[the urban politician]

According to the first letter (upper left corner) of this page of the Hyde Park Herald (http://www.hpherald.com/pg4.html), there will be a community meeting today at 7pm with Antheus Capital. This meeting will involve developments planned.

Looks like the NIMBY's are lining up.

I just thought I'd make you guys aware, if any of you live in Hyde Park and would like to attend

[BWChicago]

Actually, New York is already pushing for this.

Since when were Crown Vics the cheapest cars out there?

Perhaps not new, but there's always a huge supply of used cop cars and the ensuing economy of scale for refitting them as taxis, not to mention lowered repair costs by having most taxis use the same parts, etc.

[denizen467]

Demolition Alert

The building next to 600 North LSD is surrounded with scaffolding and dumpsters. Is this coming down? Anyone know why and what will replace it?

[kalmia]

This is outside of Chicago (less than a mile though) in Hammond. If it would be better in another thread, go ahead and move it. Maybe some of you have already seen something about this.


From http://www.harrahs.com/casinos/horseshoe-hammond/casino-misc/moab-detail.html

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/8413/horseshoecasinohammondcio8.jpg

Construction Camera (http://oxblue.com/client/harrahs/hammond/)

The all new Horseshoe Casino Hammond will soon completely transform its coveted location along Lake Michigan. Construction is well underway to create an amazing new gaming and entertainment facility – the total size will be an unbelievable 350,000 square-feet.



With over 108,000 square feet of gambling space, more than triple in size of the current casino, the new casino will include spectacular amenities, an incredible entertainment venue, and more luxury than ever before. It’s truly a remarkable expansion boasting a $500 million price tag.



Construction on the all new Horseshoe Casino Hammond began in late 2006 and is expected to be the largest casino and entertainment destination in all of Chicagoland when it is completed in late summer 2008.


More space, more comfort, more luxury:

* 350,000 square-feet of total space
* 108,000 square-feet of gambling action
* More than 100 tables
* Over 3,200 slots
* World class poker room
* 650-seat Buffet
* New Diamond Lounge
* New Seven Stars Lounge
* Two Feature Bars
* Entertainment Center
o Famous-name performers
o Sports Viewing
o Nightlife
o Capacity for 2,500 people theater style seating
o Capacity for 4,000 general admission with standing room
o Banquet facilities for 1,500


http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/9877/aeriallookingnorthwestfrf7.gif

Hotel tower plans are supposed to be announced next year.

[Patel]

Another casino to bilk the monies from the Chicago folk.

How many casinos does NW Indiana have already?


Gees

[honte]

Demolition Alert

The building next to 600 North LSD is surrounded with scaffolding and dumpsters. Is this coming down? Anyone know why and what will replace it?

Yeah, I saw that too... doesn't look good.

However, I thought this building was condo... which would make repair much more likely. Otherwise, with the lake views gone and 600 N. LSD garage in one's face, it might not last very long. :(

[harryc]

Demolition Alert

The building next to 600 North LSD is surrounded with scaffolding and dumpsters. Is this coming down? Anyone know why and what will replace it?

South or North ? - I can't imagine 680 ( old 666 ) N LSD could be taken down.

[kalmia]

Another casino to bilk the monies from the Chicago folk.

How many casinos does NW Indiana have already?


Gees

It's just replacing that boat on the right side of the screen. It will be much bigger as you can see.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8295/horseshoecasino1octoberaa1.jpg

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/9048/horseshoecasino4octobermb9.jpg

images from: http://oxblue.com/client/harrahs/hammond/

I think Indiana has a total of 10-12 casinos. Some of those are along the Ohio River. About half of those are in NW Indiana. Indiana doesn't have the size restrictions that Illinois has, so they have been expanding to much larger casinos. Horseshoe takes in the most money at more than a $million a day.

Maybe the hotel tower will be descent looking. It will be clearly visible from the Loop and Streeterville, despite that Spire video removing NW Indiana from its video.

[honte]

South or North ? - I can't imagine 680 ( old 666 ) N LSD could be taken down.

It's due west on the south side of the property.... an old loft building.

[Patel]

Moving the Childrens Museum to grant park is a HORRIBLE idea. That are of the park needs to be redeveloped (meaning un-developed in to PARK).

End of Story imo. The Park should be immutable.


http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9905732

Not in my front yard

Oct 4th 2007 | CHICAGO
From The Economist print edition


In a fight over Grant Park, Chicago's mayor faces a small revolt

RICHARD DALEY is used to getting what he wants. Elected Chicago's mayor in 1989, he is often called “the emperor”. Now he is facing a rare opponent: a 35-year-old, first-term alderman. Last month Brendan Reilly said he would fight plans to move the Chicago Children's Museum to a treasured spot in his ward, Grant Park, the city's so-called front yard. Mr Daley erupted, hinting that the museum's critics simply want to keep black and Hispanic children out of the park. He declared it “a fight for the future of this city”.

Mr Daley already seems sheepish about framing the fight in such dramatic terms. He has softened his tone and says he is open to compromise. But Chicagoans are still waiting for the details. For though Mr Daley can usually rally the city council to his side, Mr Reilly has claimed a powerful ally: Aaron Montgomery Ward.

True, Ward died in 1913, but he rules over Grant Park from the grave. Having made a fortune from America's first mail-order business, Ward went to court to keep developers out of the park. He based his case on the words of three commissioners, who in 1836 wrote that what is now Grant Park should be “Public Ground—A Common to Remain Forever Open, Clear and Free of any Buildings, or other Obstruction Whatever.” During his life Ward was often perceived as a stubborn pest—the Chicago Tribune called him a “human icicle”. But for decades he has been praised as the guardian of the park, which covers 320 acres (1.3 square km) along Chicago's lakefront.

Mr Daley has shown himself more flexible than Ward purists. One of his greatest achievements, Millennium Park, defies Ward's principle of pure open space. The park is dotted with attractions, including Frank Gehry's Pritzker Pavilion, which called itself a piece of art to dodge conflict over new construction. The park has been enormously popular since opening in 2004; last year it had 3m visitors.

Officials at the Children's Museum hope that a new home in Grant Park, just over a bridge from Millennium Park, would build on this success. But Tom Wolf of Friends of Downtown, a civic group, worries that the museum would be a precedent that would let other developers invade Grant Park.

...

[firstcranialnerve]

Here's an idea... build the childrens museum south of the art institute, over the damn tracks... like millenium...
hehehe

[Dan in Chicago]

Demolition Alert

The building next to 600 North LSD is surrounded with scaffolding and dumpsters. Is this coming down? Anyone know why and what will replace it?

That's the Dunham Building:

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=dunhambuilding-chicago-il-usa

I saw that too, but I don't know what's planned for it.

Regarding the Children's Museum - if the city can find a good site for it, away from Grant Park, it will have a much better chance of making an architectural statement. It would also have room to grow. We all know how museums like to build additions over time... for this reason alone, the Grant Park location would be a problem.

Northerly Island seems like a natural location, or someplace by the river in an expanded Ping Tom Park. I also like the idea someone here mentioned recently of turning Goose Island into a park. I think that would have been a much better site for the Olympic Stadium.

[the urban politician]

That's the Dunham Building:

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=dunhambuilding-chicago-il-usa

^ WTF? Only an asshole would demolish such a beauty.

Where was the Preservationist community on this one?

[VivaLFuego]

1) what's going on with the building on the NE corner of State/Elm? The commercial tenants have all been evicted. Is this getting torn down?

2) The Children's Museum can't move to a low-traffic location far from the core tourist zone around Navy Pier and Michigan Avenue. Maybe the north end of Grant Park isn't the best place for it, but I haven't yet heard a suggestion of a more viable place.

[Mr Downtown]

2) The Children's Museum can't move to a low-traffic location far from the core tourist zone around Navy Pier and Michigan Avenue.

Throughout the museum's history, it has acted as an "anchor" that drew traffic to new locations, not as an incidental, drop-in-on-the-spur-of-the-moment kind of place. First it helped bring people to the reopened Cultural Center, then to an unused building in Lincoln Park, then to the new North Pier development, and finally it helped guarantee that people would come out to Navy Pier even in winter.

It could now serve the same rôle in some place like Motor Row or Canal-Taylor or Burnham Park or the West Loop.

The Childrens Museum is a destination, a place you plan an outing to with very young children. Combining it with anything other than a train ride to the city or lunch nearby is inviting for a toddler meltdown. So a Museum Campus location seems a little odd. There needs to be convenient adjacent parking, and you're not likely to be taking in any other museums that day.

[Chicago3rd]

2) The Children's Museum can't move to a low-traffic location far from the core tourist zone around Navy Pier and Michigan Avenue. Maybe the north end of Grant Park isn't the best place for it, but I haven't yet heard a suggestion of a more viable place.

Build it over the track just south of the Chicago Art Institute. It is in the park, accessible by extensive rail and bus routes, has loads of pedestrian traffic, covers the gapping hole than runs through the park...blocks away from the Library, CAI, Fields, Shedd......

[TheeErin]

Demolition Alert

The building next to 600 North LSD is surrounded with scaffolding and dumpsters. Is this coming down? Anyone know why and what will replace it?

This morning Robinette Demolition put up their dumpsters in front of the Dunham Building. I talked to a couple of guys on the ground who confirmed the building is coming down. They didn't know what was going in its place.

[honte]

^ WTF? Only an asshole would demolish such a beauty.

Where was the Preservationist community on this one?

I'm a bit out of the loop these days, but generally, no one would have known this building was coming down unless it was Orange-rated. (Which it almost surely is not, since the top has been altered. I know, stupid policy, but that's what we have to deal with.)

In Chicago, there is still no good way to know what's being planned for demolition unless it happens to fall within the Demo. Delay (Orange-rated buildings) ordinance, and the vast majority of structures do not meet this criterion.

A huge loss, I agree. What a shame.

[honte]

In other extremely depressing news, the home and studio of late Chicago artist Eldon Danhausen has been demolished. This was a home that he essentially crafted by hand. While executed in a currently out-of-vogue 1970s style, the building had incredible artistry throughout and gardens that were cherished by most of Old Town.

The community tried to save the building, and Vi Daley actually did institute a downzoning ordinance, but Chicago pols and residents need to wake up and realize that downzoning DOES NOT save buildings. Some developers are simply cruel.

[kalmia]

This morning Robinette Demolition put up their dumpsters in front of the Dunham Building. I talked to a couple of guys on the ground who confirmed the building is coming down. They didn't know what was going in its place.


Maybe a lovely parking garage, or maybe the developer will decide against his planned project when the real estate market dips, and there will just be an empty lot there for many years.

http://www.projectchicago.org/database/NNSD/0022/1-1.jpg

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/594340,CST-NWS-museum09.article

Pritzker lobbies aldermen on museum site
GRANT PARK | No sign of compromise -- vote may be in Nov.

October 9, 2007
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter/fspielman@suntimes.com

Jean "Gigi" Pritzker, billionaire board president of the Chicago Children's Museum, has been meeting privately with aldermen individually to persuade them to approve a new children's museum in Grant Park over the objections of Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd).

Aldermen lobbied so far said Pritzker and children's museum Vice President Jim Law, the city's former special events director, plan to forsake compromise and forge ahead with Plan Commission approval as early as next month with Mayor Daley's blessing.

I am curious what exact locations in the South Loop Reilly has in mind. For some reason I think his Museum Campus or Northerly are going to pass the mustard either.

If only they had planned a few years earlier maybe it could have provided a nice low rise streetwall in front of the Grant Park towers.

[wrabbit]

Just for hilarity's sake, why not put the darn thing in "The Park at Lake Shore East"; doing so would quench Daley's desire to spank the LSE NIMBY contingent and would also draw the public's attention to this nifty new park resource.

[honte]

^ Yeah. Or, the LSE developers could trade some land for the museum in exchange for zoning variance to build a supertall. Wouldn't that be ideal? They could integrate the museum with the school they have planned into a little people's cultural tower, say 8 floors or so.

Now, Pritzker running around the city meeting with Aldermen, that's really something. I wonder why she's so set on this stupid site anyway. Could it be spoiled billionaire syndrome (SBS)?

[jpIllInoIs]

Good Idea! Put it in one of the 'shoulder wings' of the Archetonica. :haha:

[wrabbit]

Lynn Becker (http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/) has posted a hyperlink to an online petition against locating the Children's Museum in Grant Park; you can also find the petition here: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-grant-park.html

[Loopy]

I was thinking that the Cacciatore property on the river South of River City could be a workable site for the Childrens Museum. It's between Roosevelt and Taylor, Wells and the river.

If underground parking could be workable so close to the water, this site provides some interesting opportunities:

It could spur the development of the Taylor street bridge project. The Western viaduct for this bridge has already been constructed at Southgate Market across the river.

The bridge would allow vehicle and bus traffic to the museum to be routed directly to the museum from the Downtown Expressway at the Taylor Street exit. No museum traffic would clog surface streets.

The museum development would create another segment of Riverwalk.

[VivaLFuego]

I was thinking that the Cacciatore property on the river South of River City could be a workable site for the Childrens Museum. It's between Roosevelt and Taylor, Wells and the river.



Or maybe for a casino..... {hint?}

[spyguy]

This morning Robinette Demolition put up their dumpsters in front of the Dunham Building. I talked to a couple of guys on the ground who confirmed the building is coming down. They didn't know what was going in its place.

Chiman on SSC found a piece of info on SOAR's website:

http://soarchicago.org/News_Views/details.cfm?NID=43

Northwestern Memorial Hospital Announces Demolition Schedules

SOAR was alerted this morning regarding the demolition schedule for Northwestern Memorial Hospital's buildings at 400 E. Ontario (at McClurg) and 450 E. Ohio (just west of Lake Shore Drive.) Demolition activities will begin this week, starting with placement of barriers, scaffolding and fencing. This work will continue into next week. Demolition for these two buildings and the Huron Street Bridge is expected to be completed the week of November 19. For information: Bridget Orth at borth@nmh.org or Steven Zalesny at (312)926-2308 or szalesny@nmh.org.

[ardecila]

I was thinking that the Cacciatore property on the river South of River City could be a workable site for the Childrens Museum. It's between Roosevelt and Taylor, Wells and the river.

If underground parking could be workable so close to the water, this site provides some interesting opportunities:

Unfortunately, it's really not workable. It's barely workable in Chicago when you're blocks away from the river, let alone right up against it. That's why River North and Streeterville are flooded with parking podiums - the high water table in Chicago (we ARE built on a swamp, remember) makes the cost of underground parking RIDICULOUSLY high. There are ways to fake underground parking, like they did at Illinois Center.

What the Childrens' Museum can do in that location is
a) pay to utilize Roosevelt Collection's garage
b) design a tasteful parking garage on the site of the surface lot south of River City
c) build tasteful surface lots beneath the Roosevelt Road viaduct.

[Marcu]

Or maybe for a casino..... {hint?}

Do you know something we don't?

[kalmia]

Unfortunately, it's really not workable. It's barely workable in Chicago when you're blocks away from the river, let alone right up against it. That's why River North and Streeterville are flooded with parking podiums - the high water table in Chicago (we ARE built on a swamp, remember) makes the cost of underground parking RIDICULOUSLY high. There are ways to fake underground parking, like they did at Illinois Center.

What the Childrens' Museum can do in that location is
a) pay to utilize Roosevelt Collection's garage
b) design a tasteful parking garage on the site of the surface lot south of River City
c) build tasteful surface lots beneath the Roosevelt Road viaduct.

It would be nice if there were more elevated, multilevel streets to allow more below street level parking.

[honte]

Chiman on SSC found a piece of info on SOAR's website:

http://soarchicago.org/News_Views/details.cfm?NID=43

Northwestern Memorial Hospital Announces Demolition Schedules

SOAR was alerted this morning regarding the demolition schedule for Northwestern Memorial Hospital's buildings at 400 E. Ontario (at McClurg) and 450 E. Ohio (just west of Lake Shore Drive.) Demolition activities will begin this week, starting with placement of barriers, scaffolding and fencing. This work will continue into next week. Demolition for these two buildings and the Huron Street Bridge is expected to be completed the week of November 19. For information: Bridget Orth at borth@nmh.org or Steven Zalesny at (312)926-2308 or szalesny@nmh.org.

Well, that really sucks. 400 E. Ontario is my favorite small modern building in Streeterville (ignore the awning addition). Never knew who designed it, if anyone might have that info.

The other property isn't great, but it's right next to the Dunham Building. Mere coincidence? I doubt it. I don't suppose we might be seeing a new sterile NW building there some day, or better yet, perhaps a parking garage?!

[ardecila]

It would be nice if there were more elevated, multilevel streets to allow more below street level parking.

Which is exactly the point of Roosevelt Collection.

Wells might work as a two-level street. It would basically be a long ramp starting at River City and going up to meet Taylor Street, and then extending south to Roosevelt. Unfortunately, Roosevelt Collection plans retail along Wells at grade level, meaning that any street raisings there would block those businesses.

Elevating Wells would also succeed in establishing the semblance of a streetgrid in that area, euphemistically referred to as "LaSalle Park". If done properly, it could also form a safe pedestrian passage from Printers' Row and the Loop to the Roosevelt Corridor.

[denizen467]

Well, that really sucks. 400 E. Ontario is my favorite small modern building in Streeterville (ignore the awning addition). Never knew who designed it, if anyone might have that info.

The other property isn't great, but it's right next to the Dunham Building. Mere coincidence? I doubt it. I don't suppose we might be seeing a new sterile NW building there some day, or better yet, perhaps a parking garage?!

Honte, 450 E. Ohio in fact is the Dunham Building itself, if I'm not mistaken. You're probably thinking of the one- or two-story building just west of the Dunham Building, but that's NMH's magnetic resonance facility (it has an Ontario Street address -- something like 441 E. Ontario).

So either the SOAR posting means that the Dunham Building is in fact owned by NMH, or the SOAR posting was wrong in saying that 450 E. Ohio is a NMH building, or (least likely) the SOAR posting was wrong in giving NMH's other demolition project as 450 E. Ohio and should have said that 441 E. Ontario is being demolished.

With the CBS studios building likely to be demolished early next year, the landscape in that corner of Streeterville will be looking drastically different - and for a while, but hopefully only a short while, barren.

[honte]

^ OK, got it, thanks. In that case, I would expect that NW did buy the Dunham building, and they will combine it with the resonance building later for something large.

Man, these guys seem like they are out to demolish every old building in Streeterville. Don't forget they are talking about the giant old VA hospital too. I guess an 80-story hospital isn't workable, but what about, say, a 35-story one? Multi-use, renovatable instead of landfill material in 30 years? It seems like their planning lasts for about 30 minutes, with little consideration for the rest of the neighborhood.

[the urban politician]

^ That's why I'm glad that Reilly injected a bit of reality into their faces regarding the Lakeshore Athletic Club

[BWChicago]

I dug up the 1925 tribune article announcing the Dunham project: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwchicago/1542201965/ . Apparently it was a DH Burnham Co. design.

[VivaLFuego]

I dug up the 1925 tribune article announcing the Dunham project: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwchicago/1542201965/ . Apparently it was a DH Burnham Co. design.

Great find, and all the more alarming that a Burnham is getting torn down. This really flew under the radar, were there even any suspicions before the scaffolding went up?

[steel]

North Avenue Bridge reconstruction with new cable stay span - Web cam

http://www.astekcams.com/webcam_live.asp?camid=6

[honte]

Great find, and all the more alarming that a Burnham is getting torn down. This really flew under the radar, were there even any suspicions before the scaffolding went up?

I've been asking around, and from what I can tell, this was a surprise to everyone.

[honte]

^^^ I love purple light blocks! What was the point of those things anyhow? They are so cool that they must have an awesome purpose!

Here's the story as I know it: I might well be corrected.

When the city raised the sidewalks to accommodate the sewer system, many of the old front doors were thrown into darkness. The compromise with property owners (who obviously were benefiting from the sewer - little reason to complain) was to grant them use of space within sidewalk vaults (a decision that is still haunting us today - many of these in the DT area are in frighteningly poor shape). The purple glass was installed as a means of partially illuminating the sidewalk vault areas.

I adore them as well, and I think at least a few of them should be landmarked by the city. This would be similar to how they have protected the Wood Block Alley south of the Cardinal's mansion.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Interesting, do you have a link or something with more info on the raising of the sidewalks and the use of sidewalk vaults and the purple light blocks? I don't quite understand what happened.

[jpIllInoIs]

I was googling around on streetview and came across the property on South Peoria between W.16th and W.18th. It is a very large parcel on both sides of Peoria. It has been totally cleared and is ready for construction.

I cannot find much on the developers website: http://www.centro18.com/home.asp other than that Henry Cisneros is a principle of the firm and 2 10 storeys are proposed. http://www.americancityvista.com/chicagoSunTimes.htm Any news on this project?

[spyguy]

http://chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=26722

Archdiocese hires broker to sell HQ
By Alby Gallun

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago said it has hired Chicago-based brokerage firm L.J. Sheridan & Co. to sell its Pastoral Center in Streeterville, a property that is expected to attract interest from condominium and hotel developers.

[kalmia]

^^^ Interesting, do you have a link or something with more info on the raising of the sidewalks and the use of sidewalk vaults and the purple light blocks? I don't quite understand what happened.

Are many of you familiar with the elevated streets and sidewalks on the south-east side where the main levels to the houses are below street level? Some moved the entries to the second floor or just made an elevated porch level with the sidewalk and street.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I found that by typing "Chicago Vaulted Sidewalks" into Google you find many informational sites on this matter. I always wondered what those purple blocks were about!

[ChitownBill]

Which is exactly the point of Roosevelt Collection.

Wells might work as a two-level street. It would basically be a long ramp starting at River City and going up to meet Taylor Street, and then extending south to Roosevelt. Unfortunately, Roosevelt Collection plans retail along Wells at grade level, meaning that any street raisings there would block those businesses.

Elevating Wells would also succeed in establishing the semblance of a streetgrid in that area, euphemistically referred to as "LaSalle Park". If done properly, it could also form a safe pedestrian passage from Printers' Row and the Loop to the Roosevelt Corridor.



Being a condo owner at River City and attending the association meetings I can tell you that none of this will be happening. We are kept in the loop on all of the developments that effect the area. I'm glad Vetro and Printers corner are wrapping up construction getting down Wells has been a challenge all summer.

[harryc]

North Avenue Bridge reconstruction with new cable stay span - Web cam

http://www.astekcams.com/webcam_live.asp?camid=6

Great find - I couldn't see - why ?

I almost took that today, haven't been that way for months, now I have to take it tomorrow.

Wrong bridge, found it on google street view - my wife says it needed widening a long time ago.

[the urban politician]

Unfortunately, you have to have an account to read the whole article.

By Steven R. Strahler
Proximity pays in Evanston
Office vacancies shrink; rents rival downtown's
Evanston is emerging as something of a Greenwich of the Midwest, as hedge funds, private-equity firms and other financial players pick the city as a headquarters site.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?article_id=28606

[ardecila]

Being a condo owner at River City and attending the association meetings I can tell you that none of this will be happening. We are kept in the loop on all of the developments that effect the area. I'm glad Vetro and Printers corner are wrapping up construction getting down Wells has been a challenge all summer.

It was only an idea - didn't I make that clear in my post?

Actually, in a perfect world, IMO, I would connect Wacker Drive to Wells across the Franklin Point property and then make South Wells into a 4-lane boulevard, renamed to South Wacker Drive. It would ramp up to an intersection at Roosevelt, then continue south to Chinatown and become Wentworth.

[VivaLFuego]

Here's the story as I know it: I might well be corrected.

When the city raised the sidewalks to accommodate the sewer system, many of the old front doors were thrown into darkness. The compromise with property owners (who obviously were benefiting from the sewer - little reason to complain) was to grant them use of space within sidewalk vaults (a decision that is still haunting us today - many of these in the DT area are in frighteningly poor shape). The purple glass was installed as a means of partially illuminating the sidewalk vault areas.

I adore them as well, and I think at least a few of them should be landmarked by the city. This would be similar to how they have protected the Wood Block Alley south of the Cardinal's mansion.

These things are great, I love seeing them in the courthouse area in river north. There are a bunch of these in Seattle, where they have some walking tours down in the vaults. Cool stuff.

[the urban politician]

Green light for pilot at former U.S. Steel site
By Jeanette Almada | Special to the Tribune
October 14, 2007
Sixty-five vacant, city-owned parcels adjacent to the former U.S. Steel site in the South Chicago neighborhood will see long-anticipated residential development in a pilot program for a model energy-efficient neighborhood.

"We have a huge opportunity to turn the area's [Rust Belt] reputation on its head," Marilyn Engwall, a project manager from the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, said last week.

Engwall and other city planners have worked with residents and neighborhood leaders, including Ald. John Pope (10th), to plan a green neighborhood that includes streets, sidewalks, parks, housing, commercial districts and possibly a streetcar network to carry residents to the three major Metra stations that serve the area or to its retail and entertainment establishments.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/news/chi-s_chicago_ja_re_10-14oct14,0,4303699.story

[Loopy]

www.smithgill.com is now up with a small amount of content. Here is one the Chicago related items:

A wind turbine studded "Eco-Bridge"; An homage to Burnham.

http://www.smithgill.com/ecobridge.htm

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7708/sithgillburnhamkj4.png

[DCCliff]

QUOTE=ardecila;3110810]It was only an idea - didn't I make that clear in my post?

Actually, in a perfect world, IMO, I would connect Wacker Drive to Wells across the Franklin Point property and then make South Wells into a 4-lane boulevard, renamed to South Wacker Drive. It would ramp up to an intersection at Roosevelt, then continue south to Chinatown and become Wentworth.[/QUOTE]

I've long thought about that as well as an extended drive's relation to the vacant rail site between Roosv Rd and (roughly) 18th St. While only a wild-hair idea, I think that space could support some kind of heavy density [U]surrounding[U] a new park with an extended Wacker and other perpendicular park border streets providing building access. The Rock Island tracks would have to be dealt with (build over? build roadway over? leave open and screen? etc). The neighbors across S. Clark St. would surely hate a high, dense project; but the park might be a sweetener. As a side benefit, the complex could visually ramp down the S. Loop skyline from most angles as it stretches toward Cermak. Wacker could go all the way to Cermak. I've done a pathetically rough "paint" diagram.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36799084@N00/1583370849/

[DCCliff]

Whoops, pic didn't post. Must have done something wrong. Can someone tell where to acess tutorial/instruction on uploading pics? Thanks. Original photo from BartShore on Flickr.

[Alliance]

Keep in mind that building on the bridge is an olympic torch.

I still want to see the flame on top of the Spire though.

[sale]

Keep in mind that building on the bridge is an olympic torch.

I still want to see the flame on top of the Spire though.

I don't think it is a torch. It may be an appropriate place to house a torch. Even if Chicago doesn't get the Olympics, the building is still functional as an observation tower.

[Nowhereman1280]

That would be a sweet observation tower! It would also be a sweet torch!

[Alliance]

if its an obs tower....NO EFFING WAY.

"forever open, free, clear, etc."

[Nowhereman1280]

You would be against it if it had a Observation deck? Why, I believe there have been other Olympic torches that do the same thing. Besides, if you really want to permentantly put the OD issue to rest, make one here, in a sculpture (a la Statue of Liberty) where you can't get any better lake and skyline views...

I think its a little rash to just decide something shouldn't be built just becasue it is suggested that an OD might be built East of LSD... Besides, don't you think Forever Free and Clear doesn't apply when the changes include a massive amount of green space being added with just a small amount of development?

If they were thinking that way when they built Grant Park then they wouldn't have put Buckingham Fountain there because it is marring the free and clearness of our park... I know its an extreme example, but it would have seemed pretty radical to build such a large and extravagant fountain at the time...

[GregBear24]

How would all of you feel about a bunch of fairly large wind turbines on the hypothetical eco-bridge if it were built? I can't seem to grasp how that would look aesthetically, but I love the idea of creating all that green space with non-polluting energy sources. Would it be artful enough to put out in the lake like that?

[cubbbyblue]

How would all of you feel about a bunch of fairly large wind turbines on the hypothetical eco-bridge if it were built? I can't seem to grasp how that would look aesthetically, but I love the idea of creating all that green space with non-polluting energy sources. Would it be artful enough to put out in the lake like that?

I would think they would design them to be quite aesthetic. Im sure they could be incorporated into a unobtrusive "pod" of sorts that that was inspired more by the shapes of nature, then the standard design created through the laws of science as we are used to. I doubt the turbine we saw on their page would be the same type on the Eco-Bridge. By the time it even gets built, if it gets built, we are likely to see advances in wind turbine technology that allow for significantly smaller turbines which could be maniuplated into a more decorative form as well. Just a thought

[2PRUROCKS!]

I really like the ecobridge and the tower and this does not violate the "forever free, open, and clear" precedent. It creats tons of added green space and parkland, doesn't rmove any and if this tower out in the Lake violated free,open, & clear than a lighthouse out in the Lake and the Coast Guard facilities would as well. This tower by providing an OD will offer something to the public, not just be spectacular to look at.

[2PRUROCKS!]

My only concern with the wind turbines is that they make them bird safe so they don't slaughter sea gulls and other birds that pass through the lake.

[Alliance]

You would be against it if it had a Observation deck?

Absoluetely. No towers on the lake...not to mention its a rather retarded spot for an observation deck.

Why, I believe there have been other Olympic torches that do the same thing. Besides, if you really want to permentantly put the OD issue to rest, make one here, in a sculpture (a la Statue of Liberty) where you can't get any better lake and skyline views...

Permenantly for what, the next 20 years? An obs deck should also be a telecom tower. Who wants to observe the city from a spot where you can't see half the buildings and you have to walk 2 miles to get there? Not to mention , it blocks the effing view of the lake.

and what could possibly compare to the statue of liberty? Such an icon would be rather impossible to build, especially in a place where no one will see it.

I think its a little rash to just decide something shouldn't be built just becasue it is suggested that an OD might be built East of LSD... Besides, don't you think Forever Free and Clear doesn't apply when the changes include a massive amount of green space being added with just a small amount of development?

Your record isn't exactly spotless on the whole "lets make the park a circus" issue. No tower. Torch? Sculpture? could work. Tower? HELL NO. Green space would be nice. That, however, does not warrant a bastardization of the lakefront. I'd rather see the money used to put Columbus and LSD underground ala Chicago Prize 2007.

If they were thinking that way when they built Grant Park then they wouldn't have put Buckingham Fountain there because it is marring the free and clearness of our park... I know its an extreme example, but it would have seemed pretty radical to build such a large and extravagant fountain at the time...

You're comparing a fountain to a an 800 ft observation tower? Thats so effing laughable it doesn't even warrant a response.

[Nowhereman1280]

Wow Alliance you really go all out with these things.

I'm not arguing that it should be changed to include an OD, I'm just saying that, if it is indeed an OD, you shouldn't just freak out right away because you heard the words "Observation Deck".

What's this about "My record" on the parks and open space? I didn't know I had a record? I really don't know what the hell you are talking about, are you trying to ad hominen your way to some sort of point? Are you trying to slander me for telling you that Millenium Park was a good idea or something because that's the only thing I can remember talking about that has to do with the park...

Of course there are better uses for this money, however, I'm not talking about what the best way for the city to spend money is, I'm talking about whether or not a project like this makes sense by its own merits, not how the city should best allocate funds. Stop dragging all sorts of other topics into this...

Its not laughable at all, the tower in the ecobridge is clearly the centerpiece of the project, Buckingham fountain is clearly the centerpiece of GP. Why not compare them and their respective roles?

You are very close minded sometimes Alliance, settle down, jeez...

[2PRUROCKS!]

Alliance, your sounding a bit like a NIMBY with your fear that this tower would block views of the Lake. This is rather ironic coinsdering your dispute about NIMBY tendencies related to the merits of the Sear addition with honte and others in the Boom run down thread. This tower would hardly block any view of the Lake, it would be tall and thin and about a mile away from the shore. That wouldn't block anyone's view. It wouldn't violate "open, free, and clear" because it would add green space not remove any and is way out in the Lake not on land that currently exists and is part of the Chicago landmass and park system. It is no different in this respect than a lighthouse or other structures built out on the Lake (which there already are). And I disagree that this would not be a good location for an OD. We already have Sears and JHC for "in city" views. This would offer a unique vantage point to view the entire skyline with park land and lake in front. Currently this type of view can only really be had in a boat of in a low flying plane over the Lake. I know I would go to it.

[simcityaustin]

Alliance, I also think you're being a little harsh on this project.

I think this would be a great tourist asset for the city, it's barely going to block lake views, and can be a great recreational path/water area for the city, and is a great step for the future in terms of tourism and eco-friendly placement for Chicago.

Just to be clear, are you just anti-OD, or anti the whole project, or anti the tall structure no matter what it is?

[aaron38]

I'd rather see the money used to put Columbus and LSD underground ala Chicago Prize 2007.

I agree 200%. Get the freeways out of Grant Park first before building islands in the lake.
But I'd rather get rid of the CTA slowzones before that.

As for the wind turbines on that eco-bridge, they're far too numerous and too close together. Fewer large turbines would generate as much power, and the slower rotation speed of the larger turbines would reduce the risk to birds.

The big ones south of I-80 out in Bureau county turn so slowly that a bird would avoid the blades as easily as they avoid tree branches.

[VivaLFuego]

Grant Park isn't Central Park. It is an interactive park. That's why it has wide streets to use for street fests(Columbus), and open spaces in front of bandshells (Petrillo and Pritzker), and sculptures (Bean), fountains (Buckingham and MP), and a whole lot of (gasp) museums that (gasp) dare to charge admission. Grant Park isn't a naturalistic retreat from the bustle of the city; our neighborhood parks (Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, etc serve that role moreso). Rather Grant Park is part of a bustling city. I see nothing wrong with adding stuff to Grant Park, as long as it is done right and with proper consideration and design. I just don't buy into this righteous indignation about forever free, open, clear, whatever. So you oppose the Art Institute expansion as well?

[pip]

I understand what you said about wide streets needed for festivels. On the other hand Grant Park is not an inviting park. It is islands bisected by as many as eight lanes of traffic in places. Just to cross the from one part of the park is a pain. Can't cross on this side, must cross a street here to go cross the street I initially wanted. Its not a nice park.

[10023]

Grant Park isn't Central Park. It is an interactive park. That's why it has wide streets to use for street fests(Columbus), and open spaces in front of bandshells (Petrillo and Pritzker), and sculptures (Bean), fountains (Buckingham and MP), and a whole lot of (gasp) museums that (gasp) dare to charge admission. Grant Park isn't a naturalistic retreat from the bustle of the city; our neighborhood parks (Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, etc serve that role moreso). Rather Grant Park is part of a bustling city. I see nothing wrong with adding stuff to Grant Park, as long as it is done right and with proper consideration and design. I just don't buy into this righteous indignation about forever free, open, clear, whatever. So you oppose the Art Institute expansion as well?
There's no reason for wide streets in Grant Park. You could just as easily build a parade ground type space that could serve the same function during the Taste, etc, but also actually add something to the park for the rest of the year.

Better yet, replace the roads with woods.

Central Park has a museum on its edge as well, and that's fine. It's got an ice skating rink. It's got a playground for kids. It's got a large fountain area, miniature castle, zoo and 2 restaurants. But the experience is better overall for one main reason - the general absence of automobile traffic except for the weekday rush hour. And since the roads that automobile traffic are permitted on are either sunken and out of sight, or one-way, curving roads, they don't destroy the aesthetics of the park or inhibit pedestrian movement.

And here's a big point: Why do there need to be roads through Grant Park, aside from small paths for service vehicles?

It's not as big as Central Park, for one. And second, who actually needs to drive through the park? In New York, the roads that cross Central Park are an absolute necessity, unless you want to have to drive all the way north or south to 110th street or 59th street to get between the Upper West and Upper East sides. But there's nothing to the east of Grant Park except water. Vehicular access to Soldier Field and the Museum Campus is to the south of the park, and Navy Pier is to the north of the park. The route wouldn't be any less direct if drivers going to and from LSD used Roosevelt Rd or Randolph St. Likewise, it wouldn't be a huge bother for anyone who currently takes Columbus through the park to drive a block east or a block west to the Drive or Michigan, respectively.

Grant Park is, of course, a different animal than Central Park. It's planned as a formal French garden, not an English country park. But this doesn't mean it needs cars and trucks streaming through.

What I would propose: retain one vehicular traverse through the park at Congress (eastbound traffic curves around Buckingham fountain to the south, westbound traffic north of the fountain). Make Columbus about 3/4 as wide as it is now, and replace the asphalt with the same pink gravel that's around Buckingham Fountain. Add a line of trees down the center. This remains the staging area for the Taste of Chicago. The other east-west streets through the park become gravel as well, with benches and fountains, so that they're pedestrianized but still provide open space for fairs.

There's really no reason not to do any of this except for the fact that it would cost money, but that's never a reason not to do something worthwhile.

[Alliance]

Its not laughable at all, the tower in the ecobridge is clearly the centerpiece of the project, Buckingham fountain is clearly the centerpiece of GP. Why not compare them and their respective roles?

"You're comparing a fountain to a an 800 ft observation tower"
This is rather ironic coinsdering your dispute about NIMBY tendencies related to the merits of the Sear addition with honte and others in the Boom run down thread.
Its hardly ironic. What tremendous development potential is an Obs Tower going to bring a mile from everything else? (none) Is it going to enhance the aquatic neighborhood? Enhance the aestetic appeal of cluttered waterfront? Bring economic advancement to grassy plains? What will it destroy? (a lot) Including the principle of an open lakefront and not a POS waterfront for sale.

It wouldn't violate "open, free, and clear" because it would add green space not remove any and is way out in the Lake not on land that currently exists and is part of the Chicago landmass and park system.

Thats great logic! Why not just build skyscrapers over the railroad tracks with little green strips in between and call it increasing park space! Please.

It is no different in this respect than a lighthouse or other structures built out on the Lake (which there already are). Except lighthouses aren't 800 ft tall and are issues of public saftey. Another smashing comparison.

Just to be clear, are you just anti-OD, or anti the whole project, or anti the tall structure no matter what it is?

I'm not anti the project, I'm against the tower or major constructions as it is. Asking us to stomach a windfield alone is too much for me (is it actually going to provide THAT much power? No. Its a posterchild and not an actual solution.) Adding a big-ass tower is simply insulting. There is much more in this city thats needs money and the attention of architects.

Rather Grant Park is part of a bustling city. Part of a city, not a city within itself. Anything built in the park should have a clear cultural and public significance. The park is becomming too cluttered as it is and I dislike the slow slide to development.

And yes, I disagree with the expansion of the tute, but most of all with the never-ending hampster-tunnel of bridges that seem to be going aorund the park. Why even call it a park. We should call it Capitalist Playground: Where every interest in the history of Chicago can attempt to chew up public land for prime location.

Everyone sits here now and gripes about how Daley Bicentennial Plaza is such a horrible developement that needs to be redone, when this is exactly the type of overdevelopment you would have been promoting 30 years ago. The park needs to remain free of buildings and obstructions. These two observation towers (the other one on the lakefront) violate a fundamental principle of Chicago's history that you all so ccasually throw to the sharks. This is an issue about public space that is USUABLE but NOT CONTINUOUSLY USED. Grant Park isn't a business, its a public asset and should be treated as such.

That obs tower is a modern abomination, no mater what the design. Move it elsewhere.

There's no reason for wide streets in Grant Park. You could just as easily build a parade ground type space that could serve the same function during the Taste, etc, but also actually add something to the park for the rest of the year.

:cool:

[Rocket1]

Grant Park isn't Central Park. It is an interactive park. That's why it has wide streets to use for street fests(Columbus), and open spaces in front of bandshells (Petrillo and Pritzker), and sculptures (Bean), fountains (Buckingham and MP), and a whole lot of (gasp) museums that (gasp) dare to charge admission. Grant Park isn't a naturalistic retreat from the bustle of the city; our neighborhood parks (Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, etc serve that role moreso). Rather Grant Park is part of a bustling city. I see nothing wrong with adding stuff to Grant Park, as long as it is done right and with proper consideration and design. I just don't buy into this righteous indignation about forever free, open, clear, whatever. So you oppose the Art Institute expansion as well?

It would be great, though, if they made at least part of Grant Park a bit like Central Park.

The southern end of the park would be a natural spot for a "naturalistic retreat", since they can move all those softball fields to some other part of Chicago that's little more suitable.

[Alliance]

Grant Park shouldn't be central park, but it should actually try to BE a Beax Arts park (no roads, increased gardens, etc.)

[Haworthia]

I'm not crazy about the wind farm or the observation deck either.

I'm not sure wind turbines would even work in that spot. Wind studies need to be done to start, right? Winds tend to come from the West. Wouldn't all the buildings block much of the wind? A wind far three miles out and farther North would likely be more practical.

The arch could lend the city some more charm, but I doubt there would be much economic return for that project as others have mentioned. It does conjure up Dubai in my mind too. Some people love the Dubai developments, but it really disturbs me. I'm not confident how well those mass developments will do over time. That and the whole place has a plastic feel to me.

One bit I feel like wouldn't be that controversial would be add the pier on the North side of Grant Park that is shown in the drawing. Of course that could steal some of Navy Piers thunder.

[ardecila]

Yeah, creating the pier at the north side of Monroe Harbor would be amazing. It wouldn't steal Navy Pier's thunder at all. Navy Pier is a tourist attraction first and foremost. The new pier would simply be parkland, perhaps with a memorial in the center of the circle out at the end.

[2PRUROCKS!]

[QUOTE=Alliance;3114422]"


Thats great logic! Why not just build skyscrapers over the railroad tracks with little green strips in between and call it increasing park space! Please.

You are comparing apples to oranges, I clearly said this is creating new land. This land is not currently a part of Gant Park, the railroad tracks are within the boundaries of Grant Park and are covered by the Ward ruleing not some hypothetical extension of land out in the Lake. This would be a new park seperate from the main landmass of Chicago thus the Ward ruling would not apply hear and I hardly feal this tower a mile out would take away anyone's ability to view the Lake. This concept is so similar to Burnham's orginal vision for the downtown Lakefront area I am surprised you could have such a problem with it.

I'm not anti the project, I'm against the tower or major constructions as it is. Asking us to stomach a windfield alone is too much for me (is it actually going to provide THAT much power? No. Its a posterchild and not an actual solution.) Adding a big-ass tower is simply insulting. There is much more in this city thats needs money and the attention of architects.

By this logic nothing would ever be done in the world except that which is most pressing or needed...that is not how the world works. People a free to dream and make proposals and build things in this world even if there is some greater need elsewhere.

Part of a city, not a city within itself. Anything built in the park should have a clear cultural and public significance. The park is becomming too cluttered as it is and I dislike the slow slide to development.
And yes, I disagree with the expansion of the tute, but most of all with the never-ending hampster-tunnel of bridges that seem to be going aorund the park. Why even call it a park. We should call it Capitalist Playground: Where every interest in the history of Chicago can attempt to chew up public land for prime location.

But this is a new park with new parkland. If you don't want Grant Park cluttered then fine (I think your opinions about Milinium Park and the AI expansion are in the vast minority, but I can understand your concern). This is a completly different Park that only adds green space, and public enhancements. I think the OD tower would be a public enhancement for Chicago even if a profit is made off it and the energy production from the wind turbines. Parks are rented out for events, bikes and boat rented, and food sold within the parks and by the park district. Nothing is wrong with the park district or others generationg revinue from the parks. The public still benifits from them and probablly even moreso because of this and the aminities and maintaince revinue this brings.

[Alliance]

I don't buy this lame "oh its a new park so we can develop it excuse. The "forever, open, free, blah blah blah" applies as much to the lakes as the park. I really hate this attitude of "develop now, think later" Its completely myopic. How would you feel if a wall a skyscrapers ended up blocking the lake in some sort of elite-Dubai-exapanse-of-an-overgrown-gated-community? This is a step in that direction. Damage the lakefront of some other city.

City <> Park <> Lake. This is an uninterrupted axis of principle and legacy. This park has been given to us, immortalized for over a century in a great triumph of urban planning. It should not remain static, but it sohuld always adhere to the original principles on which it was made. The lakefront, the most profitable lots in the city, were chosen to be OPEN to everyone in Chicago and our guests. Its the idea that every citizen has the right to partake in the best of what the city has to offer without developers absconding with profitable land for their private use, even in the guise of public interest.

Lake Point Tower, Millennium Park, The Art Institute, and the Lakeside Center are all marks against these principles. You could call me an idiot if I claimed that the city hasn't benefited from these developments, but I know well what each of them brings. I feel MP alone pushed the boom and Chicago architecture to new heights. But these developments are wrong. There will always be new developments that will bring benefits to the city, but even if only A+ developments are allowe to be built (Lakeside center?) eventually the park will be full and nothing more than an endless maze of museums and bandshells, empty convention centers and souless tennis courts. No park. No respect for our fathers. Nothing left for our children.

Now, to me, there is a balance here, because some of this stuff is smaller and out of the way, and can be developed at least to appease me (MP, though its still a love hate relationship). However, this is something beyond that. This is a tower. A building (maybe). Something beyond anyhting that has been built there (in my lifetime anyway). It should be met with a resounding. "Never!" Put it in the South Loop where tourism and good architecture are needed, especialyl if its ony 800' or so.

[wrabbit]

.....The "forever, open, free, blah blah blah" applies as much to the lakes as the park.....

Well, no, actually - at least not insofar as the 1839 charter - public ground only - though I agree with you in spirit. The RRs actually had trestles out in the lake at one time, parallel to Michigan Ave, as a way of circumventing the charter.

Public ground. Forever to remain vacant of buildings.

[NSawyer]

I really hate this attitude of "develop now, think later" Its completely myopic.

This is a proposal so I don't think it's fair to describe it as "develop now, think later."

Its the idea that every citizen has the right to partake in the best of what the city has to offer without developers absconding with profitable land for their private use, even in the guise of public interest.

Who are these developers that are stealing public land? This project creates new parkland that can be used by all.

[Alliance]

Who are these developers that are stealing public land? This project creates new parkland that can be used by all.

Re-read my posts and actually figure out what parts of the proposal I'm for and whaich parts I'm against.

[NSawyer]

Well, I re-read your posts and I understand that you don't like the "retarded" placement of the observation tower or the wind turbines but I still don't understand how this plan fits in the catagory of "develop now, think later" or who's stealing public land. IMO, Smith/Gill have created an interesting and relevant iteration of the Burnham Plan.

[cubbbyblue]

Hey guys. I was wondering if anyone remembers the "Bridging the Drive" bridge design competiton. It was hosted by the Chicago Architecture Foundation in 2005 and involved pedestian bridges over "53rd Street, the Chicago River, North Avenue, and a pair of bridges, to be considered as one proposal, at 41st and 43rd Streets." Anyways, I was wondering if these ever really had a chance, or are in the works. Something else I noticed that was interesting...The Chicago River bridge is located right where we were holping Calatrava would put the bridge originally designed with the Spire. Pretty neat stuff if this project ever is put to use

http://www.architecture.org/drivesite/index.html

[wrabbit]

10/20/07 British School on Halstead:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/b803846d.jpg

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sun_art_1021oct21,0,6210961.story

Artist battles to hide a work
Fight over restoration highlights tensions between creators and owners over control

By Ameet Sachdev
October 21, 2007

The owners of the skyscraper at the northwest corner of Randolph Street and Michigan Avenue are planning a dazzling unveiling next spring of a restored outdoor sculpture that has been absent from Chicago's public gallery of art for more than two years, a 43-foot, stainless steel column that adds a splash of color to the tower's gleaming white exterior.

But one VIP isn't planning on attending: Yaacov Agam, the artist, who claims that the restoration is not faithful to his original vision of a symphony of colors that appears to change and move as the viewer passes it.

[the urban politician]

I sort dissected this first article to point out the little snippet in bold, which drew some laughs from me. Even after being fired, Tillman continues her quest to keep her former ward dirt-poor and bereft of hope:

Developer sought for 47th, King
By Jeanette Almada | Special to the Tribune
October 21, 2007
City planners are looking for a retail or mixed-use developer for long vacant city-owned land at 47th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Drive.

"This is prime retail space. The idea for a park was conceived over the last 10 years , and ... it sat vacant, non-productive, a blight in the community while there is tremendous need for retail," Ald. Patricia Dowell (3rd) told the Community Development Commission.

[B].......Tillman told commissioners that she is prepared to sue the city if they abandon the plan for the park, for which she has used city funds to buy art.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/news/chi-king_drive_ja_re_10-21oct21,0,4491118.story



80 condos planned for project on Cottage Grove
By Jeanette Almada | Special to the Tribune
October 21, 2007
A mixed-use project with 80 condominiums is planned for long vacant land on Cottage Grove Avenue in the North Kenwood neighborhood.

The Chicago Community Development Commission this summer approved the sale of city-owned property at 4501-4521 S. Cottage Grove Ave. to a developer who will build a seven-story building with 80 condos and 25,000 square feet of retail space, contributing to a considerable retail expansion under way on Cottage Grove.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/news/chi-cottage_grove_re_ja_10-21oct21,0,6911337.story

[ardecila]

I'm really disappointed with both parties in the Yaacov Agam restoration.

First of all, Agam is being a petulant old fart because Jones Lang LaSalle didn't use his preferred restorer. Second, if Dajnowski is recommended by SAIC and MCA, he's obviously a professional who is certainly capable of doing the work, but he made the idiotic move of neglecting to have Agam approve the colors, even after being contacted by Agam AND his lawyer. By doing so, he embroiled the original artist and the artwork's owner in a heated legal battle and put a huge black mark on his own career.

To be honest, I really don't care if the colors aren't what they were before. Art, especially after it's been exposed to the elements, can not be restored to what it was originally. I'm sure the restoration will be fine - here's to hoping Agam doesn't get a restraining order.

[Chicago3rd]

I'm really disappointed with both parties in the Yaacov Agam restoration.

First of all, Agam is being a petulant old fart because Jones Lang LaSalle didn't use his preferred restorer. Second, if Dajnowski is recommended by SAIC and MCA, he's obviously a professional who is certainly capable of doing the work, but he made the idiotic move of neglecting to have Agam approve the colors, even after being contacted by Agam AND his lawyer. By doing so, he embroiled the original artist and the artwork's owner in a heated legal battle and put a huge black mark on his own career.

To be honest, I really don't care if the colors aren't what they were before. Art, especially after it's been exposed to the elements, can not be restored to what it was originally. I'm sure the restoration will be fine - here's to hoping Agam doesn't get a restraining order.

Well I support the artist...but when I read the article I sort of had two questions....how does a 78 year old person remember the "exact" colors. We are talking "shades" here...and it said that he gave the restorers "paper" models to show the colors.....well he must have some damn assed great paper for the color on it not to change in 30 years.......

[aaron38]

So I heard on the news that Neumann Homes is filing for bankruptcy and has shut down all operations. They're one of the single-family sprawl outfits, so it doesn't really impact the city, but it sounded significant and I wondered what people thought about it.

[honte]

^ They did do limited work in the city. I don't know the specifics, but I think it's undeniable that a slowdown is underway. I am not ready to call it a bursting of the bubble yet, but we will have to see how far-reaching this is and for how long it will last. I think there is still room for outstanding projects; maybe this will help motivate developers to produce some outstanding designs moving forward, rather than some of the same old junk.

Crain's just reported that USG's profits were down 95%, if that is any indication of the scope nationwide.

[CenIL_LA]

There definitely is a slowdown but development is not going to die either, it’s just changing directions. For now the new residential market is not that strong so that will fuel stronger rentals. It’s definitely not the death of real estate but it is slower than the boom we got used to. Id expect to see more of what we saw at the far beginning of the boom where smaller buildings were popping up versus all these giant proposals we saw in the last 5 years. In time the big projects they are proposing now such as the Waldorf might meet a very favorable market when they get going for the market but smart developers are thinking years out from now not this next year or two specifically. Some developments we are currently hoping for will get hurt and how they make it is unknown but it definitely will create buyers for other projects when the development they were contracted into couldn’t acquire financing. This will help the other more solid projects as honte was talking about if people dont abandon the downtown market.

[aaron38]

Yeah I would definitely love to see a flight to quality.
I don't have any data to back it up, but I wonder if the Neumann problem is more the slow market, or more the trend of people moving back to the city?
Maybe the exurbs have finally grown as far as people are willing to sit in traffic?

I see a little bit of a silver lining in that it wasn't a downtown developer that got in trouble, but a tract home company operating out in the collar counties. I'd love to continue the boom AND keep our cornfields.

[CenIL_LA]

Yeah I would definitely love to see a flight to quality.
I don't have any data to back it up, but I wonder if the Neumann problem is more the slow market, or more the trend of people moving back to the city?
Maybe the exurbs have finally grown as far as people are willing to sit in traffic?

I see a little bit of a silver lining in that it wasn't a downtown developer that got in trouble, but a tract home company operating out in the collar counties. I'd love to continue the boom AND keep our cornfields.


Yeah it is interesting that a developer like that would have problems before an urban developer. I would gather that they got too invested in land, utilities and roads to too many developments that did not get sold before the crap hit the fan. If you tack on the cost of the people employed to do that work im sure it would easily flush them out. From the appearances of all the developments they had in Chicagoland, they were attempting a lot of work just in this area alone. It seems there is a lot more overhead in new single family housing, than just building in an existing neighborhood. I dont think more people from those areas are moving into the city, the last I knew was that many of the people moving downtown were from Lake County actually, but im sure a few come from Dupage/Will as well. It would be great if people embraced the urban lifestyle but we do need those sprawlburbs as well. They add value and wealth to the metro and feed the inner cities growth/value as well. Chicago is still planning many urbanizing developments. Im particulary interested to see what happens around the east bank of the Chicago River south of Sears and north of Chinatown. There is prime land next to the water and it has development pressure on all sides. If it was done right, it could be quite the neighborhood but that would trust that developers take initiative to design for the river.

[Marcu]

Yeah I would definitely love to see a flight to quality.
I don't have any data to back it up, but I wonder if the Neumann problem is more the slow market, or more the trend of people moving back to the city?
Maybe the exurbs have finally grown as far as people are willing to sit in traffic?

I see a little bit of a silver lining in that it wasn't a downtown developer that got in trouble, but a tract home company operating out in the collar counties. I'd love to continue the boom AND keep our cornfields.

Since when is Naperville an exurb?

[Haworthia]

Since when is Naperville an exurb?

I think Naperville is pretty much the definition of an exurb.

[Loopy]

There definitely is a slowdown but development is not going to die either, it’s just changing directions.
Apartment rental developers like AMLI and Avalon Bay are thriving in this residential slump. Both are building sleek towers on S. Clark Street. So, yes, let's hope that a downtown rental boom will fill the void until the condo market picks up again.

Oh, and hotels... lots and lots of hotels please!

[VivaLFuego]

I think Naperville is pretty much the definition of an exurb.

Naperville is more of an 'edge city' than an exurb...quick expressway access and a whole lot of jobs in close proximity. when I think of Chicago exurbs, I think Elburn, Manhattan, Manteno, Huntley, Algonquin, Antioch, New Lenox....

[Haworthia]

Naperville is more of an 'edge city' than an exurb...quick expressway access and a whole lot of jobs in close proximity. when I think of Chicago exurbs, I think Elburn, Manhattan, Manteno, Huntley, Algonquin, Antioch, New Lenox....

:previous: I guess you're right. There are a ton of corporate head quarters out there which provide a lot of jobs. I just have a deep seated grudge against Naperville (I lived there for a combined five months). Exurb is a bit of a four letter word for me thus my temptation to apply it to Naperville.

[SamInTheLoop]

Yeah it is interesting that a developer like that would have problems before an urban developer. I would gather that they got too invested in land, utilities and roads to too many developments that did not get sold before the crap hit the fan. If you tack on the cost of the people employed to do that work im sure it would easily flush them out. From the appearances of all the developments they had in Chicagoland, they were attempting a lot of work just in this area alone. It seems there is a lot more overhead in new single family housing, than just building in an existing neighborhood. I dont think more people from those areas are moving into the city, the last I knew was that many of the people moving downtown were from Lake County actually, but im sure a few come from Dupage/Will as well. It would be great if people embraced the urban lifestyle but we do need those sprawlburbs as well. They add value and wealth to the metro and feed the inner cities growth/value as well. Chicago is still planning many urbanizing developments. Im particulary interested to see what happens around the east bank of the Chicago River south of Sears and north of Chinatown. There is prime land next to the water and it has development pressure on all sides. If it was done right, it could be quite the neighborhood but that would trust that developers take initiative to design for the river.


If you follow the figures Tracy Cross puts out (see this week's Crain's for the latest - 3rd Quarter), the suburban housing market has been slowing much more dramatically than the city, and if anything this gap is just widening with each passing quarter. Consider this: his firm just reported that on a seasonally-adjusted annual basis, new home sales in the city are now running at over 50% of suburban sales! That is really incredible when you think about it, as I'm sure suburban new home sales have typically been more like 3-4 times that of the city....