg

[nomarandlee]

Point made, that is mighty ugly. I am guessing that the idea if not having two entrances is for security issues. One more exit to watch who potential shop lifters or to have to have a security guards look into at night etc. Maybe there would be a way to make an entrance only at least at the front though to make it more appealing at the street. Or at least what they could have done is not set up some glass panels instead of brick to face the street which still isn't great from an access point of view but aesthetically would have looked a hell of a lot better.

Putting a whole stop on back lot parking though in retail poor areas though is not a good idea on principle especially since I do find it much more pleasant then front lot parking even if it is a a bit phony and not ideal.

[the urban politician]

Point made, that is mighty ugly. I am guessing that the idea if not having two entrances is for security issues. One more exit to watch who potential shop lifters or to have to have a security guards look into at night etc. Maybe there would be a way to make an entrance only at least at the front though to make it more appealing at the street. Or at least what they could have done is not set up some glass panels instead of brick to face the street which still isn't great from an access point of view but aesthetically would have looked a hell of a lot better.

^ Yeah, I can dig 1 entrance. But the one entrance should be the sidewalk entrance, not the parking entrance. It's ridiculous that the city allows preference for the driver instead of the pedestrian, especially in pedestrian-heavy areas. If I lived in that neighborhood and saw that go up, I would be royally pissed.

Putting a whole stop on back lot parking though in retail poor areas though is not a good idea on principle especially since I do find it much more pleasant then front lot parking even if it is a a bit phony and not ideal.

^ That's not at all my point. I am not criticizing rear parking. Please reread my prevous few posts

[honte]

Hmm TUP, that Aldi gives me pause. I agree with you. It should be absolutely illegal not to have a working entrance from the sidewalk. I haven't been by there, but are you sure the Aldi is finished? It sounds horrible not to have a sidewalk entry.

In the few developments of this nature that I have been to lately (that ugly Pointe 2100 or whatever it is on State / Archer comes to mind), the stores definitely were accepting pedestrians and people from the rear entrances. I've never seen a store with a locked door on the sidewalk before.

[Mr Downtown]

This is a frequent topic on new urbanism listservs (and has been for more than a decade). Optimistic designers put in a sidewalk door, merchant promptly locks it and puts up a sign saying "use rear entrance." There was a huge stink in Atlanta over a new in-town Galvin's that had promised a sidewalk entrance and kept it open about two weeks. We don't have many examples of rear-parking shops in Chicago, but I'd be interested in hearing of any such shops that also have a functional sidewalk door. None of the shops in (Treasure Island) Market Square on Clybourn do.

About the only compromise I've seen to work is having parking on the side, so the store can have a single door only a couple steps off the sidewalk. Lots of new Walgreens do it this way. If the stores are shallow enough, you can possibly convince rear parkers to return through a wide, well-lighted and sheltered driveway to the sidewalk entrance of the shops.

[honte]

We don't have many examples of rear-parking shops in Chicago, but I'd be interested in hearing of any such shops that also have a functional sidewalk door.

I just listed one. :shrug: It's at State / Archer, and has about 10 storefronts: Two restaurants, a coffee house, marketing place, etc. They all have working sidewalk doors and rear doors. Granted, some are not occupied yet, but so far it's 100% success.

Also, consider North / Clybourn area. Most of those stores would also fit your criteria: Crate and Barrel, CostPlus World Market, etc, all have street and parking entrances that function. Same with that ugly "North Avenue Collection," which is a vertical mall with a huge parking garage, but all of the stores on North Avenue have working storefronts.

As I said, except for areas with very low pedestrian activity such as Elston, I really cannot think of any place in Chicago that has seen this phenomenon.

[Mr Downtown]

Restaurants and coffee shops and mortgage offices are sort of special cases because they don't have merchandise in the traditional sense. Some of the Chinatown Square restaurants have back doors from Archer that let customers sneak in past the restrooms and busboy area.

North Avenue Collection, Trader Joe's on Clybourn, etc., generally have the model of funneling parkers to the sidewalk or a side entrance that serves both peds and parkers. Do any of them actually maintain two doors? World Market is the only one I can think of. Crate & Barrel is a side-parking model, with merely a sidewalk from Clybourn that lets peds access the single entrance from the parking lot.

Another special case is big boxes and supermarkets that have a line of cashiers at the front end. The paid area can--and often does--stretch between two doors. Target at Clark/Roosevelt is a good example.

[VivaLFuego]

^ Not to get picky, but one of my biggest gripes about these retail centers with rear parking is when they also provide rear entrances to the retail space.

It really aggravates me, because it's nothing short of an inverted strip mall. People simply drive into the parking lot, walk into the store, get back into their car, and leave without ever stepping foot onto the sidewalk.

To sometimes makes matters worse, store owners even close 1 entrance (usually the sidewalk one) so that pedestrians actually have to walk around to the back of the building to get into the store--not good for the streetscape. IMO, it's not enough to 'maintain the streetwall' as a formality; we must also encourage sidewalk activity. If you look at the PDF, there are sidewalks behind the store. What ever happened to alleys being the ugly afterthought whose sole purpose was storage and delivery?

The city needs to step up and do something about this, perhaps making it illegal to have public entrances in the backs of buildings. It's a really bad precedent

I'm generally ok with it, because by keeping the parking in back and basically building up to the lot lines in front you make it much more inviting for pedestrian activity, a huge improvement from strip malls. The strongest argument against the rear parking for me is that there's already a laughably large cornicopia of free street parking for several blocks in every direction, so other than garages for the townhomes I don't see the need to provide any parking for the retail.

[the urban politician]

Restaurants and coffee shops and mortgage offices are sort of special cases because they don't have merchandise in the traditional sense. Some of the Chinatown Square restaurants have back doors from Archer that let customers sneak in past the restrooms and busboy area.

North Avenue Collection, Trader Joe's on Clybourn, etc., generally have the model of funneling parkers to the sidewalk or a side entrance that serves both peds and parkers. Do any of them actually maintain two doors? World Market is the only one I can think of. Crate & Barrel is a side-parking model, with merely a sidewalk from Clybourn that lets peds access the single entrance from the parking lot.

Another special case is big boxes and supermarkets that have a line of cashiers at the front end. The paid area can--and often does--stretch between two doors. Target at Clark/Roosevelt is a good example.

^ This is a particular issue that I would hope to see more neigborhood groups vocal about. I would hope that pressure from organized locals would encourage storeowners into keeping sidewalk entrances open; especially in more pedestrian-heavy ares. If NIMBY's are going to be so vocal, perhaps it can go to some use besides blocking development on every corner

[the urban politician]

I'm generally ok with it, because by keeping the parking in back and basically building up to the lot lines in front you make it much more inviting for pedestrian activity, a huge improvement from strip malls. The strongest argument against the rear parking for me is that there's already a laughably large cornicopia of free street parking for several blocks in every direction, so other than garages for the townhomes I don't see the need to provide any parking for the retail.

Once again, I noticed several forumers have completely missed my point. Please reread my post

[VivaLFuego]

^If that's the finished product, that Aldi's is an absolute disgrace.

[the urban politician]

^ Right, but my point is the exclusive use of rear parking entrances (and closing sidewalk entrances) that often occurs in the situation where rear parking behind a retail center is created.

We're all sort of trying to figure out if this will be a problem in Chicago. My particular concern is not only newer developments in Bronzeville/Kenwood, which are particularly desperate for retail activity, but with The Emerald development along Halsted. With the creation of that retail complex along Halsted (with rear parking as well as a drive thru bank), I"m giving it a few weeks/months before the store-owners post signs along the sidewalk that say "use rear entrance".

[ardecila]

^ Right, but my point is the exclusive use of rear parking entrances (and closing sidewalk entrances) that often occurs in the situation where rear parking behind a retail center is created.

We're all sort of trying to figure out if this will be a problem in Chicago. My particular concern is not only newer developments in Bronzeville/Kenwood, which are particularly desperate for retail activity, but with The Emerald development along Halsted. With the creation of that retail complex along Halsted (with rear parking as well as a drive thru bank), I"m giving it a few weeks/months before the store-owners post signs along the sidewalk that say "use rear entrance".

No way. Halsted gets way too much pedestrian traffic already for them to close the sidewalk entrance (unless it's on Green?) what with all the Greektown restaurants and shops. Also, WLCO and the Greektown Merchants' Associations are in play there.

As for the Uptown Aldi issue.. that IS a disgrace, I agree. Once the Target is completed, and the construction activity has died down, Aldi may refit for a pedestrian entrance.

[wrabbit]

.....North Avenue Collection, Trader Joe's on Clybourn, etc., generally have the model of funneling parkers to the sidewalk or a side entrance that serves both peds and parkers. Do any of them actually maintain two doors.....

The Trader Joe's is on the 2nd floor w/parking on that floor (accessed from the rear) and a separate sidewalk pedestrian entrance to the stairwell. First floor is miscellaneous retail with sidewalk entrances and basement parking accessible from the rear (elevator/stairs to first floor). So, yeah, two doors.

Border's/SurLa Table/etc funnels drivers from the garage to the sidewalk. Same with the Bannana Republic/California Pizza/Etc. complex on North.

CompUSA had separate garage/sidewalk entrances.

[Mr Downtown]

Hmmm. My memory is that there is only one door into the Trader Joe's. If you're on the sidewalk, you have to take the elevator or stairs up into the parking garage, and then enter the single doorway of the store.

So this is a variation of the "side parking" scheme, in which one door is located to serve both peds and parkers.

[VivaLFuego]

Do we count the Circuit City at North/Kingsbury? There is a sidewalk entrance, and an entrance from the parking garage in back.

[honte]

The list is pretty endless. Why don't we start counting times we've actually come across a locked entrance, with a sign that reads, "Please use back door off the parking lot." I'm not the world's power shopper, but I've never seen such a thing.

[the urban politician]

The list is pretty endless. Why don't we start counting times we've actually come across a locked entrance, with a sign that reads, "Please use back door off the parking lot." I'm not the world's power shopper, but I've never seen such a thing.

^ For what it's worth, I've seen it twice in Chicagoland:

1) A video store on the northwest side. I want to say Armitage but the exact location eludes my memory

2) In Oak Park, near the L station.

[wrabbit]

Hmmm. My memory is that there is only one door into the Trader Joe's. If you're on the sidewalk, you have to take the elevator or stairs up into the parking garage, and then enter the single doorway of the store.....

And what I said: "The Trader Joe's is on the 2nd floor w/parking on that floor (accessed from the rear) and a separate sidewalk pedestrian entrance to the stairwell"

So, we are in agreement as to Trader Joe's.

[Mr Downtown]

Except for the part where you said
Yeah, two doors.

Pointe 1900, Archer at State:

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5269/pointe1900doorgd9.jpg

[the urban politician]

^ And it begins. This is a mistake in urban planning, plain and simple. The rear parking entrances have GOTTA go--shopowners will clearly always choose them, so why give them a choice?

Mr D, you're a somewhat prominent south looper. How about bringing this issue up with the community? I can understand this being moderately tolerable in the neighborhoods, but downtown? Unacceptable.

[wrabbit]

Except for the part where you said
Quote:
Yeah, two doors.

And what I said: The Trader Joe's is on the 2nd floor w/parking on that floor (accessed from the rear) and a separate sidewalk pedestrian entrance to the stairwell. First floor is miscellaneous retail with sidewalk entrances and basement parking accessible from the rear (elevator/stairs to first floor). So, yeah, two doors.

First floor retail. Crate & Barrel outlet etal. Not 2nd-floor TJ's. First Floor. Street-level stuff.

I assume you know the appropriate way to attribute a quote when it is part of a larger sentence - you know, those little parens you surround an upper-case letter with, the ones that indicate that it was not originally the first word in a sentence? Or that the word So indicates dependence on the full clause precedent?

You like trees. I like forests. So be it. But you are cutting down trees in my forest!

[Mr Downtown]

How about bringing this issue up with the community? I can understand this being moderately tolerable in the neighborhoods, but downtown? Unacceptable.

Sure. I'll go down Tuesday to the Bureau of Things That Annoy Urban Designers and fill out a form 5122. Sorry I can't get it done sooner.

Seriously: where is the leverage? Pointe 1900 is an as-of-right project that's "downtown" only to suburbanites. How does anyone demand that the developer--who probably put in the retail grudgingly to begin with--now put a rider in the leases that all tenants have to maintain two entrances? The "convenient customer parking" is probably the main reason the tenants chose Pointe 1900 to begin with.

[wrabbit]

.....The rear parking entrances have GOTTA go--shopowners will clearly always choose them, so why give them a choice?.....

Agreed 100%. Well, 90% ;)

[Mr Downtown]

[Y]ou are cutting down trees in my forest!

Oh, I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK. . . But I don't know what your point is. My point is that none of the stores in that Clybourn development has two entrances. The parking has two entrances, but none of the stores do.

For the pedestrian, walking through the garage to get to the Trader Joe's is not much different from walking through the parking lot to get to the one on Lincoln at Grace. Neither entrance is directly from sidewalk into store, the way the one on Ontario at Wabash is.

[honte]

Except for the part where you said


Pointe 1900, Archer at State:

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5269/pointe1900doorgd9.jpg

Well, that sucks. I didn't notice this. To be fair, I do know with certainty that the two restaurants and coffee house admit patrons from the street side (not sure if they use both entrances - I know the coffee house does). But I am still annoyed.

In any case, I'd rather have a locked door than a parking lot screwing up the street wall and pedestrian experience altogether.

[the urban politician]

Sure. I'll go down Tuesday to the Bureau of Things That Annoy Urban Designers and fill out a form 5122. Sorry I can't get it done sooner.

Seriously: where is the leverage? Pointe 1900 is an as-of-right project that's "downtown" only to suburbanites. How does anyone demand that the developer--who probably put in the retail grudgingly to begin with--now put a rider in the leases that all tenants have to maintain two entrances? The "convenient customer parking" is probably the main reason the tenants chose Pointe 1900 to begin with.

^ I would actually walk right into the store and say "why have you closed the sidewalk entrance? That's pretty inconvenient for us who live here and choose to walk here, to have to walk all the way around back just to get inside."

I didn't say you should call Fioretti and get an ordinance passed. But if you were to bring it up with neighbors (bring it to their attention), they would actually acknowledge this as a 'bad' thing. You see, right now, most Americans (often including even city dwellers, unfortunately) are used to a culture that inconveniences and endangers a pedestrian for the sake of a driver--and they likely would not think anything unusual of it. What's wrong with members of a community asking shopowners who are supposed to serve them, to actually do so in a respectful, safe, and convenient manner? Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't really cost them anything to open up their sidewalk entrances.

In my opinion, not having to walk around to backs of buildings & compete with cars to get to stores is just as much a quality of life issue in the creation of a desirable neighborhood as shadows, and building heights, etc etc, and it's worth tackling.

[the urban politician]

In any case, I'd rather have a locked door than a parking lot screwing up the street wall and pedestrian experience altogether.

^ I would argue that a locked door scews up the pedestrian experience even more than a conventional front parking strip mall.

Front parking strip mall:
Pedestrian has to walk through a parking lot to get to a single entrance that is shared between him and people who arrive by car. The strip mall at least FACES the street, and doesn't turn its back on it.

Inverted strip mall with closed-sidewalk entrances:
The development turns its back on the street and insults the pedestrian in 2 ways: 1) You see a locked door, so you can't even walk in through the front--what a loser you are! 2) You have to walk all the way AROUND the building, as well as through the parking lot, just to get to the entrance. Therefore, you are walking even more than you would to get into the entrance in a traditional front-parking stip mall. Whew!
Finally, you preserve the aesthetics of a streetwall but you lose all functionality, convenience, pedestrian safety, etc etc all of the things that make cities DESIRABLE places to live.

[DHamp]

^Yeah that's pretty damn unacceptable. The only positive I can see is that the day there there is the kind of critical mass and hence street activity that would mandate the street entrance be re-opened, it's right there -- just unlock it a take the sign down. Unfortunately, the near south starting at Roosevelt or perhaps a bit north is too auto centric for most of our tastes.

Even though this Shops at 47 thing has it's downfalls, I think there is greater risk in scaring developers off from this and other south side neighborhoods that need the investment. Just let them build it and we can fight over the entrances later if it comes to that.

[harryc]

The list is pretty endless. Why don't we start counting times we've actually come across a locked entrance, with a sign that reads, "Please use back door off the parking lot." I'm not the world's power shopper, but I've never seen such a thing.

Dearborn Michigan, Michigan ave.

It was like an episode of the twilight zone, I was staying at a place on Michigan
ave ( consulting for Ford ). and went out after dinner to buy some smokes ( it
was over a decade ago ). I couldn't find any store open, until I looked through a
lit window, around the ads, and saw shoppers inside. There were no passageways
between the stores so I had to walk around the entire block to come upon the parking lot.
From there all the stores were open and brightly lit.

[ginsan2]

Dearborn Michigan, Michigan ave.

It was like an episode of the twilight zone, I was staying at a place on Michigan
ave ( consulting for Ford ). and went out after dinner to buy some smokes ( it
was over a decade ago ). I couldn't find any store open, until I looked through a
lit window, around the ads, and saw shoppers inside. There were no passageways
between the stores so I had to walk around the entire block to come upon the parking lot.
From there all the stores were open and brightly lit.

It's still that way.

[honte]

^ I would argue that a locked door scews up the pedestrian experience even more than a conventional front parking strip mall.

Front parking strip mall:
Pedestrian has to walk through a parking lot to get to a single entrance that is shared between him and people who arrive by car. The strip mall at least FACES the street, and doesn't turn its back on it.

Inverted strip mall with closed-sidewalk entrances:
The development turns its back on the street and insults the pedestrian in 2 ways: 1) You see a locked door, so you can't even walk in through the front--what a loser you are! 2) You have to walk all the way AROUND the building, as well as through the parking lot, just to get to the entrance. Therefore, you are walking even more than you would to get into the entrance in a traditional front-parking stip mall. Whew!
Finally, you preserve the aesthetics of a streetwall but you lose all functionality, convenience, pedestrian safety, etc etc all of the things that make cities DESIRABLE places to live.

I see your point, but the strip mall does irreparable damage to the visual experience of the block. You basically have to tear it down and start over to make it a good neighbor. As DHamp said, this locked door "damage" can be undone pretty quickly. I might also add, you have to walk almost as far to get into the strip mall as entering from the rear of the building.

In any case, I believe this is the stupid marketing company in Pointe 1900 that is being pictured. It's not the kind of place you just pop into regularly on your walk around the neighborhood. If it were, they certainly would have the sidewalk door functioning.

The simple way to fix this problem is for the city to pass a new fire code that requires an unlocked main entry from the front of any occupied storefront, for ease of access by firefighters. It also would make sense because almost any patron would head from the "front door" in the event of a fire.

[honte]

Here is some great news! It's remarkable that all of these buildings are still standing, considering how Lincoln Park is being pulverized by McMansions everywhere you look.

_______________

City landmarks Bissell flats
LINCOLN PARK | Row of 20 buildings get nod for 'symmetry'

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/530621,CST-NWS-landmark28.article

August 28, 2007
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

A classic collection of three-, six- and nine-flat buildings that line the 2100-block of North Bissell were designated Monday as a Chicago landmark district. ...

[wrabbit]

Here is some great news! It's remarkable that all of these buildings are still standing, considering how Lincoln Park is being pulverized by McMansions everywhere you look.

_______________

City landmarks Bissell flats
LINCOLN PARK | Row of 20 buildings get nod for 'symmetry'

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/530621,CST-NWS-landmark28.article

August 28, 2007
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

A classic collection of three-, six- and nine-flat buildings that line the 2100-block of North Bissell were designated Monday as a Chicago landmark district. ...

The above-mentioned block, from today 8/29:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/L1010487.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/L1010479.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/L1010481.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/L1010476.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/L1010477.jpg

[the urban politician]

Thrilled to build
Amanda MaurerPrint
Editor-in-Chief
This summer, Columbia has taken one step closer toward the construction of the Media Production Center.

In May, college officials chose Jeanne Gang, of the Chicago firm Studio Gang Architects, to design the Media Production Center, and they hope to begin the design process soon. The college plans to construct the Media Production Center at 1632 S. State St. to fulfill the college’s need for additional professional space and studios.
http://www.columbiachronicle.com/paper/campus.php?id=3983

[honte]

Wrabbit, thanks for the photos. I wish we could get photos of every endangered or saved building that we discuss in these pages, but of course we're all very busy and time doesn't permit. It would be nice one day to have a good team of people across the city who want to contribute to a thread (maybe not this one), creating a chronicle of preservation wins and losses.

For those not familiar with this block, as it says in the article, it's roughly mirrored on both sides. This creates a rather formal and very classy feeling as you walk along the street there.

[Nowhereman1280]

Thrilled to build
Amanda MaurerPrint
Editor-in-Chief
This summer, Columbia has taken one step closer toward the construction of the Media Production Center.

In May, college officials chose Jeanne Gang, of the Chicago firm Studio Gang Architects, to design the Media Production Center, and they hope to begin the design process soon. The college plans to construct the Media Production Center at 1632 S. State St. to fulfill the college’s need for additional professional space and studios.
http://www.columbiachronicle.com/paper/campus.php?id=3983

Nice, I can't wait to see what Studio Gang cooks up when given the relatively liberal aesthetic freedom of a institutional/ semi-public building on an arts campus...

[spyguy]

Not sure if an image of the Regenstein expansion has been shown here, but if not...
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/9690/regenstein2nq6.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

^ WOW to Regenstein....I'm not sure what I was expecting, but it wasn't that. I assume this shot is looking south on Ellis from 56th street. So the expansion is all underground?

[nomarandlee]

That Regenstein addition looks f'n awesome. Love it.

[honte]

Holy sh*t! Jahn strikes gold with that Reg addition! A nearly perfect concept for an addition to one of my all-time favorite buildings.

Despite confidence in Jahn, I was really afraid they might screw that up! What an awesome thing to see.

It really is good times in Chicago. Exciting things to look forward to all over the damn place.

[Mr Downtown]

What puzzles me is why the university put up the Legorreta dorm complex (Palevsky Residences) on the north side of the block, the logical place for library expansion. At the time, I decided they must have studied the matter and concluded that new technology meant that library expansion would not be needed for many, many years. So why now do an expensive--and risky--underground addition?

[sentinel]

What puzzles me is why the university put up the Legorreta dorm complex (Palevsky Residences) on the north side of the block, the logical place for library expansion. At the time, I decided they must have studied the matter and concluded that new technology meant that library expansion would not be needed for many, many years. So why now do an expensive--and risky--underground addition?

Why "risky"? Are you speaking in terms of the design or the location?
Sometimes quite frankly, logic has nothing to do when working with a client - and this comes from firsthand experience. I've worked with U of C on one of their most recent building additions to the campus and many of the decisions during the whole process, from design development all the way into completing construction would hardly be considered "logical" or even pragmatic for that matter. Even if an insititution as large and advanced as the University of Chicago has a long-term master plan for how the future of the campus will look, sometimes a broad, over-extended vision has to be brought down into reality by whatever reason reality forces upon it. At the time, perhaps it was thought that the location of the Palevsky dorms was the ideal site because they are centered pretty closely to everything else at the University. But 5-10 years later, like you said, Regenstein has to expand, the campus as a whole is expanding more south on the Plaisance (the new Williams/Tsien Center for the Arts, the new School for Public Policy, and the new dorms south of the Midway), so things change, and if you're REALLY smart (as I assume some of the higher-ups at U of C are) then you deal with it and be creative at the same time.
I think that the Jahn addition to the Regenstein is pretty brilliant because it does exactly what people such as yourself assume it shouldn't: creating an addition that doesn't fit visually or conceptually with it's main component. And that is a VERY good thing, because "same" = stagnation; this addition won't allow that.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-relig_monasteryaug31,1,5858378.story

New life for Hyde Park monastery?
Building could be home to diverse group of young theologians

By Manya A. Brachear
August 31, 2007

For a dozen years, Roman Catholic friars prayed inside the ordinary red-brick building on a shady Hyde Park corner and prepared to devote their lives to the church. For decades before that, a young Mormon congregation gathered there to study Scripture and worship.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-navy_31aug31,1,7805640.story

Group floats plan to save historic Navy building

By Lisa Black
August 31, 2007

At least one of two architecturally significant buildings at Naval Station Great Lakes in North Chicago could be saved from demolition now that preservationists have intervened and proposed that it be adapted for use as a public museum.

[BWChicago]

What puzzles me is why the university put up the Legorreta dorm complex (Palevsky Residences) on the north side of the block, the logical place for library expansion. At the time, I decided they must have studied the matter and concluded that new technology meant that library expansion would not be needed for many, many years. So why now do an expensive--and risky--underground addition?

The Regenstein was always designed for expansion to the west. Netsch even included blueprints for the expansion, originally projected for about 1995, which I wish the University had chosen to use and maintain the building's architectural integrity.

http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0508/chicagojournal/library.shtml

[Mr Downtown]

Why "risky"?
Because it puts books underground.

it does exactly what people such as yourself assume it shouldn't
Ummm, how do you know what I assume? And where can I learn more about "people such as" myself?

[honte]

The Regenstein was always designed for expansion to the west. Netsch even included blueprints for the expansion, originally projected for about 1995, which I wish the University had chosen to use and maintain the building's architectural integrity.

http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0508/chicagojournal/library.shtml

That's very interesting... I didn't know he had gone as far as producing plans for it.

However, if they are not going to do Netsch's version, this is about as unintrusive as it gets. (And I have serious reservations as to whether they could actually execute the addition in a manner that would live up to the original and make a nearly seamless work of architecture.)

[sentinel]

Because it puts books underground.


Ummm, how do you know what I assume? And where can I learn more about "people such as" myself?

The Regenstein perhaps?

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?article_id=28365

Art colony
Landmark factories in Pilsen would house artists, architects, dancers and more — but not all are applauding
By Alby Gallun

Phil Mumford owns a piece of Chicago's industrial heritage: a turn-of-the-century brick building in East Pilsen where Wendnagel & Co. made the rooftop water tanks that once dominated the city's skyline.

[honte]

^ I think the idea of a "creative industries district" is a great concept, but I agree that it's going to really punish a lot of other areas in the city that presently have a lot of creative tenants. Artists are usually the pioneers in rough areas, and luring them to an area that isn't really on the fringe any longer will take them out of the "food chain."

And I am curious what the city is actually going to do for creative people, beyond obviously marketing this area and giving some subsidies to the building owners. Is there going to be a permanent standard that this is an area where people work at all hours, make some noise, engage in displays of creativity, etc? Even a gesture such as implementing large loading zones for people to get materials out of vehicles would be a great start. Or, is it just going to be another area where people feel misunderstood and pestered as they go about their craft?

Furthermore, I think the city is really missing the point here. There are plenty of cheap spaces in Chicago to rent as a creative person. (Perhaps the hardest thing to find is music rehearsal space.) Rather, from my experience, the major obstacle for most entrepreneurs and artists is finding live/work space. If there is no provision for live/work units in the development, I can't see it being much different than what's currently out there.

One last comment: The pattern of nearly always giving subsidies to recently landmarked buildings is a real threat to the whole process of landmarking in the city. It seems to imply, or even confirm, the complaint that landmarking of buildings creates major hardship for the property owners. In turn, it sets up the condition that this "hardship" must somehow be rectified by the city in exchange for the landmarking (when, in reality, there are substantial tax breaks and other incentives already on the table). It scares me that this precedent is becoming so engrained in the process of the city - it's not sustainable indefinitely, and it universally favors big-money, large-building developers over smaller commercial buildings and homeowners.

[nomarandlee]

Didn't read the article (not a subscriber) but is this the area they are talking about called the Cermak Road Bridge District (at least from what I can tell from the Landmarks Preservation Council)? If so any attempts to make that a real neighborhood with all those awesome buildings would be amazing. Those industrial buildings are so great and would make such an amazing neighborhood if there were substantial activity around those buildings.

Some of the buildings (via Landmarks Preservation Illinois)

http://www.landmarks.org/chicago_watch_2005_1.htm
http://www.landmarks.org/images/watch/bridge_slides_3.jpg

http://www.landmarks.org/images/cermak_pop_slide_5.jpg

http://www.landmarks.org/images/watch/bridge_slides_6.jpg

http://www.landmarks.org/images/watch/bridge_slides_5.jpg

That is some great stock right there.

[BWChicago]

That's very interesting... I didn't know he had gone as far as producing plans for it.

However, if they are not going to do Netsch's version, this is about as unintrusive as it gets. (And I have serious reservations as to whether they could actually execute the addition in a manner that would live up to the original and make a nearly seamless work of architecture.)

It's obviously all moot now, but I would imagine that if the limestone quarry that was used for the rest of the building is still open it should be possible to match the facades closely. The Jahn addition concerns me somewhat. While the glassiness of it is an interesting counterpoint, I feel like it lessens the impact of Regenstein. I like the play on the gothic in emphasizing the light of it where Reg emphasizes the cragginess, and what's presumably a well-lit reading room is a good touch, but I have to wonder whether it will provide as much square footage as the Netsch plan would have. How much longer until another addition is needed, and what then?

[honte]

^ Your last point is a good one; one rarely considered these days. I don't know, but I'd suspect that planning for future growth might have been the driving force in constructing so much below grade. Jahn's visible part might be the next thing to go, with more space added in a manner similar to what you describe? I have a feeling I'll become very attached to it, so that might become a lesser-of-two-evils situation.

Didn't read the article (not a subscriber) but is this the area they are talking about called the Cermak Road Bridge District (at least from what I can tell from the Landmarks Preservation Council)?

Yes.

[the urban politician]

From SSC:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?article_id=28372

Reschke primed for malls again
By H. Lee Murphy

Prime Group — a holding company that lost control of Baltimore-based Prime Retail in 2003 — is pushing ahead on plans to build a 425,000-square-foot shopping center at 39th and State streets on the South Side. Construction on the $225-million project, which includes nearly 150 condo units, is likely to start in spring.

^ If this project occurs in its entirety, I"m guessing this will be the spark needed to finally kickstart a development boom in that part of the city. That's really exciting, right amigos?

[honte]

^ Yes indeed, that's pretty great.

I am a little confused about the project there, since there are two possible sites. Is this the incredible SOM design we saw earlier, or some version of it? Knowing Reschke and seeing the price tag / program, I'd say no. The involvement of Capri makes me a bit confused.

[the urban politician]

^ I was wondering that myself. You're thinking about the Metropolis Development. Capri has been mentioned as being involved in that project, but not Reschke, or so I thought, until I found this excerpt from a David Roeder article in February:

PRIME TIME PRIMO: As chairman of Capri Capital Partners LLC, Quintin Primo III is more accustomed to funding others' real estate dreams than his own. But Primo hopes to increase his profile as a builder here with his plan for a residential and commercial complex at 39th and State, which I wrote about last week in the Sun-Times.

His project in that neglected part of the city is both noble and sagacious. He's trying to invest $155 million in a neighborhood turnaround. His game plan is to sell 102 condominiums and make his property the major center for South Side retail between Roosevelt Road and 87th Street.

His project is far more expensive than it has to be because it has a striking design, underground parking, a fountain and other features that all drive up the cost. Primo acknowledged that during an event that served as the project's kickoff, and he repeatedly warned of challenges in completing the deal. He seemed unnerved by the buildup and the expectations, perhaps knowing that the time to deliver is approaching.

The event included acknowledgments for his architects at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, Primo's co-investor Hugh Williams, development consultant Michael Reschke, leasing representative CB Richard Ellis Group Inc. and, above all, Ald. Dorothy Tillman (3rd). The proceedings took place in the Harold Washington Cultural Center, 4701 S. King, which, as the Lakefront Outlook newspaper has ably detailed, is a tax-subsidized, money-losing, Tillman-family operation.

Primo said Tillman insisted on the fountain. For now, he's obviously willing to pay the "aldermanic tax" that sometimes applies to development. But Primo has many other mouths to feed on this deal. No wonder he warned that while he wants independent, black- owned businesses to move in, he can't cut them a break on rents.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20070221/ai_n18626347

^ Seems like the same cast of characters & same location, so this has to be the same project.

[honte]

Great, even better news now. Thanks, TUP, for refreshing my memory.

If this thing turns out to be anything as beautiful as the renders show, I will promptly alter my shopping patterns to frequent it.

[Busy Bee]

Just a reminder of what the SOM designed Metropolis project is supposed to look like:

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/1830/50862862ys9.jpg

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/previous.gif
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/worship.gif

[HowardL]

I'd forgotten all about that. Very Manchester. I quite like it.

[BVictor1]

For anyone whose interested...

Join us next Tuesday as we will share community updates and much more!

Date: Tuesday, September 11 (not the usual Wednesday)
Time: 7:00 pm
Place: University Center, 525 South State

On the agenda....

2nd Ward Alderman Bob Fioretti will join South Loop Neighbors to discuss his experiences while serving as the newly elected Alderman.

Come and join the conversation with Alderman Fioretti and representatives from the Board of Directors of SLN to discuss issues important to the South Loop Community. A Q&A will follow the discussion.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/550924,CST-FIN-hege11.article

Major residential project proposed for Hegewisch
REAL ESTATE | Retail also slated for city's only trailer park

September 11, 2007
BY DAVID ROEDER AND FRAN SPIELMAN droeder@suntimes.com/fspielman@suntimes.com

The owner of Chicago's only trailer park wants to turn it into a community of up to 960 permanent homes, supplemented by new stores and parks.
The project would cover 130 acres in Hegewisch on the Southeast Side. It's so big that completion might take decades, but the plan itself makes an obscure location one of the most significant development sites in the city, second only in size to the U.S. Steel South Works property.

The new construction would gradually replace the Harbour Point Estates mobile home site at 4000 E. 134th St. The property sits between Wolf and Powderhorn lakes near the Indiana state line, and the developers hope the natural surroundings will attract home buyers.

It says later in the article none of the resendcies are expected to go over 4 story's.

[Jaroslaw]

A disappointing, low-profile addition to the Regenstein... I was hoping for an atrium like this, but much bigger, and taking in the main entrance as well, alleviating some of the offensive unfriendliness of the existing building.

The admin had made the decision about a year ago, despite the community's opposition, that the new storage will be closed-stack. The existing building has two underground floors, -2 has the densest storage in the library (open stacks, user-movable shelf units to save space), so putting the books underground is not a problem. Apparently most of the budget here will be sunk below ground...

[Mr Downtown]

putting the books underground is not a problem.

Until the first flood.

[harryc]

( from block37 thread )
A couple of small theatre spaces could be an excellent addition to B37, and definitely feasible given the relatively high ceiling heights....for those of who really have no interest in ritzy musical trash productions, a variety of more intimate stages (e.g. an in-the-round with capacity ~200-300) would be a welcome addition to the loop theatre scene.

That said, I'd love to see that hideous Old Navy imploded, then the rubble set ablaze.....then replaced with the building that used to be on the site (Columbus Memorial, iirc). Except maybe with another grand theatre inside :)

http://www.patsabin.com/illinois/columbus.jpg (not my pic, found via google)

This would be great ! The modern skyscrapers give us a view of old facades that can be truly spectacular. Having the Jewlers bldg outside my window was much better than even Marina City. The 7th floor of the CBOT was spectacular hanging just outside the window, across the street.

Modern buildings are designed to be viewed as a complete unit, from a distance, forgotten are the details and decorations that make them interesting up close.

[Alliance]

Nah. Not at all. Don't confuse business with quality. I feel that people tend to overglorify buidlings that are suffocated with moldings of leaves, gargoyles, and lavish copper parapets. Its a distraction, not a building.

Modernism is just as beautiful, if not more so.

[Jaroslaw]

Until the first flood.

Dude, books have been underground at the Reg since it opened in 1972 (give or take a year). For decades before that, the Harper book stacks were located underground, one block from the marshy Midway. Jeez...

[spyguy]

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/skylinenews/news/545318,sl-center-090707-s1.article

Finances stymie plans for Center for Jewish Life

September 7, 2007
By FELICIA DECHTER

The proposed Center for Jewish Life project appears to be dead.
...
But all that has changed. Last week, Mordechai Kustiner, spokesman for the group, said financial limitations have forced the Lubavitch Chabad, "to explore several options," including the possibility of multi-use development in conjunction with another interest, or outright sale of the property.

[Mr Downtown]

Dude, books have been underground at the Reg since it opened in 1972

Yup, 35 years without something happening is proof that it can never, ever happen.

[Abner]

Yup, 35 years without something happening is proof that it can never, ever happen.

College and university libraries everywhere, even those near water, store books underground. It is absolutely common practice, and probably no less safe than if they were stored up in the air where tornadoes could get at them. I wouldn't be worried... as long as they're not connected to the Loop tunnels.

[harryc]

College and university libraries everywhere, even those near water, store books underground. It is absolutely common practice, and probably no less safe than if they were stored up in the air where tornadoes could get at them. I wouldn't be worried... as long as they're not connected to the Loop tunnels.

Loop tunnels never went as far south as UC.
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/3718.html

[honte]

I love Reilly... at last, we have an intelligent and level-headed guy in City Hall. His argument makes perfect sense. Daley's desperate, and his comments make Chicago sound like a petty backwater.

Now, let's see if we can get the Children's Museum in a place where it can actually give some needed benefit to the surrounding area. I still say, deck over the IC down by Roosevelt.

In the process, this could add a new fieldhouse for South Loop residents, add the dog park they want so much, bridge the IC "chasm", allow Krueck+Sexton to design a visible landmark, and bring the museum campus west so that it can connect with the Roosevelt Metra Station and Michigan Avenue.

___________________

Daley implies opposition to kids museum is racial
GRANT PARK | Daley implies opposition to kids museum is racial

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/561965,CST-NWS-museum18.article

September 18, 2007
BY FRAN SPIELMAN AND ANDREW HERRMANN Staff reporters
Mayor Daley suggested Monday there are racial undertones to opposition of a new Chicago Children's Museum in Grant Park, and vowed to put the matter before the City Council despite opposition from rookie Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd).

...

[2PRUROCKS!]

I am not opposed to the Childern's museum going in its curerent proposed location and I like the design. However, I agree with honte that it would be even better if this was used as an oppertunity to cover the tracks somewhere between the AI and Roosevelt. This would allow the bulk of Krueck + Sexton's work to be seen instead of forced below ground, cover an eye sore and add to instaed of take away green space (green roof over tracks). Has this been coinsidered or suggested to anyone with power and influence.

[wrabbit]

I love Reilly... at last, we have an intelligent and level-headed guy in City Hall. His argument makes perfect sense. Daley's desperate, and his comments make Chicago sound like a petty backwater.

Now, let's see if we can get the Children's Museum in a place where it can actually give some needed benefit to the surrounding area. I still say, deck over the IC down by Roosevelt.

In the process, this could add a new fieldhouse for South Loop residents, add the dog park they want so much, bridge the IC "chasm", allow Krueck+Sexton to design a visible landmark, and bring the museum campus west so that it can connect with the Roosevelt Metra Station and Michigan Avenue.....
:tup:

[Marcu]

We’ve won the battle but lost the war. Sure Grant Park was not the best place for the museum but this is just part of a larger trend of nimby-fication of Chicago and an Alderman that is nothing more than a puppet of community interest groups interested in keeping their property values up and outsiders (as Daley smartly pointed out) out. So for all those celebrating the Alderman’s stance, congratulations you let the nimbys take over Chicago.

[the urban politician]

^ I don't have much of an opinion on the Museum issue (surprise surprise), but if anything I am interested in seeing how this pans out. Why? Because I'd like to know how future NIMBY-pandering Aldermanic action will fair up against the centralized machine of Chicago city government.

That said, I found another EXCELLENT post by a group that's shaping up to be my favorite blogger in Chicago. I also posted this at SSC. Enjoy!!!

This blog is excellent. Check out its latest post. This guy seriously needs to come to SSC:

Monday, September 17, 2007
Parking, New Housing, and a few NIMBY Myths

Show me a new residential development in Hyde Park, and I'll show you a clutch of NIMBYs with a petition against it.

What are the usual NIMBY objections? Well, once you get beyond the rhetorically powerful but empirically dubious claim that new development poses a "danger to our children," somehow putting new housing on the same threat level as Osama Bin Laden, NIMBY opposition to new development typically boils down to the matter-of-fact issues of parking and density.
(Read the rest at link below):
http://hydeparkprogress.blogspot.com/

[honte]

We’ve won the battle but lost the war. Sure Grant Park was not the best place for the museum but this is just part of a larger trend of nimby-fication of Chicago and an Alderman that is nothing more than a puppet of community interest groups interested in keeping their property values up and outsiders (as Daley smartly pointed out) out. So for all those celebrating the Alderman’s stance, congratulations you let the nimbys take over Chicago.

If NIMBYism means having a brain and not jumping up and down every time someone wants to spend a dollar in downtown Chicago, then count me in.

Give him time. He's a very reasonable guy, and I think you'll find that his decisions are not based on NIMBY, but on logic.

Now, on the other hand, Fioretti scares the hell out of me.

[VivaLFuego]

Reilly is awful, and I agree with Marcu's assessment. As I keep reminding people, his campaign literature was a picture of him standing in front of Lakeshore East looking angry (and he wasn't pissed about architecture).

[Bucky]

To think that an alderman has the final say on what is allowed in the city's principal park is appalling. Besides that Alderman Reilly's ward only encompasses the north half of the park. The south part is in Ald. Fioretti's ward. Which means different parts would be controlled by different aldermen with presumably different ideas about what is acceptable. Where are projects that benefit ALL of residents of Chicago supposed to go. Will Nimby's in Lincoln Park now want to get rid of the smelly animals at the Zoo and Hyde Parker's what to eliminate the traffic generating Museum of Science & Industry with all its out-of-neighborhood children? It is time to take some of the power over developpment out of the hands of aldermen.

[budman]

To think that an alderman has the final say on what is allowed in the city's principal park is appalling. Besides that Alderman Reilly's ward only encompasses the north half of the park. The south part is in Ald. Fioretti's ward. Which means different parts would be controlled by different aldermen with presumably different ideas about what is acceptable. Where are projects that benefit ALL of residents of Chicago supposed to go. Will Nimby's in Lincoln Park now want to get rid of the smelly animals at the Zoo and Hyde Parker's what to eliminate the traffic generating Museum of Science & Industry with all its out-of-neighborhood children? It is time to take some of the power over developpment out of the hands of aldermen.
^The aldermen only have "final say" because the tradition in the City Council is for the other aldermen to defer to the alderman in whose ward a particular development is going to be built. They do not have to succumb to tradition, and very likely wont in this case because Mayor Daley is making this a cause de celebre, and will exert whatever (considerable) influence he has when it comes time for a vote by the entire city council. So we have not lost the war, nor have we lost the battle (for those of us that want the museum at Daley Bi).

So far, I am not a fan of Reilly's. The "forever free and open" language upon which he relies is subject to interpretation (and obviously has several exceptions, most notably Gehry's bandshell, which is more than just a piece of art, Harris Theater and the fieldhouse at Daley Bi itself, not to mention the Art Institute, which was excepted out of the language at around the time it was adopted), and it is disingenuous for him to say that he has the interests of Grant Park in mind when deciding against the museum in this location. In fact, that is an obvious lie. He is bowing to the pressure exerted by residents of Lakeshore East, and I find that offensive. To be honest, I probably wouldnt care as much about it if the Lakeshore East residents hadnt put up such a self-centered defense of their position.

[SamInTheLoop]

I agree with the majority so far. Honte: although I always respect your opinions and expertise, in this case you're off-base. Reilly was persuaded by the extremely vocal group of high-rise dwelling, ultra-selfish NIMBYs who mainly fear the congestion that the museum would bring to "their neighborhood park", plain and simple (which of course is a ridiculous reason to oppose a development in downtown Chicago by a 3-level road system!). Of couse he's not going to cite this as his reason for formal opposition. The positives outweigh the negatives of this development in this location - as Bob O'Neil wisely keeps emphasizing, this is a building for building replacement, Daley Bi (please don't engage in any misplaced faux-romanticism of it) is an insignificant, decrepit structure and the proposal is actually a net gain of green space with very minimal sq ft above grade...
The Open, Free and Clear line that Reilly cites as his reasoning is a joke - there's nothing illegal about the proposal and if it were - than large parts of Millennium Park would also be illegal (which they're of course not)

I think Reilly is in a race with Fioretti to see who can be the most consistent and outspoken professional NIMBY-panderer.

Folks, Aldermanic prerogative has got to go! It is a silly tradition that will soon really begin to hurt this city with the disturbing explosion of NIMBYism we are witnessing.....

And also, although Burt Natarus had major shortcomings, Reilly so far has made him look like a model alderman....

[SamInTheLoop]

[QUOTE=budman;3061217it is disingenuous for him to say that he has the interests of Grant Park in mind when deciding against the museum in this location. In fact, that is an obvious lie. He is bowing to the pressure exerted by residents of Lakeshore East, and I find that offensive. To be honest, I probably wouldnt care as much about it if the Lakeshore East residents hadnt put up such a self-centered defense of their position.[/QUOTE]


Precisely!! I was extremely offended when I read this quote from Reilly in Crains online today - “I will not bow to political pressure,” - when that is preceisely how he arrived at his decision in the first place!! Do not be so misguided as to think that Reilly was being principaled in his 'free and clear' decision. Reilly showed he as no spine by buckling under preposterous self-centered NIMBY opposition and pandering away to them!!

I attended the final meeting last week, and I'd estimate that at least 80% of the NIMBY opposing sentiments could be summed up as "this is our little uncongested (poorly-used) park and we don't want it to change, nor do we want more cars and people in our neighborhood" The "open, free and clear" stuff was brought up occassionally as an obvious and poorly-contrived front-argument to lend credence to their unfortunate views...

[hoju]

I don't have a strong stance about the museum. The architecture looks good, we get a new field house out of the deal, private money to finance public improvements is nothing new, and I especially hate the entitlement of the people who want to claim the city's front yard as their own park. For that reason alone, I hope their streets become overrun with snot-nosed kids and bus traffic. Regardless of the museum, what I do think is very important is to see how the balance of power plays itself out in this case. If there is a chance here to end or weaken aldermanic prerogative over zoning, it could be a landmark victory against NIMBYs. Daley's rhetoric so far has been very strong, so he must believe he can win a resounding victory. Maybe he could send a bulldozer over to Reilly's place in the middle of the night. Man I love Chicago politics! Anyways, here is a quote of his from crains that you guys are sure to like:

To those residents worried about traffic and congestion, Mr. Daley has a simple reply: “This is a city.”

[2PRUROCKS!]

Reilly lost me with his argument when he suggested putting this museum over in Northerly Island as a possibility. If you want to protect open space than that is one of the worst locations. I don't really agree with Daley's methods in closing Meig's but I do rather like the results. I feel Northerly Island should be an open and natural park as much as possible. I would also be fine with it being used for the Olympics if most of the structure are temporary and what isn't leaves a small footprint. However, I still feel the Children’s museum would be better off being built over the tracks where Krueck + Sexton's brilliant work didn't have to be mostly hidden below ground but could really shine. I don't like the racism charges by Daley or the NIMBY pandering by Reilly who I fear may just be the type to stick his finger in the air and go the direction he feels the wind (NIMBY'S, his constituents) blow.

[schwerve]

...actually a net gain of green space....

Is this true? from my quick look at the drawings it looks like a small net loss but again I don't really have anything concrete to back that up.

On a different note this entire argument is so silly and overblown, it has basically turned into a proxy war for a number of different factions looking for a fight.

[SamInTheLoop]

I don't like the racism charges by Daley or the NIMBY pandering by Reilly who I fear may just be the type to stick his finger in the air and go the direction he feels the wind (NIMBY'S, his constituents) blow.


Definitely - although I'm clearly on Daley's side here, the racism charge is unsubstantiated speculation and should not be introduced into this debate. The debate should be fought and won on the proposal's merits (which are all that is needed anyway). Yes on Reilly - it looks as though my ward has elected itself a very high-profile, highly-paid professional poll-taker. Somebody needs to sit him down and give him some serious lectures on the difference between direct and indirect democracies, leadership, and making informed, well-reasoned decisions based on what is good for all your constituents, not just a very vocal 5% of the residents of 5 buildings!! (estimated figures - but trust me, they're not far off ;) )

[spyguy]

To those residents worried about traffic and congestion, Mr. Daley has a simple reply: “This is a city.”

Yes, that was my favorite quote from the article. The people who moved to that area knew exactly what they were getting into.

[the urban politician]

Somebody needs to sit him down and give him some serious lectures on the difference between direct and indirect democracies, leadership, and making informed, well-reasoned decisions based on what is good for all your constituents, not just a very vocal 5% of the residents of 5 buildings!! (estimated figures - but trust me, they're not far off ;) )

^ I'd plop Fioretti in a chair right next to him for that "serious lecture"

[VivaLFuego]

Yes, that was my favorite quote from the article. The people who moved to that area knew exactly what they were getting into.

Except apparently they didn't. They seem to have moved in under the impression that it was their ticket to have all the amenities of the city in immediate proximity and under the beck-and-call of their fleeting whims. While I disapprove of Daley's insinuation that it is racially biased (quick way to lose an argument, Rich), he has the right idea in that these residents have no right to treat the city's backyard as their own.

...and my disdain for Reilly's consistent anti-development, pro-pandering mania is already on record in previous posts. Hopefully his reign of terror on Chicago's downtown area is short.