[VivaLFuego]

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=qzfbgq7pqrhy&style=o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=11383773&encType=1
This was formerly a large technical school. It has some pretty impressive details, like these giant stone(-looking) eagles. There is demolition scaffolding up around it, so I suspect it's coming down.

Anyone know anything about this? honte? Question still stands in re: Edgewater Medical Center, as well.

[honte]

^ Yes, that is the Schmidt, Garden and Martin-designed factory that was later turned into a high school. LPCI (now LI) has been fighting for it for years. I think Preservation Chicago tried as well.

Thank Alderman Ed Smith for this. He insisted on a new high-school, which is being built down the street. He also insisted that they get rid of the old one, and wouldn't hear anything about reuse. The old building - already adapted once in its lifetime, evidence that it could easily be artists' lofts, yuppie lofts, low-income housing, uh, a factory, you name it. This could have been a major shot in the arm for the struggling Franklin Boulevard area. Instead, it will become... drum roll.... you guessed it, the school parking lot!! In an area with vacant lots every block!! Haha, wow, that's rich.

The building absolutely has some interesting details. It has the "hollyhock motif" on it that FLW made famous in LA, but this building predates FLW's California work. It's also an incredibly modern design for its day overall, with Chicago School expression and rather "European avant-garde" massing.

Last, there was a very impressive Modernist addition on the west side of the building.

Take a good last look. This and the old Washburne Trade school demolition are both incredibly sad and wasteful. To think, this massive building will be torn down, less than 8 blocks from the Center for Green Technology.

_____________

I was hoping someone would know more than me about the Edgewater site. It's been closed for years, as I remember. I heard some things about redevelopment a while back, but I don't know anything concrete. I always figured a developer would rework it somehow, since the building there is so much larger than they could get away with nowadays. Same for the Ravenswood hospital.

[Mr Downtown]

That's Westinghouse HS, which was built as Bunte Bros. Candy Co., 1921, Schmidt, Garden & Martin.

When the new high school (http://www.sollitt.com/Leeds/Westinghouse.shtml)is finished, the current building is to be demolished (http://www.pbcchicago.com/subhtml/project_detail.asp?txtPRJ_ID=CPS-20) for parking and athletic fields. Landmarks Illinois put it on their Chicagoland Watch List for 2005-06.

[honte]

I think the problem is the distribution of parks and park facilities. Many of the large boulevard parks are in underpopulated neighborhoods and difficult to access from heavily populated ones, or are seen as too dangerous. Furthermore, the big parks are broken up by streets running through them, making them seem more like large clusters of small parks (surrounded by motorists who drive too fast through the park). And park facilities, particularly playgrounds, can be in extremely short supply, leading to such things as waiting lines for swingsets. A large park is not really a substitute for equivalent acreage of neighborhood parks distributed over a larger area.

Of course, Chicago is known for spending more on its parks than any other city despite not having that many acres per capita, so your maintenance issues are a matter of distribution as well. It is kind of disheartening to see the almost militant upkeep and lavish landscaping of Grant Park when the trash in the lagoon in Garfield Park can go seemingly for weeks without being touched.

You make some very good points. The only question I would raise - and no, I'm not trying to be a brat: Shouldn't the city redirect its policy to encourage more people to live near our existing facilities rather than allow overdevelopment of certain areas that are lacking?

[Abner]

You make some very good points. The only question I would raise - and no, I'm not trying to be a brat: Shouldn't the city redirect its policy to encourage more people to live near our existing facilities rather than allow overdevelopment of certain areas that are lacking?

Well, I'm quite sure that if the city were capable of replacing the current population of West Garfield Park with one that would make full use of the facilities there, it would already be doing so. In any case, I think the decision to target an area for development relies on many more factors than park acreage. If I were to speculate about why some neighborhoods near the large parks remain depopulated and dangerous despite their amenities, I would guess that it is in part because the first movers in gentrification--artists and students--make less use of park facilities and are unlikely to base their choice of residence on their availability. And now you have people in Logan Square grumbling about having to go to Humboldt Park to get some exercise, but they're still not going to move to Humboldt Park.

Anyway, River North is going to develop further no matter what, so I'm sure an additional block of parkland there would be welcome; I'm just saying that people there are more likely to be able to go over to the lake or one of the nearby parks (or the gym, for that matter) than people in other neighborhoods.

[honte]

Well, I'm quite sure that if the city were capable of replacing the current population of West Garfield Park with one that would make full use of the facilities there, it would already be doing so. In any case, I think the decision to target an area for development relies on many more factors than park acreage.

Sure, actually my comment related to more than just parks. The point is that the development is clustering in certain areas, which is normal, but we have an odd situation where city amenities are spread throughout the city and many are under-used. Roads, parks, libraries, whatever. Of course, there isn't a whole lot one can do about it. But it is curious that we have great parks floundering while people want to tear down perfectly functional public facilities such as the post office for more park space.

In any case, good points, and I don't disagree with putting a park in River North.

[the urban politician]

That's Westinghouse HS, which was built as Bunte Bros. Candy Co., 1921, Schmidt, Garden & Martin.

When the new high school (http://www.sollitt.com/Leeds/Westinghouse.shtml)is finished, the current building is to be demolished (http://www.pbcchicago.com/subhtml/project_detail.asp?txtPRJ_ID=CPS-20) for parking and athletic fields. Landmarks Illinois put it on their Chicagoland Watch List for 2005-06.

^ If there is any consilation in the PBC's description of the project for Honte, perhaps it's the fact that the original school's demo is taking place to accommodate more than just a parking lot:

"Subsequent work will include the demolishing of the the existing building to provide additional parking for 45 vehicles and an outdoor athletic complex consisting of 3 tennis courts, soccer/football stadium, and an 8-lane running track."

[honte]

^ Sure, thanks. But actually, that makes it more annoying to me, since those uses didn't require a huge chunk of land. They could have been split up and could have consumed some vacant lots, perhaps in different parcels. Oh well.

The track needs considerable land, yes, but I'd rather even see it in the boulevard (which is pretty ratty) than the outcome we have here.

[Mr Downtown]

I was stuck making small talk with Ald. Smith for a half-hour last week (he's running for Recorder of Deeds). I vaguely knew the WHS problem was aldermanic opposition, but I wish I'd made the connection so I could have made that seem like a worrisome problem with his candidacy.

[VivaLFuego]

^ Yes, that is the Schmidt, Garden and Martin-designed factory that was later turned into a high school. LPCI (now LI) has been fighting for it for years. I think Preservation Chicago tried as well.

Thank Alderman Ed Smith for this. He insisted on a new high-school, which is being built down the street. He also insisted that they get rid of the old one, and wouldn't hear anything about reuse. The old building - already adapted once in its lifetime, evidence that it could easily be artists' lofts, yuppie lofts, low-income housing, uh, a factory, you name it. This could have been a major shot in the arm for the struggling Franklin Boulevard area. Instead, it will become... drum roll.... you guessed it, the school parking lot!! In an area with vacant lots every block!! Haha, wow, that's rich.

The building absolutely has some interesting details. It has the "hollyhock motif" on it that FLW made famous in LA, but this building predates FLW's California work. It's also an incredibly modern design for its day overall, with Chicago School expression and rather "European avant-garde" massing.

Last, there was a very impressive Modernist addition on the west side of the building.

Take a good last look. This and the old Washburne Trade school demolition are both incredibly sad and wasteful. To think, this massive building will be torn down, less than 8 blocks from the Center for Green Technology.

Thanks for the info. The scaffolding is up so this one is coming down imminently. I was wondering if anyone has a line on any of those giant eagles, I wouldn't mind taking them off the demolition crew's hands, if only I had a means of transporting them. Impressive stuff.

[honte]

^ I'm sure you'll find them for a cool grand or two at Architectural Artifacts.

I was stuck making small talk with Ald. Smith for a half-hour last week (he's running for Recorder of Deeds). I vaguely knew the WHS problem was aldermanic opposition, but I wish I'd made the connection so I could have made that seem like a worrisome problem with his candidacy.

Hey, if he's not going to screw up that neighborhood any longer, let him go. :) He is apparently also why the proposed Washington-Warren Boulevards historic district was shot down. And countless other screw ups too numerous to list here...

If he's out, I wonder if there might be some hope of relocating the Olympics Aquatics center to a more suitable West Side location? (Eg a vacant lot that's not going to eat up a historic park.)

Of course, this goes without saying, but everything I post here is rather casual. No one can blame him exclusively for this mess. But there is no denying he had a heavy hand in it.

[Patel]

This is not a development type of article and I do not want politics to invade this thread but this nice article from Salon give a good history of Illinois and Chicago politics.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/01/14/obama/

Chicago is Barack Obama's kind of town

...

"Part of what attracts me about Illinois generally is I think it's a microcosm of the country: north, south, east, west, black, white, urban, rural, southern, northern," Obama once said. "For somebody who cares deeply about the country, and about the issues and struggles this country's going through, I can't think of a better laboratory to work on some of the pressing issues we confront."

Barack Obama came to Chicago decades after the Great Migration, but for a young black man with political ambitions, it still turned out to be the promised land.

[ardecila]

^ I'm sure you'll find them for a cool grand or two at Architectural Artifacts.

That's a cool store, but they never sell anything with architectural value. I'm not a big fan of the proprietor, who thinks he's a museum curator (so he personally keeps anything with connections to famous architects) and is always irritated when I ask him questions about the merchandise. Half the fun of salvage is the story, but it seems most Chicago salvage stores are only out to make a buck. I visited a salvage store in Toledo last fall, where the industry is still extremely edgy, and I really enjoyed talking with the owner there for an hour (despite her 20 stray cats wandering around the store).

[Chicago Shawn]

People are always claiming that Chicago is "park poor". I'm not challenging the figures, but honestly, compared to most big cities I've spent time in, Chicago feels much more green and park "rich." It has to do not only with greenspace per capita, but the whole way the city is laid out and the proximity to a great park.



IMO, a lot of that 'green atmosphere' is created by our vast network of alleys, which keeps garages, driveway aprons, parking pads, overhead wires and trash cans away from the streetscape. The result is block-long stretches of parkways, lawns, small gardens and a canopy of mature trees. This is the biggest difference I notice when traveling around neighborhoods of other cities, especially the outer buroughs of NYC.

This is perhaps what I like best about our low-rise neighborhoods, and when I feel the need to see some grit, I only have to walk around back to the alley on any given block :) .

[Chicago Shawn]

Not to nitpick, but River North has far less of a park problem than Logan Square, Pilsen, and a number of other neighborhoods that have many more children than River North and less immediate vicinity to a large park or the lakefront. Of course, most neighborhoods in Chicago are park-poor, so the more the merrier.

Well, untill the riverside park at Erie St. opened, River North had no public parks aside from Washington Square. Granted, the lakefront is 1/2 mile to the east, and there are many plazas which take on the task of public space. I agree with you on both Pilsen and Logan Square, Pilsen moreso because of the lack of parkways and Boulivards, there is a significant lack of any green space. The largest park in the community (Harrison) is eaten up by the fieldhouse and the Mexican fine arts musuem. The remainder is taken up by ball fields heavily used for league sports.

[VivaLFuego]

Well, untill the riverside park at Erie St. opened, River North had no public parks aside from Washington Square. Granted, the lakefront is 1/2 mile to the east, and there are many plazas which take on the task of public space. I agree with you on both Pilsen and Logan Square, Pilsen moreso because of the lack of parkways and Boulivards, there is a significant lack of any green space. The largest park in the community (Harrison) is eaten up by the fieldhouse and the Mexican fine arts musuem. The remainder is taken up by ball fields heavily used for league sports.

At least Logan Square has tree-lined streets and the boulevard...when Pilsen's streets were modernized, hardly any provision was made for any sidewalk plantings, so it is largely devoid of any tree coverage. Definitely a detriment to neighborhood aesthetics, not even getting into the relative lack of open space in which kids can run around and play.

[Abner]

At least Logan Square has tree-lined streets and the boulevard...when Pilsen's streets were modernized, hardly any provision was made for any sidewalk plantings, so it is largely devoid of any tree coverage. Definitely a detriment to neighborhood aesthetics, not even getting into the relative lack of open space in which kids can run around and play.

Right, and this is especially a problem in what is probably one of the youngest neighborhoods in the city. The situation is bad enough that there are a couple community organizations that have created their own unofficial pocket parks for community use. There are currently a few large lots that would be suitable for parks or at least playgrounds, but I haven't heard about the city having any interest in exploring any possibilities. The kids will probably continue playing in the streets for the foreseeable future.

On the plus side, for urban enthusiasts, the absence of any parks or greenery makes Pilsen one of the best-preserved examples in the city of the 1880s urban environment.

[honte]

^ Yes, exactly. I hope there are ways to green Pilsen without clear-cutting. But then again, as the city sits back and watches tons of Pilsen buildings come down, in a few years this might be a moot point.

[ardecila]

Hmmm.. are there any vacant industrial properties along the river in Pilsen that could be turned into large parks? This would ease the crunch a bit.

[Abner]

Hmmm.. are there any vacant industrial properties along the river in Pilsen that could be turned into large parks? This would ease the crunch a bit.

Well, as I mentioned, I think Pilsen probably needs neighborhood parks more than it needs large-scale parks. And the river around there is dumpy, sometimes smelly, and occupied on both banks by some pretty gnarly industry. However, there are some lots that could be turned into mid-size or small parks: on Laflin and 21st, near Leavitt and Blue Island, and near Racine and 16th, for example.

[alex1]

regarding play areas for kids in Pilsen, there is definitely a need. But what I consider one of the great Chicago treasures, there's something to be said about that communities liberal use of cars and vans to blockade streets to allow weekend street parties. This is a tradition I hope never goes away.

[VivaLFuego]

regarding play areas for kids in Pilsen, there is definitely a need. But what I consider one of the great Chicago treasures, there's something to be said about that communities liberal use of cars and vans to blockade streets to allow weekend street parties. This is a tradition I hope never goes away.

That is pretty cool, and there are often ice cream trucks involved too. Mmm.

Of course, Maxwell Street Market, blockading a major cross-town arterial, was another cool Chicago tradition, and not many tears were shed when that was obliterated....and somehow it survived and regrouped into a presentable critical mass on Canal Street, but now it's gonna get moved again (to Desplaines). I figure this move to a particularly awful location right next to the expressway will be the final nail in the coffin.

[honte]

^ But now it has strange, industrial sculptures anchored all over the street to mark its permanence?!

[BWChicago]

^ I'm sure you'll find them for a cool grand or two at Architectural Artifacts.


Actually Urban Remains is the salvager here.

[honte]

^ Hmmm, Urban Remains. Never heard of them - rather grim name. Do all purchases come with giant urns to house the bits and pieces of the lost?

I tend to stay clear of these places, even though I know they serve their purpose. Thanks for the correction.

[Abner]

regarding play areas for kids in Pilsen, there is definitely a need. But what I consider one of the great Chicago treasures, there's something to be said about that communities liberal use of cars and vans to blockade streets to allow weekend street parties. This is a tradition I hope never goes away.

Those are great, but 99% of the time the kids are just playing in open streets. I'd hate to have to drive a car through Pilsen regularly.

Why is the "Maxwell Street" Market getting moved again? Too much development on Canal, what with the... Pacific Garden Mission? Or is it just too annoying for all the Hummers on Roosevelt Road?

[VivaLFuego]

Or is it just too annoying for all the Hummers on Roosevelt Road?

Basically. I imagine the developers of "Southgate Market", the Home Depot, Dominicks, Best Buy all had something to do with it too. Des Plaines is a suitable wasteland onto which to shove the marketeers, i.e. destroy what's left of the market. Good job, DPD.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:g2z3HDb2LkAJ:findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20050723/ai_n14858287+maxwell+market+desplaines+permanent+home&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[the urban politician]

This one's for Honte and our other preservation geeks. I wish the same would be pushed for Pilsen's commercial district:

Support voiced for Milwaukee landmark

January 16, 2008
By MARK LAWTON Staff Writer
Supporters outnumbered those against a proposed Milwaukee Avenue Landmark district at a Jan. 11 hearing by the City Council's Committee on Historical Landmark Preservation.

The proposed district would landmark the 1200 to 1600 blocks of North Milwaukee Avenue, the 1500 block of North Damen Avenue and the 1900 to 2000 blocks of West North Avenue. The proposed district is composed of 149 buildings and focuses on buildings constructed between 1877 and 1929.
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/booster1/news/741697,b1-landmarkdistrict-011608.article

[BWChicago]

^ Hmmm, Urban Remains. Never heard of them - rather grim name. Do all purchases come with giant urns to house the bits and pieces of the lost?

I tend to stay clear of these places, even though I know they serve their purpose. Thanks for the correction.

They're a bit different than the big two, and opened within a year or two. Worth checking out, they definitely have a much better focus on back story about their work. www.urbanremainschicago.com

[honte]

^ Will do. Thanks.

Basically. I imagine the developers of "Southgate Market", the Home Depot, Dominicks, Best Buy all had something to do with it too. Des Plaines is a suitable wasteland onto which to shove the marketeers, i.e. destroy what's left of the market. Good job, DPD.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:g2z3HDb2LkAJ:findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20050723/ai_n14858287+maxwell+market+desplaines+permanent+home&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

I think it should be fine, once people know where to go. I never thought Canal was a great choice for it, personally. This one actually might have more visibility from the highway.

[ardecila]

They're a bit different than the big two, and opened within a year or two. Worth checking out, they definitely have a much better focus on back story about their work. www.urbanremainschicago.com

I love Urban Remains. It's a tiny place on Paulina around the corner from Salvage One. Even more than Architectural Artifacts or Salvage One, it is packed to the gills with stuff. Since it's new, the owner can't yet afford to turn customers away by being surly. I get their newsletter.

[VivaLFuego]

Crain's is reporting the Germania Club building on Clark (south of North) was sold to a major shopping mall/urban infill investment company. This awesome building is landmarked, correct?

The site is zoned B3-5, and if combined with the buildings to the north (the shuttered Village theatre and Michael's restaurant), a pretty major building of about 8 stories and over 100 units could be built as-of-right.

Anyway, I wonder what's cooking...I'd like to see the Germania building saved, but the rest of the stuff on that block can go (as long as some of the terra cotta facade details on the old theatre are saved in one way or another)

[honte]

Crain's is reporting the Germania Club building on Clark (south of North) was sold to a major shopping mall/urban infill investment company. This awesome building is landmarked, correct?

No such luck.

However, I doubt they'd let it fall...

[the urban politician]

A separate topic:

Chicago might as well wave bye bye to tens of millions in TIF funds. When Delta merges with Northwest and Continental merges with United, Chicago will lose its only major airline HQ.

As we all know, Houston will be the HQ of that merged airline. I think I'm gonna barf.

[aaron38]

Well, although I have a background in urban and regional planning I'm not a fan of demographic planning (social engineering) to begin with....for instance - I believe the most effective way that government can promote affordable housing is to adopt policies that work with the market by encouraging increased supply - the opposite of developer affordable unit mandates, for example, which discourage supply, or for that matter grand subsidized housing schemes -whether low income or mixed income....

I just watched a Palatine city council meeting where they simultaneously told a developer to decrease a condo building from 4 stories to 3 (because 4 is just too tall),
AND told them to increase the number of afordable housing units!!!

Your guess is as good as mine how that logic works out.

[VivaLFuego]

I just watched a Palatine city council meeting where they simultaneously told a developer to decrease a condo building from 4 stories to 3 (because 4 is just too tall),
AND told them to increase the number of afordable housing units!!!

Your guess is as good as mine how that logic works out.

Economics doesn't usually factor into the decision-making process of the community activist mob and the elected officials who enable their treachery....somehow, after decades of incontrovertible evidence, they haven't figured out that any type of mandatory "affordable housing", be they set aside units or outright rent control, only serves to decrease overall housing affordability and make the problem even worse. The same lack of logic (or perhaps, anti-logic) comes into play when they decry anything resembling residential unit density, and then say they want lots of vibrant and unique retail options in a pedestrian friendly shopping district. Ummm....

It's not an accident that places like Houston, where almost anything goes in terms of units/acre (as long as you provide parking, natch), have absurdly low housing cost. It's also no accident that the neighborhoods with very high unit density and low off-street parking ratios (Lincoln Park....East Lakeview....parts of Gold Coast) have the most interesting and energetic retail districts.

[alex1]

A separate topic:

Chicago might as well wave bye bye to tens of millions in TIF funds. When Delta merges with Northwest and Continental merges with United, Chicago will lose its only major airline HQ.

As we all know, Houston will be the HQ of that merged airline. I think I'm gonna barf.

has there even been talk about where a possible HQ would be if they were to merge?

[Nowhereman1280]

has there even been talk about where a possible HQ would be if they were to merge?

Its nowhere near certain at this point, Chicago is still very much a possibility. I don't know why United-Continental would want to be in Houston over Chicago seeing as how there is much more aviation industry and traffic here...

[the urban politician]

^ I've heard from others that Continental's Houston-based management is much better than United's, thus sticking with that corporate culture in place may ultimately be of benefit.

But then again, we're also talking about the Daley-World Business Chicago-TIF machine here (and we all know that nobody bribes a company like Chicago can), so perhaps I spoke way too soon earlier.

[the urban politician]

Project to reconnect neighborhoods
Transit, retail top targets of new initiative

By HAYLEY GRAHAM
Editor


The Near West Side is among three neighborhoods being targeted in a recently launched redevelopment program called Reconnecting Neighborhoods.

The project is an initiative led by the City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development with support from the Regional Transportation Authority. The goal of Reconnecting Neighborhoods is to improve the pedestrian environment, create new commercial opportunities and enhance transit services and facilities on the Mid-South, Near North and Near West sides through community outreach. A launch event was held in November, but the project's first planning session is starting at the end of January.

"We're saying to all residents, 'We're moving forward as a city. How can we make improvements to best serve you?'" said Robin Snyderman, housing director for Metropolitan Planning Council, which is coordinating the public outreach component of the project.

The neighborhoods chosen for the project all include new mixed-income communities being constructed under the Chicago Housing Authority's Plan for Transformation. The Near West Side's West Haven community was developed to replace the Henry Horner Homes.

These areas are experiencing an influx of new homes and residents that has created a demand for better public transit, pedestrian connections and new retail opportunities to accommodate the residents.

Reconnecting Neighborhoods is taking community input and developing plans based off of the resident's recommendations to tackle these issues. The mission, Snyderman says, is to help residents plan for the future of their communities.

"It is as much about community building as it is about transit and retail," Snyderman said. "We're getting to the heart of issues central to people's lives."

Task Forces, consisting of community leaders, have been established in each neighborhood to regularly meet with the project team to create a blueprint for transit service and other neighborhood improvements. The Task Force members also work with the neighbors throughout all stages of the process.

More at link:
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=3876&TM=34984.73

[BWChicago]

No such luck.

However, I doubt they'd let it fall...

It is, however, on the NRHP. It came before the Commission on Chicago Landmarks in 1976, who took over a year to decide on whether it should be included. The Trib never actually reported on the outcome, curiously.

Following is a history of the latter days of this corner of Sandburg Village, copied from a post I made on the Village Theater's CinemaTreasures page:

"On the subject of restaurants, from 1899-1970, the corner of Clark and Germania was occupied by the venerable German restaurant Red Star Inn, which was torn down to allow the drive to be widened for Sandburg Village. This restaurant, a favorite of some influential politicians, including Sen. Dirksen, was the primary reason why the Germania Club, Theater, and Red Star Inn had been spared from demolition in the mid-60s. Also a factor was that the theater and the adjacent buildings (Mitchell's was built as a Walgreens) were owned by State Rep. Bill Schoeninger.

In 1977 the operator was Kohlberg theaters. In 1985 there was a proposal to build a 45 story, stepped apartment tower over part of the Germania Club and on the site of the Village and Mitchell's; the new building would have accommodated replacement locations for both. I would guess that because the Michael's restaurant is pretty marginal, the corner site including the theater is at risk despite the Orange rating on the theater."

The high-rise proposal would have used the Germania Club building as part of the lobby for the tower. The proposal was shot down by Sandburg Village NIMBYs who argued it would add too much to the existing congestion in the area. The club again came before the Commission in 1996 following its 1994 restoration, but again apparently failed.

[VivaLFuego]

It is, however, on the NRHP. It came before the Commission on Chicago Landmarks in 1976, who took over a year to decide on whether it should be included. The Trib never actually reported on the outcome, curiously.

Following is a history of the latter days of this corner of Sandburg Village, copied from a post I made on the Village Theater's CinemaTreasures page:

"On the subject of restaurants, from 1899-1970, the corner of Clark and Germania was occupied by the venerable German restaurant Red Star Inn, which was torn down to allow the drive to be widened for Sandburg Village. This restaurant, a favorite of some influential politicians, including Sen. Dirksen, was the primary reason why the Germania Club, Theater, and Red Star Inn had been spared from demolition in the mid-60s. Also a factor was that the theater and the adjacent buildings (Mitchell's was built as a Walgreens) were owned by State Rep. Bill Schoeninger.

In 1977 the operator was Kohlberg theaters. In 1985 there was a proposal to build a 45 story, stepped apartment tower over part of the Germania Club and on the site of the Village and Mitchell's; the new building would have accommodated replacement locations for both. I would guess that because the Michael's restaurant is pretty marginal, the corner site including the theater is at risk despite the Orange rating on the theater."

Interesting. As a resident in the area, I wouldn't mind the redevelopment of the Michaels(Mitchells) and Village Theatre sites into a much more high-intensity use. I remember seeing some of the planning documents for that 80s highrise proposal (101 W. North, if I remember correctly). However, I've heard that a certain hack elected official has told interested developers to buzz off, so again, I seriously wonder what's cooking. Maybe a parking lot to appease the parking gods and bring the neighborhood into compliane with our god-given constitutional right to ample and free parking for all, as espoused by a certain hack elected official....

[honte]

It is, however, on the NRHP.

Yes, but that means basically .... nothing.

Thanks for the background info! Very interesting.

[simcityaustin]

Olympic Committee released their application to the public today - http://208.96.205.108/Chicago_2016_Applicant_File.pdf

[Patel]

www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/sunday/art/chi-0120_jahnjan20,0,5213165.story


ARCHITECTURE

Getting the max out of minimalism

Helmut Jahn redefines skyscraper formula with his first condo tower in ChicagoBy Blair Kamin

TRIBUNE CRITIC

January 20, 2008

Life isn't fair, and neither are the ebbs and flows of architectural celebrity.

Twenty-three years ago, Helmut Jahn was the talk of the architecture world -- a pop star/fashion plate splashed on the cover of GQ, his cool blue eyes peering out from under a light-brown gangster hat. Today, his star has been eclipsed by such megawatt architects as Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid. Yet he's better than ever, as he makes clear in his first residential high-rise in Chicago.

That 41-story tower, called 600 North Fairbanks, is a quietly elegant wedge of glass that conspicuously outclasses all the other high-rises being built around it. ...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-01/34815036.jpghttp://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-01/34815112.jpghttp://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-01/34815110.jpg
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-01/34815110.jpg

[Down_Under_the_El]

^I think I've seen this building in person, but I'm not sure.. it seems though from the pictures I've seen that I might like for the base to be clear instead of a wall of white behind glass..

anybody else have any comments about this?

[Alliance]

Its ok as is. The structure of the garage might just prove a distraction if it was entirely visible. But, there's quite a bit of detail in the garage facing.

Fairbanks is definately classy.

[alex1]

from what little I can tell, it look really nice. my only complaint is how the balconies are so harmoniously in line. I'd love to have seen them in a more random displacement pattern.

[VivaLFuego]

from what little I can tell, it look really nice. my only complaint is how the balconies are so harmoniously in line. I'd love to have seen them in a more random displacement pattern.
That could be interesting, especially considering that the pattern of open/closed window shades is guaranteed to always have some randomness to it.

[honte]

^I think I've seen this building in person, but I'm not sure.. it seems though from the pictures I've seen that I might like for the base to be clear instead of a wall of white behind glass..

anybody else have any comments about this?

The garage treatment is the best part of the building. It looked horrendous until they put in the mesh curtains. I think this might be the best solution to the ugly parking situation I've seen so far, aside, obviously, from burying it within the structure.

[Down_Under_the_El]

It sucks these buildings have to have a parking garage in the first place.. but I guess if there was going to be an upside to it, a lot of structures going up wouldn't be reaching the same heights. :)

It is a very nice building and I plan to take a visit as soon as I can.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ I've heard from others that Continental's Houston-based management is much better than United's, thus sticking with that corporate culture in place may ultimately be of benefit.

But then again, we're also talking about the Daley-World Business Chicago-TIF machine here (and we all know that nobody bribes a company like Chicago can), so perhaps I spoke way too soon earlier.


Very timely topic. Check out these 2 recent articles that appeared in the Trib. Personally, I think you might have been a bit too pessimistic. I have no feeling of which way a merged UAL hq may go - I think it's a coin flip at this point. One thing though is even though Tiltion has seemed hell-bent on consolidation for quite some time, I don't necessarily think a merger is inevitable in the near-term (it may well be in the long-term, however) - I've seen many industry experts opine that a merger agreement with United may in fact be too complicated to be feasible at present....


http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sun_aftermathjan20,0,1079838.story


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ga-airlinemergers,0,4101326.story

[Marcu]

It sucks these buildings have to have a parking garage in the first place.. but I guess if there was going to be an upside to it, a lot of structures going up wouldn't be reaching the same heights. :)

It is a very nice building and I plan to take a visit as soon as I can.

Parking in buildings such as this isn't a matter of zoning or minimum requirements, but consumer demand. Very few people that move into buildings at this price level will consider a unit without parking and underground in Streeterville is not very practical from a cost standpoint.

[SamInTheLoop]

Parking in buildings such as this isn't a matter of zoning or minimum requirements, but consumer demand. Very few people that move into buildings at this price level will consider a unit without parking and underground in Streeterville is not very practical from a cost standpoint.



Bingo. The reality of the situation, unfortunately, is that above-ground parking components in new construction residential high-rises in Chicago are here to stay - the key is to find elegant solutions to this 'necessary evil' - few if any results have been so elegant as 600 N Fairbanks....I hope a majority of Chicago developers are paying attention...

[the urban politician]

Chicago's Union Bus Depot - Reborn Cubellis Helps Developer Take Space Beyond Traditional Retail To Create a New Experience
| 21 Jan 2008 | 08:45 AM ET
CHICAGO, Jan 21, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Cubellis, a national architectural, interior design, and engineering firm with offices in Chicago, has contributed the base building architectural design to the successful renovation of the Trailways bus depot building at the corner of Wabash and Roosevelt in Chicago's South Loop.

The architectural work is a key part of the successful restoration and rebirth of the local noteworthy building at 50 E. Roosevelt for adaptive retail store re-use. Opened in 1928 as the country's first $1 million bus terminal, Chicago's Union Bus Depot was the city's first central terminal for bus travelers, and offered convenient downtown access for the passengers of the major long-distance bus lines that served the city. At its height of operation, the station and its spacious waiting room were shared by over 25 individual bus lines, including major carriers such as Greyhound and Trailways.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/22766860/

[the urban politician]

Ahhh, a new NIMBY group has formed. WLCC, how nice. You think WLCO was bad? Just wait till we see more of these guys in action :yes:

318 problems
REAL ESTATE | Madison St. condo plan provokes intense opposition

January 23, 2008
BY DAVID ROEDER Sun-Times Columnist
Pursuing a plan to build 318 condos at 1260 W. Madison, Highland Park-based Pickus Cos. has encountered determined opposition from community groups. Some of its problems could be of its own making.

Reaction from neighbors has been so strong that they formed a community group, called West Loop Concerned Citizens, to combat the developer and relay their feelings to Ald. Walter Burnett Jr. (27th), who has the power over a zoning change for Pickus.
http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/754077,CST-FIN-roeder23.article

318 condos? OH NO! We're gonna die!!

[the urban politician]

^...and from our correspondent in Bizarro Chicago:

Plan for drugstore faces resistance

January 23, 2008
By MARK LAWTON Staff Writer
Curb cuts and an alley could be the downfall of a developer's plan to build a drugstore on the Southwest corner of Ashland and Division.

In August, Interra Development Partners announced plans to build a Walgreen's pharmacy on the site of a former Pizza Hut.

The East Village Association, however, preferred a taller and larger development, perhaps of the same mass as the MB bank building across the street.
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/booster1/news/752806,b1-drugstore-012308.article

[nomarandlee]

A question/reminder....Anyone here going to Wrigley/Addison St. Hyatt Hotel development community meeting tonight? Its at 6:30 tonight at the Wrigley Field Stadium club. Even though its not an official high rise it is going for LEED certification and it should be interesting to see how the design fits to contrast Wrigley.

I am preparing for the worst in that I think the design may try to be safe and lame in order to comply with probable critics who would decry something that doesn't "fit" with Wrigley or the neighborhood but maybe a surprise is in order.

[invisibleartist]

^...and from our correspondent in Bizarro Chicago:

Plan for drugstore faces resistance

January 23, 2008
By MARK LAWTON Staff Writer
Curb cuts and an alley could be the downfall of a developer's plan to build a drugstore on the Southwest corner of Ashland and Division.

In August, Interra Development Partners announced plans to build a Walgreen's pharmacy on the site of a former Pizza Hut.

The East Village Association, however, preferred a taller and larger development, perhaps of the same mass as the MB bank building across the street.
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/booster1/news/752806,b1-drugstore-012308.article
Thank God that someone is protesting another ugly wallgreens. enough already, they are killing the developing culture of the city. That pizza hut location is one of the best in the city. if the developer claims that a bigger project is not economically feasable, he is an incompitent idiot. that liocation is right above the blue line, next to the highway, and smack between downtown and on of the coolest neighborhoods in the city. They should be able to build a highrise there!

[invisibleartist]

^...and from our correspondent in Bizarro Chicago:

Plan for drugstore faces resistance

January 23, 2008
By MARK LAWTON Staff Writer
Curb cuts and an alley could be the downfall of a developer's plan to build a drugstore on the Southwest corner of Ashland and Division.

In August, Interra Development Partners announced plans to build a Walgreen's pharmacy on the site of a former Pizza Hut.

The East Village Association, however, preferred a taller and larger development, perhaps of the same mass as the MB bank building across the street.
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/booster1/news/752806,b1-drugstore-012308.article
the alderman should deny the developer zoning and force him to sell the property then rezone for a highrise. the developer can sell it for a huge profit and someone who can build a significant project can move in. every one could be happy. :notacrook:

[VivaLFuego]

A question/reminder....Anyone here going to Wrigley/Addison St. Hyatt Hotel development community meeting tonight? Its at 6:30 tonight at the Wrigley Field Stadium club. Even though its not an official high rise it is going for LEED certification and it should be interesting to see how the design fits to contrast Wrigley.

I am preparing for the worst in that I think the design may try to be safe and lame in order to comply with probable critics who would decry something that doesn't "fit" with Wrigley or the neighborhood but maybe a surprise is in order.

I'm more worried about idiot neighbors claiming the highest and best use of the land is as parking or at most, a 2-3 story shitbox. And worse, the aldermen heeding their uninformed, foolish opinions.

[Chicago2020]

here's a video from ABC 7 which includes renderings

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=5910258

1000th POST:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

and it only took about 6 years

[the urban politician]

^ Congrats. Nice find, btw. I sort of figured we'd be getting a brick ye olde Chicago kind of thing.

Question 1: Did anybody go to the meeting?

Question 2: The video was very brief. What will be replaced by this project?

[honte]

^ Not too much of note, surprisingly. The Starbucks building is a nice Classical Revival with an octagonal bay; there also is a rather large cold storage building with a somewhat uninspired facade. Overall, I don't think it's too much of a loss.

[aaron38]

Regarding Wrigley, they couldn't get the souvenir shop to sell? That sucks, because that's a crappy one story on the corner, where you need the streetwall the most.

And what was that tower behind the developer in the ABC news piece? Was that the old design they mentioned was scrapped?
Also, I loved the guy at the end who said if he hated congestion, he wouldn't live a block from Wrigley!

[ardecila]

Fuzzy rendering for interested parties (I hope this doesn't violate any rules).

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5679/wrigley01tz2.jpg

[wrabbit]

From this AM's Trib:

By Joshua Boak and Robert Manor | Tribune reporters
January 24, 2008

A Chicago developer unveiled plans in the city's Wrigleyville neighborhood Wednesday night for a nine-story, mixed-use development with a hotel that would stand virtually eye-to-eye with Wrigley Field.....

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/34909242.png

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/34898959-24041718.jpg

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-thu_wrigville24jan24,0,715363.story

[OhioGuy]

I like the development!

[Nowhereman1280]

Wow, major improvement for that area!

[trvlr70]

Wrigley Field already has the most "upscale" location of any major league park. I'm not overly enthusiastic about having a hotel...especially a mid-range property like Hyatt Place. If a hotel is needed, then something more unique and special would be in order.

However, I am excited about finally get rid of those hideous parking lots.

But I would not complain about well designed, historical looking 4-story infill there as well.

[spyguy]

Might as well post one of the older designs/schemes for this project now
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/5144/21408484ct7.jpg

[GregBear24]

^ that's awesome. I would like to see somthing there that isn't almost the same height as wrigley. Either have 4-5 flats with retail on bottom, or have something much taller than wrigley- which of course is what I would like to see more of in lakeview.

[honte]

@spyguy: Bummer. Seems to have had the NIMBY treatment.

[alex1]

the only way i see this failing (besides bland architecture) is if they provide too much parking. Because if the community is concerned about traffic and 500 parking spots are added, then you might as well get NIMBY-esque on this thing.

[ardecila]

Congestion in this immediate area is not just a vehicular problem, it's also a pedestrian problem. The sidewalks are really quite narrow to handle the huge pedestrian volumes that the area gets for home games and the occasional concert. Also, the dense concentration of bars makes the area a year-round destination, so some sidewalk expansion and better crosswalks/traffic calming would be very helpful.

[GregBear24]

the only way i see this failing (besides bland architecture) is if they provide too much parking. Because if the community is concerned about traffic and 500 parking spots are added, then you might as well get NIMBY-esque on this thing.

I hope that if this happens there isn't too much parking (esp since it's a block away from the red line). However, as we know, there could very well be no way to please the nimbys regardless. They can come up with endless excuses such as it doesnt fit the neighborhood to too many people living in wrigleyville. I, personally, have a problem with the possibility of not being able to see the city from the top concourse and upper deck. I always enjoy looking at the skyline at any time. That's why I prefer the taller structure, which wouldn't block the spectacular city views as much as this bulky, 9 story building. If wrigley was a residential structure, I'd say block all the views if possible, but it's a place open to the public for games, tours, and some other events. Just an opinion of mine that I'm sure people will disagree with me about. Just don't call me a nimby, because I'm certainly not.

[brian_b]

If the development does include significant parking, the problems could be alleviated somewhat if the entrances and exits were on Clark and Sheffield only. On game days, traffic control can make it so there is no entry or egress to the north, IE - everything comes from the south before the game, and heads south after the game.

[Marcu]

@spyguy: Bummer. Seems to have had the NIMBY treatment.

Disagree. Not everything in the city needs a glass curtain. Clean looking brick is a lot more appropriate for the area. Especially if done well.

[trvlr70]

Disagree. Not everything in the city needs a glass curtain. Clean looking brick is a lot more appropriate for the area. Especially if done well.

I agree. Huge expanses of glass would look terrible in that vicinity.

[nomarandlee]

Congestion in this immediate area is not just a vehicular problem, it's also a pedestrian problem. The sidewalks are really quite narrow to handle the huge pedestrian volumes that the area gets for home games and the occasional concert. Also, the dense concentration of bars makes the area a year-round destination, so some sidewalk expansion and better crosswalks/traffic calming would be very helpful.

I believe the developer talked about adding 4 ft. to the sidewalk at least on the Clark St. if I remember correctly so that would help.

They can come up with endless excuses such as it doesnt fit the neighborhood to too many people living in wrigleyville. I, personally, have a problem with the possibility of not being able to see the city from the top concourse and upper deck. I always enjoy looking at the skyline at any time. That's why I prefer the taller structure, which wouldn't block the spectacular city views as much as this bulky, 9 story building. If wrigley was a residential structure, I'd say block all the views if possible, but it's a place open to the public for games, tours, and some other events. Just an opinion of mine that I'm sure people will disagree with me about. Just don't call me a nimby, because I'm certainly not.

I agree I would like it taller and thinner as well precisely for those reasons and I think the building would look less squat but if there are height restrictions I think its a fair trade. It would be nice if Hyatt at least had a bar patio deck for the public that would keep open the same views but I couldn't tell if that is in the plans or not.

[Chicago3rd]

I want it...but I want it with lot less cars. Only want parking for the average amount of people staying at the hotel. Addison cannot handle anymore traffic most days of the week let alone on game day. But I want this and much more density around all CTA El stops. We should be taxing people more who don't allow for the city to maximize the EL yet get the benifit of it right next door.

[EarlyBuyer]

I received this from Magellan:

Dear Lakeshore East Residents:


As the Lakeshore East Community Relations Director I'd like to provide a Village Market update. The Village Market, which will offer a host of retail amenities, will be situated on the southwestern edge of the community just north of 340 on The Park. There has been a lot of anticipation by the residents as well as Magellan Development for the official ground breaking. The recent delays are due to some architectural changes that we feel will benefit the Village Market and our community. Once the new plans are approved by the City Council and Planning Department we expect an immediate ground breaking. We are very confident of a spring 2008 ground breaking with an expected 12 month build out.

We are delighted that a Treasure Island Grocery Store and a well known ice cream chain are confirmed retailers and are excited to report that a nationally respected day care center is also very interested in the space. The Village Market will span over 100,000 square feet and will be a place for residents and neighbors to shop, dine, relax and socialize. An underground parking garage and potential for drive up services are also in the plans.

The spectacular Lakeshore East scale model including the addition of the Village Market has been moved to the new Sales and Design Gallery located in the retail space of The Regatta at 430 E. Waterside Drive. I encourage you to stop in, meet with me and take a look at the design and lay out of the Village Market.

[the urban politician]

Have any of you read the big article today in the Tribune regarding spot zoning in the city, Aldermanic prerogative, and campaign donations from developers? Pretty interesting:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-code-overviewjan27,0,6181305.story

I particularly cracked up when I saw this picture. I could certainly be mistaken here, but I believe I read an article a few years ago in Chicago Mag about a controversial project on the NW side. On an otherwise Single-Family-Home lined street, a wealthy Hip-Hop producer got a zoning change to build a big castle. Neighbors were furious when they found out what he was building. This pic, from the Tribune, looks like it could be the very same project:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-01/34900892.jpg

:haha: Those neighbors must be cursing this damn thing every day.

[honte]

^ Yes, I think that's the one. Did you see the front (from the Kennedy). OMG. He actually put the front of his "castle" facing the highway instead of the street. Unreal.

Disagree. Not everything in the city needs a glass curtain. Clean looking brick is a lot more appropriate for the area. Especially if done well.

And does anything about that render or design indicate to you that it will? Get ready for more schlock. They can go ahead and use whatever materials they want, but it should be well done.

My reaction is not so much about the change in designs, but the fact that the design clearly went from "I want to do something a bit bold" to yet more compromised, boring infill that looks like anywhere else.

IMO insertions of good, contemporary materials can do a lot to jazz up a streetscape and breathe in new life. For instance, although it's too flashy and "Miami Vice" for me, the new Army Surplus on Belmont has had this effect.

[the urban politician]

^ You know, on another note I actually think that schlock jazzes up streetscapes as well. I know you're one of shlock's biggest critics, but I actually am one of the few people who doesn't agree much with that Tribune article. I like "the French embassy", and other than that somewhat entertaining hip-hop castle, I like every development pictured (perhaps also with the exception of that blob that replaced the Artful Dodger).

While I certainly think that accepting campaign contributions from developers in return for allowing zoning changes is an unacceptable practice, I also don't agree with the notion that neighborhoods should be kept at a certain density and that rooflines should all match up.

I don't at all have a problem with the 3-4 story monstrosities that tower over single family homes. This is a city, and it's a sign that people want to live in these neighborhhoods. Let more of these get built, I say. What's wrong with neighborhoods transforming?

What we're seeing here is just the typical city-wide reaction against new development, the usual whining that never stops, and the Tribune appears to have sided with NIMBY's. I agree with its criticism of Aldermanic prerogative, but for a different reason. They criticize Aldermanic prerogative because Alderman are cozy with developers; I criticize it because it allows small numbers of outspoken individuals to overpower the people who should be overseeing development: the Planning Dept.

[Abner]

The Tribune article comes with a very interesting database with a search function that allows you to look up all zoning changes in a given ward for the past five years or so.


What we're seeing here is just the typical city-wide reaction against new development, the usual whining that never stops, and the Tribune appears to have sided with NIMBY's. I agree with its criticism of Aldermanic prerogative, but for a different reason. They criticize Aldermanic prerogative because Alderman are cozy with developers; I criticize it because it allows small numbers of outspoken individuals to overpower the people who should be overseeing development: the Planning Dept.

First, much of the upzoning discussed in the article leads to a DECREASE in density--multiple lots or three-flats being replaced with a single gargantuan single-family home. Moreover, lots that never used to have parking suddenly have to have eight-car garages that alone are the size of the houses they replaced. This practice does not promote density.

Second, there is no shortage of vacant land and underutilized lots in this city. If developers were encouraged to build on those, we might start seeing development spread outside the extremely narrow northern corridor to which it is confined.

Third, the planners themselves often recommend against zoning changes because they create unpredictable density levels and blocks with no defined character. People don't want to live in a place like that.

Fourth, well, people don't want to live in places like that. Note the story about the family on N. Sacramento that has to deal with a developer building condos on either side of their house--despite the fact that the already-completed condo building on one side has had no buyers!

Fifth, the city had the option of promoting new development in areas that have plenty of transit capacity, like around Lake Street. It elected to allow aldermen to promote it instead in areas with already crushing density of transit trips, taxing the existing infrastructure.

The city could have stuck with a pretty tried-and-true zoning system. Arterial streets with high density and a mixture of uses, residential streets for those with a little more to spend who value quietness and light. Instead it has allowed this zoning anarchy, which only encourages people to invest little in their communities, since they have no way of knowing whether they will have any interest in living in them in the future.

[the urban politician]

First, much of the upzoning discussed in the article leads to a DECREASE in density--multiple lots or three-flats being replaced with a single gargantuan single-family home.

^ I'm not denying that this is taking place as well. But which process is dominating? (ie SFH being replaced with a condo building, or a 3 flat replaced with a mansion?)

Moreover, lots that never used to have parking suddenly have to have eight-car garages that alone are the size of the houses they replaced. This practice does not promote density.

^ I hear you, but come on. 8 car garages? That is definitely the exception. Most of the parking is simply filling space in the rear of buildings along the alleys anyhow.

Second, there is no shortage of vacant land and underutilized lots in this city. If developers were encouraged to build on those, we might start seeing development spread outside the extremely narrow northern corridor to which it is confined.

^ Right, but what does this have to do with zoning? People want to live in these north side neighborhoods.

Third, the planners themselves often recommend against zoning changes because they create unpredictable density levels and blocks with no defined character. People don't want to live in a place like that.

My problem is with this notion of 'defined character'. Since when is that set in stone? Can't a neighborhood's character change? Can a neighborhood full of worker's 2 flats gradually evolve into a neighborhood of large mansions? I agree that the current process (or lack thereof) is horrible, but we need to be open to change. Instead of spot zoning, perhaps we should be looking at development patterns and rezone whole blocks accordingly?

Fourth, well, people don't want to live in places like that. Note the story about the family on N. Sacramento that has to deal with a developer building condos on either side of their house--despite the fact that the already-completed condo building on one side has had no buyers!

^ Perhaps they should move, then. When the lots around you get larger and larger structures, are they the ones out of character or are you?

Fifth, the city had the option of promoting new development in areas that have plenty of transit capacity, like around Lake Street. It elected to allow aldermen to promote it instead in areas with already crushing density of transit trips, taxing the existing infrastructure.

I agree with TOD as well. And there are a lot of transit stops in the city where publically they are trying to attract development. But how much can the city do? People want to be on the north side, and that's not gonna change no matter how many RFP's the Planning Dept submits.

The city could have stuck with a pretty tried-and-true zoning system. Arterial streets with high density and a mixture of uses, residential streets for those with a little more to spend who value quietness and light. Instead it has allowed this zoning anarchy, which only encourages people to invest little in their communities, since they have no way of knowing whether they will have any interest in living in them in the future.

^ Agree 100%. But lets remember that the issue isn't Chicago's lack of a zoning system, it's corrupt spot-zoning that's the root of this problem. It's Aldermanic privilege. Smart planning can't occur as long as some hack can pull the rug out under (or give the thumbs up on) any project because of a donation or because of the taste of a few individuals.

[ardecila]

^ You know, on another note I actually think that schlock jazzes up streetscapes as well. I know you're one of shlock's biggest critics, but I actually am one of the few people who doesn't agree much with that Tribune article. I like "the French embassy", and other than that somewhat entertaining hip-hop castle, I like every development pictured (perhaps also with the exception of that blob that replaced the Artful Dodger).

My opinions are the opposite. I hate the French embassy, but I don't have a problem with the castle, which I see every time I drive in on the Kennedy.

Along most of the Kennedy, the highway is an ugly slash through neighborhoods, where the existing older buildings jut up against the highway at odd angles. You can tell that the old neighborhood and the highway don't match; there's a ragged edge where they meet. I like the trend of architecture giving respect to the highway in terms of the shape of buildings. The highway isn't going anywhere; it's about time architects stopped turning their backs on it.

[BVictor1]

Have any of you read the big article today in the Tribune regarding spot zoning in the city, Aldermanic prerogative, and campaign donations from developers? Pretty interesting:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-code-overviewjan27,0,6181305.story

I particularly cracked up when I saw this picture. I could certainly be mistaken here, but I believe I read an article a few years ago in Chicago Mag about a controversial project on the NW side. On an otherwise Single-Family-Home lined street, a wealthy Hip-Hop producer got a zoning change to build a big castle. Neighbors were furious when they found out what he was building. This pic, from the Tribune, looks like it could be the very same project:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-01/34900892.jpg

:haha: Those neighbors must be cursing this damn thing every day.

It's hard to tell from this angle if this is that development or not. All I know is that you can see it while driving NB on the Kennedy Expy. I saw it today actually. It's kind of gaudy.

[alex1]

I agree. Huge expanses of glass would look terrible in that vicinity.

depends how it's executed. There's little reason to believe that a certain area needs a certain type of material to coexist properly. perhaps this idea of trying to fit into a certain context is the the wrong approach (strictly within the context of style and not scale).

with all things, some architects are much better at using brick (FLW was amazing with it), some are amazing with the use of concreate (Louis Kahn) and others treat glass in spectacular ways.

but I regress, I'm more concerned about fundamental urban design with this project. The area isn't all that attractive to begin with. Therefore I don't see an architectural blight as damaging as an urban planning mistake (500 spaces).

as many of you know, I'm a big fan of the NIMBY at times. They have the power to foster better design, preserve the parts that are worth preserving and and kill the undesirable (strip malls). Jane Jacobs was a NIMBY at the expense of better solutions for a better environment. At the same time, killing density for killing density sake isn't smart either.

[nomarandlee]

depends how it's executed. There's little reason to believe that a certain area needs a certain type of material to coexist properly. perhaps this idea of trying to fit into a certain context is the the wrong approach (strictly within the context of style and not scale).

with all things, some architects are much better at using brick (FLW was amazing with it), some are amazing with the use of concreate (Louis Kahn) and others treat glass in spectacular ways.

but I regress, I'm more concerned about fundamental urban design with this project. The area isn't all that attractive to begin with. Therefore I don't see an architectural blight as damaging as an urban planning mistake (500 spaces).

as many of you know, I'm a big fan of the NIMBY at times. They have the power to foster better design, preserve the parts that are worth preserving and and kill the undesirable (strip malls). Jane Jacobs was a NIMBY at the expense of better solutions for a better environment. At the same time, killing density for killing density sake isn't smart either.

I agree, I imagine the powers that be trying to enforce a certain aesthetic that "goes along with Wrigley" somehow. What exactly that would be I am not sure but I fear that the worst that developers try or are forced to be beholden to such a mirage the worst off all the development that will go up will be.

Style and architecture can be done well and look descent no matter the reference or genre but the most important thing is that whatever is built coordinates and juxtapose while complementing well with its surroundings (which doesn't necessarily require similar heights or styles to do it).

If anyone hasn't reaed the comments post on the news article I suggest reading some :haha: .....
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/chicago-tribune/TPQ65FDE6QTMCPPEU

[wrabbit]

Another Trib photo of the castle:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/34900890.jpg
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-080127upzone-photogallery,0,2865570.photogallery

[honte]

^ Ok, thanks, so I forgot there was a street between the Kennedy and the "Castle". Still, the elevations to the east and north are unacceptable....

[the urban politician]

One last point:

I am happy that this issue made headlines in the Tribune, for the simple fact that it highlights the problems with Aldermanic prerogative. Perhaps this is the very beginning of a discussion about the inherent flaws with this long-standing tradition.

[ardecila]

I'm not sure of my opinion on this issue. On the one hand, aldermanic prerogative is allowing neighborhoods like Wicker Park, Bucktown, Lakeview, Lincoln Park, et al. to get taller and recapture some of the density they lost when gentrification reduced household sizes, thereby supporting further retail and creating transit ridership. If planners had their say, the neighborhoods would remain more or less untouched, save for rehabs and the occasional empty parcels.

On the other hand, aldermanic prerogative also fosters idiotic moves like the attempted blocking of X/O and the downzoning of Gold Coast.

It's a really tough call on my part, especially since I can't decide whether I prefer a planned approach or laissez-faire (which produced most of historic Chicago). Pay-to-play is basically just a form of laissez-faire, since many aldermen don't care about what development occurs so long as they get their little "fee".

[Via Chicago]

It's kind of gaudy.


Kind of?

[wrabbit]

.....It's a really tough call on my part, especially since I can't decide whether I prefer a planned approach or laissez-faire (which produced most of historic Chicago). Pay-to-play is basically just a form of laissez-faire, since many aldermen don't care about what development occurs so long as they get their little "fee".

Ultimate (penultimate?) laissez-faire city would be Houston - very little zoning there.

[EarlyBuyer]

Photo's taken by EarlyBuyer 1/27/08

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/521/dscn9258mu6.jpg


http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/2143/dscn9263ur7.jpg


http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/3720/dscn9292cx9.jpg


http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/8424/dscn9302ns9.jpg

[honte]

^ Earlybuyer, I appreciate all of your photo posts.

Ultimate (penultimate?) laissez-faire city would be Houston - very little zoning there.

I lived in Houston for a spell. The funny thing is, however, that they really don't have the same kind of problem Chicago does. The neighborhoods are surprisingly consistent, even though people bash the lack of zoning all the time, and they didn't have a huge teardown trend like Chicago. (At least, when I lived there, they didn't.) I did have an ice cream factory down the block from my house, though. :D

I am not sure if you are using Houston as a good example or a bad one, but the point I am trying to make is that I think Houston residents would be equally upset if they were experiencing something similar to many north side neighborhoods.

[JV_325i]

...and potential for drive up services are also in the plans.

So what exactly does this mean? Drive up as in drive-through banking because residents can't possibly fathom walking 500 feet to get to their desired destination? If that is the case then that is really pathetic.