[VivaLFuego]

^ The NIMBYS had a fit when it was proposed b/c it didn't have a brick fascade.

And lo and behold, it didn't destroy their quainte little neighborhood. Go figure.

[Nowhereman1280]

i'm not sure why you took this angle but my POV has everything to do with preserving Chicago's history and nothing to do with having to pick and choose which building needs to get the resources. if places like paris, vienna, prague and boston can preserve their past (and do it successfully), Chicago should have little problems doing so. The belief that saving old structures endangers other buildings is a red hering (and a strange stance to take IMO).

Chicago has a great buildings, great neighborhoods that I would love to see preserved. Chicago is also ripe for smart, sustainable development that takes advantage of its relatively good infrastructure and urban layout. the two forms of development can be had.

Its not a red herring, its reality. When it comes down to it, not every building can be saved in the real world. One of the defining factors of economics is limited resources, you can't circumvent that. If you are talking about ideals, then yes, save all buildings of any importance regardless of condition. But to say that a buildings condition should have no impact on whether a building is a preservation piece or not is absurd.

Lets take this to an extreme, lets say there are two, four story, buildings of equal historical importantance and they are right next to each other. They are a block away from one of the biggest transit stops in the city and two away from the busiest shopping district in the city. Lets say one is infested with toxic mold, has all of the windows busted out, has extreme water damage, etc. and would cost 5 million dollars to restore. The other building is still occupied, its not perfect by any means, but the roof still keeps out the water, the windows are there, and the paint, though many layers thick after all the years is still sealing the wood, this would cost 1 million to restore. They are both midblock and have moderately large parking lots between the back of them and the alley.

If a developer comes the city and proposes to building a modern 40 story building of a somewhat interesting design that works around one building with an "L" shape where one historic building is restored and the other is demolished. Which building will be destroyed? Obviously the shitty building that will not only cost more money, but not be any better, than the other. Or does it make sense to throw away 40 floors of density within a block of a major transit stop and one of the greatest retail districts in the country?

Clearly the condition of the building does matter. I think you take preservation way to far when you say we should try to save everything that has any importance. To be quite honest, I think there are even many situations where some historic structures need to bite the dust just to make way for what makes sense. You can't always focus on the past or you'll have no future.

By the way, the situation with the two buildings is actually real, the block next to Loyola Watertower Campus might face the preservation of one historic building at the cost of another.

[the urban politician]

Just thinking the other day...

A project that is, perhaps, the most telling sign that the downtown area has been reborn (or maybe the 're' is unnecessary) The ground level of the sears tower parking garage (between wells & franklin, jackson and quincy) has been under construction converting the parking spaces around the perimeter of the structure to retail space.

I guess i just find it compelling because it indicates that the opportunity of providing places for businesses is greater than the opportunity of providing places for cars. If there were a parking garage that was being converted to or replaced by residential, that may be the most dramatic indication that the role of downtown is to be a place for people to live, rather than cars to park.

^ That is of interest. Hopefully we'll see more automobile storage space redeveloped into something more useful in the upcoming years.

[cbotnyse]

hey guys, what is the latest info on the post office on Ohio and Dearborn? will there for sure be no building there? I ask because my gf and I just saw a great condo at 600 N. Dearborn yesterday and want to make sure because that would block an amazing view. In the picture the post office is directly below me.

here is a picture I snapped from the balcony. Trump, IBM, Marina City, Waterview, Sears, 300 N, and Merchandise Mart all all in the view. I love it.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/my%20photos/DSC_0060-2.jpg

[the urban politician]

Dressing up a city gateway
MIDWAY | Proposed hotel north of airport would spruce up drab Cicero Ave., pay off for Chicago

February 18, 2008
BY DAVID ROEDER AND FRAN SPIELMAN droeder@suntimes.com fspielman@suntimes.com
Developers have proposed a new hotel just north of Midway Airport, promising to dress up a shabby commercial street that's a gateway to Chicago for many visitors.

The six-story hotel would be built at 5331 S. Cicero on property that Ald. Michael Zalewski (23rd) said has been vacant for years. The developers have asked the city for zoning authority to build the hotel, starting a review process that could take several months.
http://www.suntimes.com/business/799369,CST-FIN-hotel18.article

[ardecila]

hey guys, what is the latest info on the post office on Ohio and Dearborn? will there for sure be no building there? I ask because my gf and I just saw a great condo at 600 N. Dearborn yesterday and want to make sure because that would block an amazing view. In the picture the post office is directly below me.

Yes and no... there is guaranteed to be a park on the block. There may or may not be a building, as well.

[VivaLFuego]

hey guys, what is the latest info on the post office on Ohio and Dearborn? will there for sure be no building there? I ask because my gf and I just saw a great condo at 600 N. Dearborn yesterday and want to make sure because that would block an amazing view. In the picture the post office is directly below me.

here is a picture I snapped from the balcony. Trump, IBM, Marina City, Waterview, Sears, 300 N, and Merchandise Mart all all in the view. I love it.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/my%20photos/DSC_0060-2.jpg

Definitely no guarentee that there won't be a building. Unless there is significant subsidization by the city, the post office will want to see some significant value capture from its prime property. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on there being some sort of development but tall/thin, with half or more of the block left as open space/park/plaza. It wouldn't cast that great view into total darkness, but it wouldn't be quite as unobstructed either.

[alex1]

Its not a red herring, its reality.

i'm not going to spend more time on this after this post but your argument does appear to be a red hering.

both forms of development (new and rehab) can be done en masse. you may look at this issue from a purely business perspective (faster = less time = more money). I don't see rehabs as strictly a business proposition (although there are many successful developers that make a living off of rehabbing Chicago's past). perhaps that's were we diverge and will not converge in philosophy.

interestingly enough, I'm a bigger fan of contemporary design, art, architecture...but I value intact and continuous vestiges of the past. That is very important to me.

also note that I never said condition doesn't matter. It can in some extreme cases.

[cbotnyse]

Definitely no guarentee that there won't be a building. Unless there is significant subsidization by the city, the post office will want to see some significant value capture from its prime property. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on there being some sort of development but tall/thin, with half or more of the block left as open space/park/plaza. It wouldn't cast that great view into total darkness, but it wouldn't be quite as unobstructed either.would you bet a hefty mortgage on it? :)

[Nowhereman1280]

interestingly enough, I'm a bigger fan of contemporary design, art, architecture...but I value intact and continuous vestiges of the past. That is very important to me.
.

Do you even know what a red herring is?

I don't care what you say about valuing the past, but there is a certain point at which renovating, or even having, a historic building in a certain place makes no sense at all. If there was an old wood frame house at the corner of Wacker and Michigan and it was rotting away and would need major reframing to fix, would you even consider saving it? Hell no, you would tear shit down since it doesn't belong there. The only way it would be worth saving is if it were Dusable's cottage because then you could get tourist revenue. I'm not thinking of it from a purely business perspective, I'm thinking of it from a "I love Chicago and want it to succeed" perspective. There will be major problems if we preserve everything regardless of condition or actual significance... That's just a good way to choke of development and cause your city to rot away with high rents and no new development.

[the urban politician]

^ What does a rotting wood frame house on the corner of one of the priciest, densest, most highly zoned intersections of Chicago have to do with a 4 story mixed-use brick building in an otherwise sea of vacant lots & despair?

[left of center]

Dressing up a city gateway
MIDWAY | Proposed hotel north of airport would spruce up drab Cicero Ave., pay off for Chicago

February 18, 2008
BY DAVID ROEDER AND FRAN SPIELMAN droeder@suntimes.com fspielman@suntimes.com
Developers have proposed a new hotel just north of Midway Airport, promising to dress up a shabby commercial street that's a gateway to Chicago for many visitors.

The six-story hotel would be built at 5331 S. Cicero on property that Ald. Michael Zalewski (23rd) said has been vacant for years. The developers have asked the city for zoning authority to build the hotel, starting a review process that could take several months.
http://www.suntimes.com/business/799369,CST-FIN-hotel18.article


About time! Most hotels servicing Midway Airport are in suburban Bedford Park, and the city is really losing out on a lot of hotel tax there. Cicero Ave is a perfect thouroughfare to line with hotels. Its logical, since its on the way to I-55 and downtown Chicago, whereas the Midway Hotel Center in Bedford Park is south of Midway, in the opposite direction on Cicero.

Much of Cicero north of Archer Ave is run down businesses, empty lots, and project housing. The city really needs to spruce up that avenue more, considering thousands of people new to the city pass through it every day going to and from Midway and the CBD.

[Nowhereman1280]

^ What does a rotting wood frame house on the corner of one of the priciest, densest, most highly zoned intersections of Chicago have to do with a 4 story mixed-use brick building in an otherwise sea of vacant lots & despair?

That building was not the subject, the subject was "is condition relevant to preservation?" Clearly, depending on the location and importance obviously, condition is relevant...

[VivaLFuego]

Much of Cicero north of Archer Ave is run down businesses, empty lots, and project housing. The city really needs to spruce up that avenue more, considering thousands of people new to the city pass through it every day going to and from Midway and the CBD.

I remember as a kid Cicero was chockfull of really awesome 50s era motor hotels, but they've mostly declined and/or been torn down with the subsequent Midway-related commercial activity taking place to the south in Bedford Park. The city really missed out on that 90s construction boom in terms of tax revenue (but hopefully whatever gets developed along Cicero will be more urban in character than the sprawlariffic schlock on south Cicero).

[budman]

hey guys, what is the latest info on the post office on Ohio and Dearborn? will there for sure be no building there? I ask because my gf and I just saw a great condo at 600 N. Dearborn yesterday and want to make sure because that would block an amazing view. In the picture the post office is directly below me.

^Also, that parking lot in the bottom right hand corner is going to be that mixed use building discussed a few pages back, which is supposed to include a hyatt. Your view of Sears, Waterview and 300 N. LaSalle would be significantly impaired.

[cbotnyse]

^Also, that parking lot in the bottom right hand corner is going to be that mixed use building discussed a few pages back, which is supposed to include a hyatt. Your view of Sears, Waterview and 300 N. LaSalle would be significantly impaired.do you have a link to that project? that looks like it will only block 300, but 300 will be significantly taller. I'm really worried about the post office because that could block out the view entirely.

[Marcu]

I remember as a kid Cicero was chockfull of really awesome 50s era motor hotels, but they've mostly declined and/or been torn down with the subsequent Midway-related commercial activity taking place to the south in Bedford Park. The city really missed out on that 90s construction boom in terms of tax revenue (but hopefully whatever gets developed along Cicero will be more urban in character than the sprawlariffic schlock on south Cicero).

Doubt it. You'll get your run of the mill Holiday Inn Express with a cab pull up area. The areas immediately adjacent to the airports are one of the few areas of the city where I can live with the sprawl model. Also on that list: areas immediately adjacent to the interstates.

[laro3]

the area to the west of the airport from narragansit to harlem is a very nice area,all cops and firemen,and city workers,well kept,some very big homes have been popping up all over.but cicero by the la claire court projects forget about it,was robbed there twice comming of the expressway.

[VivaLFuego]

the area to the west of the airport from narragansit to harlem is a very nice area,all cops and firemen,and city workers,well kept,some very big homes have been popping up all over.but cicero by the la claire court projects forget about it,was robbed there twice comming of the expressway.

You were robbed while driving?

[budman]

do you have a link to that project? that looks like it will only block 300, but 300 will be significantly taller. I'm really worried about the post office because that could block out the view entirely.

^Unfortunately I do not have a link to the project, but if you go back a few pages you will be able to see the rendering. However, I am guessing that the rendering is more of a place holder than anything else, and the height and other specs of the building are likely ot change anyway. But since that is currently a parking lot, you just may want to take into consideration that your view will change...its tough to say whether that change will be better, worse or just different. I think the post office is more likely to be turned into a park than a building because I think that is what Reilly wants. Also, there has been talk of a land switch with the city, so although the P.O. may want to maximize revenue, if they can get another good site for free (or at a substantial discount) that would probably be a good option for them. However, there is obviously a risk counting on that.

[cbotnyse]

^ I went back 20 pages and couldn't find it. Is there an address I could search by? Thaks for your insight, I appreciate it. Its a big decision I have to make soon.

[laro3]

getting off of 55 the light right before you turn on to cicero,they would wait for people.

[budman]

^ I went back 20 pages and couldn't find it. Is there an address I could search by? Thaks for your insight, I appreciate it. Its a big decision I have to make soon.
^I cant find it either, which is bizarre, since I specifically remember commenting on it. But here is an even better resource, which discusses both the post office development as well as the high-rise I was talking about at clark and grand. Click on this link and scroll down for info on both developments, including detailed plans for the high-rise -

http://www.rivernorthresidents.com/development.htm

[cbotnyse]

^I cant find it either, which is bizarre, since I specifically remember commenting on it. But here is an even better resource, which discusses both the post office development as well as the high-rise I was talking about at clark and grand. Click on this link and scroll down for info on both developments, including detailed plans for the high-rise -

http://www.rivernorthresidents.com/development.htmexcellent! thank you.

I actually called Marla Larsen-Williams of the post office today(BV had posted her number a while back) and asked about the post office plans. She said they plan on sending out proposal requests next month and go from there. They of course want to do what is best for the post office and for the site. We'll have to wait and see some proposals.

[EarlyBuyer]

Feds probe city records on alderman's zoning changes

"The applicant on those, Grand Central Center for Business LLC, was seeking to change zoning from manufacturing to mixed-use. The land, part of a so-called planned development, required -- and received -- a green light from the Planning and Development Department."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/800871,CST-NWS-ald19.article

[BVictor1]

Just a reminder for anyone who wants to attend, there will be a meeting tonight on the redevelopment of Lake Meadows.

Date: February 19, 2008
Time: 7:00PM
Location: 600 E. 35th Street (northeast corner of 35th & Cottage Grove
Place: 6th Presbyterian Church

[BVictor1]

Notes on Lake Meadows Redevelopment

-This development could span several decades

-Nothing will be demolished for between 3 - 5 years

-New residential units will be built before any are removed

-It was stated that the building have outlived their life expentency

-Later phases will be highrises

-There will be 4 new parks within the development

-There will be a 15 acre park developed between LSD and the Metra Tracks

-Lake Park Avenue will be reconstructed thru the development

-There will be 4-5 story homes along King Drive to extend the context of the streetscape from the south.

-Several different architects will be used (no specific ones chosen)

-It was mentioned that there would be 4-sale rentals, senior units, market rate units and affordable housing.

-There are about 1,870 rental units currently, and the total number of units would be increased to about 7,850 units

-The parking will be surrounded by retail and residential so that it won't be seen.

-34th Street will be extended into the site

-Redevelopment will begin on the southern end with the retail component and move north. They want to begin mid to late 2009 and possibly be done by 2029. It will be done in phases, and there could be up to 500,000 sq ft of retail space

Images from the Lake Meadows meeting

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7902/p1110188sb8.jpg

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/717/p1110190xe4.jpg

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/9613/p1110191nv2.jpg

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7168/p1110192ti0.jpg

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp43236%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B9656nu0mrj

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp43236%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B9658nu0mrj

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp43239%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B965%3Anu0mrj

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp43235%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B965%3Cnu0mrj

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp4323%3B%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B9663nu0mrj

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp4323%3B%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B9664nu0mrj

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp4323%3B%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B9665nu0mrj

http://images.photo.walgreens.com/232323232%7Ffp4323%3B%3Enu%3D3244%3E36%3B%3E27%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D3233443%3B%3B9666nu0mrj

Remeber that the iamges above are just massing studies. The architects haven't been chosen and individual structures haven't been designed.

[alex1]

^mmmm, simCity.

[the urban politician]

In today's Hyde Park Herald (link to article below), preliminary plans to redevelop Harper Court into a series of 4, 5, and 6 story mixed-use (residential/retail) buildings were released (a rendering is included). Apparently, it was met with pretty good response from the community, and the developer emphasized that even more density may be needed. Keep in mind that we have the HP Blogger down there, who is doing a great job of keeping NIMBY stupidity at bay:

http://www.hpherald.com/

[VivaLFuego]

In today's Hyde Park Herald (link to article below), preliminary plans to redevelop Harper Court into a series of 4, 5, and 6 story mixed-use (residential/retail) buildings were released (a rendering is included). Apparently, it was met with pretty good response from the community, and the developer emphasized that even more density may be needed. Keep in mind that we have the HP Blogger down there, who is doing a great job of keeping NIMBY stupidity at bay:

http://www.hpherald.com/

Here's hoping.

[Mr Roboto]

Thanks for the update on Lake Meadows BVic.

Im confused, so they are demolishing those 4 high rises and keeping the midrises south of 33rd? If so, I dont see the point in demolishing the highrises, Ive always really liked those buildings. But besides that, they seem still functional anyways. If they are keeping them in Prairie Shores, they are obviously fine, and can be rehabbed. Any line the developers are giving for exing them out is likely bs. 1960 wasnt that long ago.

Hopefully, given the crazy long timeline, they will come to their senses and keep them. They are trying to densify this area so much, so why not just add new buildings to the existing ones. Otherwise thats just stupid to me. The massing for the new buildings looks great though. I love the height.

I also like the extensions of 32nd, 33rd, and 34th; and reconnecting with the street grid. All in all, if they just keep the highrises, I would be cool with it. But I guess there is still years to go with the planning and development of this one. If we get the Olympics though, I would expect Draper & Kramer to try to ride the wave and speed it up somewhat.

[Eventually...Chicago]

^^^Lake Meadows generally looks promising. I'd like to see that presentation up close, but from a massing standpoint, it looks logical to cluster the most dense development along the lake and the metra electric (future gray line, perhaps :))

Regardless of everyone's individual opinion of this development, it is comforting to know that they've done their demographic studies and find this area to be desirable for the future years to come. I think it demostrates an optimistic outlook for the city.

[honte]

Can someone explain to me what a "PoMo plan" is? Postmodernism is a term generally applied to architecture, implying an ironic use of traditional massing, forms, or ornament. I'm having a hard time seeing how it could apply to a plan. Is there axial symmetry that's ironically resolved or unexpectedly terminated?

This plan is PoMo because it involves terrible nostalgia for the past, unwillingness to move forward, and FAKE architecture, false notions of what the city is. That's what's Postmodern about it. It's regressive. Does that help?

Example: "We're going to bring back the lustre of King Drive by building imitation greystones along it." Never mind that the other half of the street was torn down to widen King Drive. Never mind that just north of there, the real context now is Prairie Shores and the High School. Etc.

I know what the textbook definition of Postmodernism is. Everyone on here does. We've been through it. Basically, the ideas of Postmodernism have degraded to the point where we are just seeing crap. I don't like the best of PostModernism; what we have here is the bottom of the barrel. Just in the same way that the ideals of Modernism became mostly forgotten by the 1970s.

The plan has merits and certain aspects of it I think are well conceived. Pedestrian-oriented retail, hide the parking, towers along the park, blah blah. Do you need to hire an architect AND a planner to come up with that? They are missing the boat, more or less.

[honte]

Im confused, so they are demolishing those 4 high rises and keeping the midrises south of 33rd?

No, the idea is that they will demo the retail center first, then the 5 high rises south of 33rd, then the 4 tallest towers to the north.

[orulz]

Thanks for the update on Lake Meadows BVic.
I also like the extensions of 32nd, 33rd, and 34th; and reconnecting with the street grid. All in all, if they just keep the highrises, I would be cool with it. But I guess there is still years to go with the planning and development of this one. If we get the Olympics though, I would expect Draper & Kramer to try to ride the wave and speed it up somewhat.

Seems they have kept provisions for extending Lake Park on the diagonal next to the Metra tracks, but cottage grove will not align to the south as a through street. A huge deal? No, but it is one aspect part of this development's connectivity that's not perfect.

[Abner]

Just a question. Why does King Drive need to be so damn wide?

[Mr Downtown]

^Because it's a boulevard, not a streetcar strip.

[harryc]

Notes on Lake Meadows Redevelopment

-This development could span several decades
...snip...
Remeber that the iamges above are just massing studies. The architects haven't been chosen and individual structures haven't been designed.

Great reporting - a second career ?

[Abner]

^Because it's a boulevard, not a streetcar strip.

Sure, but much of it is four lanes in each direction! Cars treat it like a highway.

[alex1]

This plan is PoMo because it involves terrible nostalgia for the past, unwillingness to move forward, and FAKE architecture, false notions of what the city is. That's what's Postmodern about it. It's regressive.

not the right place for this kind of discussion but I think you're misinterpreting what Post Modern is.

Post Modern in its purest form is like being a heretic. It's the questioning of arts role in society. its more a theory than an aesthetic.

bringing in old forms does not necessarily quantify something as post modern. If that were the case, we've been in a period of PoMo for better more then man's existance.

[BWChicago]

not the right place for this kind of discussion but I think you're misinterpreting what Post Modern is.

Post Modern in its purest form is like being a heretic. It's the questioning of arts role in society. its more a theory than an aesthetic.

bringing in old forms does not necessarily quantify something as post modern. If that were the case, we've been in a period of PoMo for better more then man's existance.

It's also a misrepresentation of what Postmodern urban planning is. PoMo urban planning is a recognition that the rigid solutions of modernist planning like centralization are not the only solutions that work, that there is a place for things like pedestrian uses, mixed-use buildings, and context. Of course this plan is also pretty modernist in some ways too, since it calls for a scorched-earth, do-it-over urban renewal just like that which produced Lake Meadows in the first place. PoMo planning is also easily distinguished by the contrived 'handwriting' font used. But honte is right in that it attempts to re-establish historical ties.

Personally, I'm of the viewpoint that LM probably does not need to come down to redevelop. Yes, redevelopment would compromise the Courbusian ideal, but reintegrating the development with the city as a whole is pretty necessary, if the South Side is to become cohesive. He's also right that it's aesthetically regressive. At the same time, the whole concept of preservation is essentially pomo.

[nomarandlee]

Tribune take...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-kidsmuseumfeb21,1,2412373.story

Chicago alderman gives long list of alternate sites for kids museum
2 dozen other sites suggested in letter
By Gary Washburn | Tribune reporter
11:45 PM CST, February 20, 2008


.....The list was contained in a letter sent Friday to museum CEO Peter England and board Chairwoman Gigi Pritzker, said Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd).

A few of the sites, such as the Museum Campus and Northerly Island, previously have been suggested by the alderman. But most came from open-space advocates, grass-roots organizations and "residents from all over the city of Chicago," he said.

Those locations include parcels next to Lincoln Park Zoo and the Notebaert Nature Museum in Lincoln Park; the Chicago Riverwalk at Lake Michigan; McCormick Place East; and the old U.S. Post Office that spans Congress Parkway. City neighborhoods that were suggested, without specific sites, include Logan Square and Englewood........

Sun-Times take...


http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/805689,CST-NWS-museum21.article
Alderman: 24 places fine for kids museum
42ND WARD | Reilly hopes to keep it out of Grant Park site

February 21, 2008

BY FRAN SPIELMAN AND ANDREW HERRMANN Staff Reporters
Eager to avoid a City Council showdown with Mayor Daley, rebel rookie Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) has presented the Children's Museum with a list of two dozen alternatives to the mayor's controversial plan to build a $40 million Children's Museum in Grant Park.

......Ald. Reilly's alternatives
Here are the alternative sites Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) suggested for a new Children's Museum:

* Museum Campus
* Northerly Island
* Logan Square
* Garfield Park Conservatory
* Pritzker Park
* Washington Park
* Bronzeville
* Calumet Park
* Englewood
* State and Van Buren
* McCormick Place East
* Museum of Broadcast History
* Chicago Riverwalk (South Bank at Lake Michigan)
* Michigan and Roosevelt (South Loop)
* Notebaert Nature Museum (Lincoln Park)
* Lincoln Park Zoo (adjacent to zoo)
* Old U.S. Post Office
* Chicago Athletic Association (South Michigan Ave.)
* Carson Pirie Scott Building (State Street)
* Former Brach's Candy Factory
* U.S. Cellular Field (adjacent to ballpark)
* Expansion on Navy Pier
* Montrose Park
* 1 S. Dearborn (50 percent vacant)

[honte]

not the right place for this kind of discussion but I think you're misinterpreting what Post Modern is.

Post Modern in its purest form is like being a heretic. It's the questioning of arts role in society. its more a theory than an aesthetic.

bringing in old forms does not necessarily quantify something as post modern. If that were the case, we've been in a period of PoMo for better more then man's existance.

Yes, as I said, I know the textbook definition of Postmodernism. You also have to understand that 1) these terms are cooked-up by art historians and 2) styles evolve or devolve. I am using this term the way it's used in the architectural practice today.

Frankly, Postmodern architecture was mostly crap (even the "true" stuff such as Venturi) and I think arguing about what it's called is largely irrelevant. Also, I would note that your definition is a broader one that encompasses things beyond architecture.

Last, I would actually argue your point considerably. Like any style, most people who practice it do not subscribe to the philosophy, but simply copy how it looks. Trust me, most architects do not read. They look at pictures. They do what is beautiful to them.

I prefer to use the word Postmodern for things like Lake Meadows because they are done like crap. They understand old architecture so little and execute these styles so poorly, they look nothing like a Revival style to me. They have more in common with Venturi or Philip Johnson than Palladio or the Queen Anne or whatever they're looking at. To call them Classical Revival would be a major injustice to the real practitioners who worked in that style, and I prefer something derogatory such as "PoMo."

If it makes you feel better, just dissociate PoMo with Postmodernism. PoMo is crap, knock-off revival styles that are out of touch with reality - either the reality of what they are copying, or the reality of today.

It's also a misrepresentation of what Postmodern urban planning is. PoMo urban planning is a recognition that the rigid solutions of modernist planning like centralization are not the only solutions that work, that there is a place for things like pedestrian uses, mixed-use buildings, and context.

These I left out because they seemed self-evident.

Of course this plan is also pretty modernist in some ways too, since it calls for a scorched-earth, do-it-over urban renewal just like that which produced Lake Meadows in the first place.

This I can agree with. In fact, it is the bitter irony of this Lake Meadows proposal. The current plan takes the worst of Postmodernism and the worst of Modernism and mashes them together. They are repeating the mistakes that went into Lake Meadows, yet the good things that came from it will be in the dumpster (ample green space, views from units, variety in the city, progressive design, and so forth).

[honte]

* Museum Campus
* Northerly Island
* Logan Square
* Garfield Park Conservatory
* Pritzker Park
* Washington Park
* Bronzeville
* Calumet Park
* Englewood
* State and Van Buren
* McCormick Place East
* Museum of Broadcast History
* Chicago Riverwalk (South Bank at Lake Michigan)
* Michigan and Roosevelt (South Loop)
* Notebaert Nature Museum (Lincoln Park)
* Lincoln Park Zoo (adjacent to zoo)
* Old U.S. Post Office
* Chicago Athletic Association (South Michigan Ave.)
* Carson Pirie Scott Building (State Street)
* Former Brach's Candy Factory
* U.S. Cellular Field (adjacent to ballpark)
* Expansion on Navy Pier
* Montrose Park
* 1 S. Dearborn (50 percent vacant)



I am disappointed to see that covering tracks in Grant Park is not on this list. Reilly had mentioned it previously.

Frankly, I think a lot of these sound foolish. To suggest that it go in someone else's park, eating up green space somewhere else, really makes his issue seem selfish and not about the common good.

I realize that the museum would like the tax breaks from being in a park, but the answer to this simply is to build it adjacent to a park that has vacant land around it, and then deed that land to the city. Or, build over tracks in Grant Park or Burnham Park - no loss of space, tax breaks for the museum. Not sure why this didn't pan out for him.

To suggest that the museum simply just go into an office building seems out of touch with reality. Unless they do a condo unit, the museum will be paying taxes, just like the Park District found out. The MBC site seemse equally silly: What about the other organization, or the fact that their building is 1/2 done already?

The only two that make a lot of sense are the Chicago Riverwalk and US Cellular Field. Both of these are high-visibility, accessible sites that could be sold to the Park District, which in turn could write a land lease for the museum to construct its building.

[Mr Downtown]

I guess I am still baffled as to how you can describe either Lake Meadows redevelopment or Riverside Park as "PoMo" since the buildings haven't been designed yet.

[honte]

^ I would suggest rereading the above posts, which relate to planning, not buildings. If it still confuses you, either PM me or start a thread on Postmodernism debate.

Also, do not forget that Lake Meadows's "master architect" is crafting design guidelines, which will apply to all design (unless revised), and these definitely will include his favored "traditional" design elements.

[spyguy]

Frankly, I think a lot of these sound foolish. To suggest that it go in someone else's park, eating up green space somewhere else, really makes his issue seem selfish and not about the common good.
...
To suggest that the museum simply just go into an office building seems out of touch with reality.

Exactly. Is this the best list they could come up with after all this time?

[the urban politician]

For the record: Ahem... (clearing my throat)

"TO HELL with modernist planning".

Did anybody hear that? Thank you.

I love modernist architecture, but modernist planning has shown itself to be short-sighted, anti-urban, and completely out of tune with how cities have functioned from antiquity. Modernist planning has been fucking over potentially great places for 50 years and counting.

I wish we'd preserve some of Lake Meadows' buildings, but the rest needs a serious redraw. Those giant lifeless lots will not be missed

[Eventually...Chicago]

^^^^Honestly, that list of potential sites doesn't sound too bad.

I against the proposed location for the children's museum just because i think that area of grant park has enough going for it and the city should spread the love around. I'd love to see something head out to douglas park, chinatown or something around the river. It just seems like the fringe of downtown could use some help with a new permanent resident like a children's museum.

How about a combined new elementary school and children's museum? That would be pretty cool to be able to take classes on walks through the museum. The kids could even help run it. (a whole a museum for kids, by kids thing)

In the end, i would really be ok with keeping the site where it is, i just think putting it in an area that already has so much is just making the rich, richer.

[Loopy]

I am disappointed to see that covering tracks in Grant Park is not on this list. Reilly had mentioned it previously.

I have always wondered how the IC ROW is governed by the various Lakfront Protection legal findings. It's zoned DX-16 !!

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9485/image2ua4.png

[ionchicago]

This is completely trivial - I just found it amusing when I read the story - but the "Pritzker Park" site and the "State and Van Buren" site are the same location. It really isn't even a park anymore (there's no landscaping or features to it). It's just a fenced-off grassy lot with some trees.

[VivaLFuego]

More hack ideas from Hack Reilly. Selfish is right, his list is a definition of NIMBYism, and it's a public park, not his constituents private backyard. I'm pretty indifferent in the argument on its merits (e.g. if it's an appropriate site or not), but his and his constituent's positions disgust me. And that's not getting into this "forever free open and clear" fetish which has already been violated so many times as to be meaningless in the context of a museum that would be buried below ground level. A site near the existing Museum Campus would be good, but is there such a site? Would Hack support something along the east side of Michigan Avenue, and then deal with the bitching from South Loop residents?

[Loopy]

This is completely trivial - I just found it amusing when I read the story - but the "Pritzker Park" site and the "State and Van Buren" site are the same location. It really isn't even a park anymore (there's no landscaping or features to it). It's just a fenced-off grassy lot with some trees.
Welcome to the forum.

That's funny that Reilly included this location. "Pritzker Park" is not really a park, but a view corridor for last project that Penny Pritzker shoved down our throats, the Harold Washington Public Library.

[honte]

^ Yeah, exactly. I am sure there was more than a touch of irony in that suggestion.

[Alliance]

1 S Dearborn is 50% vacant? Whats with that?

Also, WHY NOT PUT HE CHILDREN'S MUSEUM IN DUSABLE PARK? Everyone is alwas complaining bout its potential underuse, and then the development is still on the Navy pier-MP axis.

[jstush04]

wow, i do not like that idea at all, alliance. I want park there, not building, and with a plot that small, its an either/or situation

[Via Chicago]

wow, i do not like that idea at all, alliance. I want park there, not building, and with a plot that small, its an either/or situation

Agreed. Keep it out of the effing parks! There are so many other underutilized areas of this city that could use something like this. Why should the Childrens Museums get all this special treatment (besides it being Penny Pritzker's)?

[Alliance]

The plot is certainly large enough, some good architecture could cover LSD, it would be even easier to get the pedestrian bridge, its close to the main tourism things, and if they're doing massive landscaping with ampitheatres and everyhtng, there is CERTAINLY room for a part above ground, part recessed building.

And I'd rather have it in this park as opposed to continuing to bastardize Grant Park. The museum can have more light and more of an exterior structre. If the architecture is good, I say go for it. (and I'm real stingy on these issues)

[honte]

Agreed. Keep it out of the effing parks! There are so many other underutilized areas of this city that could use something like this. Why should the Childrens Museums get all this special treatment (besides it being Penny Pritzker's)?

Right on.

However, I can see it in a new park much more easily than in an existing one. If Calatrava could build it into one of his two mounds (and design the museum itself, of course :D), it might work.

But really, all this business of burying cultural establishments is so counterproductive. Let this baby shine and enhance its surroundings, as you say. Plus, they're going to want to expand again in ten years probably. Where else can you go but up, if you're hemmed-in underground?

[honte]

This just in from the "City has no room left at Navy Pier" desk. Shucks, I was looking forward to more popcorn and souvenir stands.


City proposes Navy Pier headquarters to woo USOC

By Thomas A. Corfman and Greg Hinz Feb. 21, 2008

(Crain's) — To lure the U.S. Olympic Committee to Chicago, the Daley administration has proposed the intriguing possibility of building a new home for the USOC on Navy Pier, according to people familiar with the matter.

The USOC on Friday is expected to review options for a possible relocation of its headquarters from Colorado Springs, Colo.

...

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28288

[cbotnyse]

^^ wasn't the Sears Tower also a possible location...I thought that would make for a better office for them, not Navy Pier. :shrug:

[Alliance]

Right on.

However, I can see it in a new park much more easily than in an existing one. If Calatrava could build it into one of his two mounds (and design the museum itself, of course :D), it might work.

But really, all this business of burying cultural establishments is so counterproductive. Let this baby shine and enhance its surroundings, as you say. Plus, they're going to want to expand again in ten years probably. Where else can you go but up, if you're hemmed-in underground?

I think a lot of avant-garde buildings incorporate themselves into the landscape. I think if built in DuSable, it should have a strong above ground component (much more than I'd allow in GP). Imagine somethign from Krueck and Sexton blasting out of the hillside. Have you seen thier vision proposals for Chicago architecture? It would undoubtedly be a major piece of Chicago architecture and culture, all set to the backdrop of the Spire.

[honte]

^ Yes, I am familiar with the prototypes and K+S's work in general; I think it could be a nice concept for them somewhere. But I think DuSable is too small for this kind of blasting out of the landscape; if it were built there, in my mind it would still have to take the Daley Bi route to be successful. And this doesn't factor in any of the other issues with that site.

Besides, this all comes back to the fact that Daley Bi is nice already and DuSable is going to be taken care of by Kelleher. Let's improve something that needs improving. You can look at Google Earth and literally just start pointing at good places for it.

[wrabbit]

^
K&S Crystal Tower prototype:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/crystal-tower_01.jpg
http://www.ksarch.com/

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/crystal-tower_03.jpg
http://www.ksarch.com/

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/crystal-tower_02.jpg
http://www.ksarch.com/

[Busy Bee]

W.t.f.

[Alliance]

I'm not talking about that, Adrian, I'm thinking of things like this:

http://www.ksarch.com/images/archive/northerly_10.jpg
-http://www.ksarch.com

http://www.ksarch.com/images/archive/northerly_11.jpg
-http://www.ksarch.com

[SamInTheLoop]

More hack ideas from Hack Reilly. Selfish is right, his list is a definition of NIMBYism, and it's a public park, not his constituents private backyard. I'm pretty indifferent in the argument on its merits (e.g. if it's an appropriate site or not), but his and his constituent's positions disgust me. And that's not getting into this "forever free open and clear" fetish which has already been violated so many times as to be meaningless in the context of a museum that would be buried below ground level. A site near the existing Museum Campus would be good, but is there such a site? Would Hack support something along the east side of Michigan Avenue, and then deal with the bitching from South Loop residents?


Absolutely. Me personally - I actually read through the list with an open mind, and frankly it sucked. I still like the Grant Park location better than anything else on 'his' list. Reilly is a complete panderer - it's disgusting. He has more in common with his pathetic new colleague directly to the south than a lot of people give credit for....

[SamInTheLoop]

1 S Dearborn is 50% vacant? Whats with that?

Also, WHY NOT PUT HE CHILDREN'S MUSEUM IN DUSABLE PARK? Everyone is alwas complaining bout its potential underuse, and then the development is still on the Navy pier-MP axis.



He obviously got the address wrong! 1 S. Dearborn is actually just 1% vacant or so - clearly no room there for the museum!

[alex1]

Also, I would note that your definition is a broader one that encompasses things beyond architecture.

Last, I would actually argue your point considerably. Like any style, most people who practice it do not subscribe to the philosophy, but simply copy how it looks.

my definition comes from spending a semester with the foremost art historian/critic of poMo, Thomas McEvilley and having to read all his books on the subject. so yeah, poMo is more then just architecture at its broadest point but that definition means the same across all genres of art. the aesthetic expression is of course expressed differently in architecture than music for example. Also note that poMo today doesn't necessarily deal with the recycling of forms (architecturally speaking). Look at abalos y herreros work. the philosophy and research behind their work is strikingly anti-modernism yet their buildings do not contain the cheesy gimmicky expressions that PoMo is known for.

regarding your 2nd paragraph: i understand where you're coming from, but my views of those who simply copy with no philosophy of their own should not be considered part of a movement. I would be willing to bet that MOST people who practice architecture subscribe to a philosophy (how can you not?). Maybe I've been spoiled but the few architecture classes I've taken at Yale make such ambivalence nearly impossible.

anyhow, it's a great topic but one that Dan won't approve of. Perhaps we take it elsewhere; into a new thread?

[cbotnyse]

^
K&S Crystal Tower prototype:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/crystal-tower_01.jpgisnt the building that stands there landmarked? if its not, it most certainly should be.

edit: yes it is...http://www.aviewoncities.com/building/londonguaranteebuilding.htm#

why would they make a render like that on a landmarked spot? :shrug:

[honte]

^ It was purely a concept. It's also pretty old now - I think it happened before the landmarking. But K+S is a responsible firm, and I highly doubt they would approve of tearing down London Guarantee anyway.

[cbotnyse]

^ It was purely a concept. It's also pretty old now - I think it happened before the landmarking. But K+S is a responsible firm, and I highly doubt they would approve of tearing down London Guarantee anyway.the building was landmarked in 96...that concept was before that? They couldnt tear it down if they wanted to right?

I like that building, but without the colors.

[Eventually...Chicago]

Hey Steely, i created a thread for the postmodernism discussion:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=3371798#post3371798

could you move a few of the posts there?

Thanks!

[Alliance]

Won't the Children's Museum need a new parking lot?

http://www.iub.edu/~iuam/online_modules/sinsabaugh/img/cl/cl_85.jpg
~Indiana University Art Museum, American Horizons: The Photographs of Art Sinsabaugh

[Mr Downtown]

Actually, I think the ability to sell poorly located parking (in the East Monroe Garage) is a big reason the city is so keen to put the Childrens Museum in Grant Park.

I was disappointed that my favorite idea--the old Hudson and Marmon showrooms in the 2200 block of Michigan--didn't make Reilly's list.

[perss2000]

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/808463,AU22_CONDOS_WEB_022208.article

A new proposal for Aurora, an 11 story condo with retail on the first floor, office on the second and the rest condos. There will also be an attached 4 story parking garage (hey it is the suburbs, gotta have the attached garage right?!?)

Anyway a good addition to the current development going on at that location.

[jjk1103]

A blurb in breaking news section in today's Tribune webpage:

Meanwhile, the council's Buildings Committee advanced a proposal calling for the $2.15 million sale of a vacant, three-story commercial building at 212 S. State St. to the federal government. The city obtained the property for $1.52 million in 1997 to help spur a commercial development that never materialized, officials said.

If the full council approves the sale, the building will become one of seven acquired by the federal General Services Administration (GSA) along State between Adams Street and Jackson Boulevard.

The stretch is adjacent to the Everett M. Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, 219 S. Dearborn St., which is part of a federal campus that also includes the Kluczynski and Metcalfe Federal Buildings.

The GSA has "concepts" for the new site and expects to build 1.5 million square feet of additional space there in a time frame that will span roughly the next 20 years, officials said.
....that is the WORST block on State St. !!!! ....if the GSA buys it and sits on it for many years, it will a "black hole" just as bad as Block 37 !
I'm not happy to see the GSA buy all that property with no firm development plans in mind.....

[VivaLFuego]

What's the deal with the potentially-gorgeous but dilapidating abandoned Century Bldg on that block? Is this landmarked, or is it toast? honte?

[honte]

What's the deal with the potentially-gorgeous but dilapidating abandoned Century Bldg on that block? Is this landmarked, or is it toast? honte?

Not landmarked. City "prefers" that it be saved. Some of the GSA schemes call for such, others do not.

[chicubs111]

I couldnt find a thread in city discussion so i will just post it here...

Plan to fill the void on Mich. Ave.

The panel, co-sponsored by the Chicago Loop Alliance, the city's Department of Planning and Development and Alderman Brendan Reilly's office (42nd), is proposing the city build two sets of landscaped, ornamental steps leading from Michigan Avenue to the Illinois Center office complex, as "a modern adaptation of the Spanish Steps in Rome," according to a draft report obtained by Crain's.


The initiative comes as the three-block stretch that has vexed urban planners and civic groups for years is seeing some progress, thanks largely to Millennium Park. The Hard Rock Hotel opened in 2004 along with the posh China Grill, and two new high-rises on the drawing board include apartments, condos, another hotel and street-level retail.


http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?articleId=29316

[EarlyBuyer]

Photo's taken by EarlyBuyer 2/23/08

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/1458/dscn9506dx2.jpg


http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/4809/dscn9552bi3.jpg


http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4599/dscn9556bx7.jpg

[Eventually...Chicago]

^^^obviously we'll all have to wait to see what this ends up looking like but i don't know if there are many more dynamic urban spaces that the piazza di spagna.

So at least the precedent they're using is good.

[the urban politician]

What buildings would they tear down for this 'staircase'? Is a staircase really necessary?

This whole "entry theme" for S. Michigan Avenue just doesn't sit well with me. I hope it doesn't consist of those tacky banners that say "Cultural District: Shop, laugh, play" or whatever :yuck:

[Eventually...Chicago]

^^^ definitely!! I hope being this close to Millennium park they learned to use good public artists and good architects to implement their strategies.

Not a sign picked out of a catalog. But that tax seems pretty significant. Would that be a one time tax? If it is, that might not be too bad given all the additional amenities and increased desirability of that area

[honte]

^ I especially hate the idea of extending Lake Street to Columbus.

[Down_Under_the_El]

"One set of stairs would be built where a low-rise building at 321-325 N. Michigan Ave. now stands. The second set would be on the southeast corner of Michigan and South Water Street."
http://chicagobusiness.com/images/random/og022508e.jpg
(Chicago Business News) (http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?articleId=29316)

[the urban politician]

^ I especially hate the idea of extending Lake Street to Columbus.

^ Why?

And the rendering of the building that they will "raze" for the Spanish steps is way too small. Can anybody access larger pics of it? Honte, what is your take from a historical preservation perspective?

I mainly ask this because I'm not a big fan of breaking up the continuity of street level shops on Michigan Avenue. Is a stairway to Illinois Center really needed?

[ardecila]

^ Why?

And the rendering of the building that they will "raze" for the Spanish steps is way too small. Can anybody access larger pics of it? Honte, what is your take from a historical preservation perspective?

I mainly ask this because I'm not a big fan of breaking up the continuity of street level shops on Michigan Avenue. Is a stairway to Illinois Center really needed?

The building is a tiny little thing wedged between 333 North Michigan and the Old Republic Building, both vintage gems.

The continuity of shops along Michigan is nice, but that streetwall looks horrible from the Illinois Center side; those buildings had their east walls built with common brick since they originally fronted on railyards. Better access here would be great - Illinois Center is too confusing as it is now.

[honte]

^ Why?

Well, there is a very unique and potentially very nice pedestrian promenade there. It's unbalanced at the moment towards loading uses for AON. The part by the Aon Center has pathetic little sidewalks, discouraging pedestrians, but this could be slightly altered and turned into a very special place. There is some great public sculpture there and the overall experience is special, with the little entry kiosk leading to stairs up, and then the power of AON and its plaza welcoming you as you ascend the stairs. The addition of the Aqua Lake Street extension, which also is a little stub street that doesn't really serve much traffic, will enhance this experience as you walk further and eventually down to Lakeshore East park. Neither AON nor the Kurokawa gym to the north are set up for retail, so forget that idea.

If cars were introduced into this space, it would ruin the atmosphere of the AON plaza, and screw up something that's already quite nice (although in need of a little tweaking) by blasting automobile traffic through. It would benefit drivers who want a quick shortcut, but wouldn't benefit the pedestrian at all. Last, due to the elevation change, the street would almost certainly not be level with the AON plaza or the Kurokawa, creating the kind of strange void where a street drops away, already common in Illinois Center.

In short, I think it will screw the pedestrian experience and will just cause more traffic in a wonderfully serene part of downtown.


^ Why?

And the rendering of the building that they will "raze" for the Spanish steps is way too small. Can anybody access larger pics of it? Honte, what is your take from a historical preservation perspective?


I'll have to go back to take a look, but I always expected this building to come down. As memory serves, it is a pleasant and well-designed deco building. It probably wouldn't get much attention, even if it were being torn down in an area like Bucktown.

[ethereal_reality]

I never knew there was a 'Stetson' Street in Illinois Center. What's next.....
'High Karate' Way......'Old Spice' plaza? lol

[the urban politician]

The city pushing for TOD and a small mixed-use south side development:

#1 (full article):

Plans sought for Jackson, Washington Park sites
By Jeanette Almada | SPECIAL TO THE TRIBUNE
February 24, 2008
City planners are seeking development proposals for two South Side parcels near Jackson Park and Washington Park.

The sites offer an opportunity adjacent to two jewels in Chicago's Parks and Boulevard System, a Chicago Department of Planning and Development project manager told Community Development Commissioners in January.

The commission approved the Planning Department's request for proposals, issuing the request Jan. 29. Interested developers have until April 14 to submit their bids to the Planning Department.

Blackstone Avenue in Woodlawn. It is a block west of Jackson Park and several blocks south of Midway Plaisance and the University of Chicago's south campus. The city acquired the land through sheriff's deed transactions in the 1970s.

The other is 3.52 acres on the southwest corner of King Drive and 60th Street. Acquired through city tax deed and sheriff's deed transactions from the mid-1980s through 2000, it is across King Drive from the 372-acre Washington Park, slated as a primary venue in the 2016 Olympic bid.

City planners and community leaders want to see mixed-use projects with retail such as a restaurant, newsstand, flower shop, small bank and convenience retailers; residential units; and possibly a hotel.

Planners will look for transit-oriented projects that are pedestrian friendly, with access to the 63rd Street Metra train station and the CTA's Garfield Boulevard Green Line station. Though both sites are vacant, a developer likely will have to work with the city's Department of Environment and possibly the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to make the land development ready. To be sold "as-is," the city's target price is $3.2 million for the 63rd and Blackstone parcel and $5.2 million for the 60th and King Drive parcel.

Proposals may request tax-increment financing or subsidies through the Chicago Department of Housing's New Homes for Chicago or Chicago Partnership for Affordable Neighborhoods programs.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/news/chi-jackson_park_re_ja_02-24feb24,0,5679936.story



#2:

Deal for city land advances project
By Jeanette Almada | SPECIAL TO THE TRIBUNE
February 24, 2008
A local developer's purchase of city-owned land completes the site for a five-story, 24-unit, mixed-use project is expected to push forward redevelopment of the Grand Boulevard's Cottage Grove Avenue commercial corridor.

Art Gurevich and Marko Boldun, through Cottage Grove Construction LLC, will buy the city-owned parcel at 4514 S. Cottage Grove for $1.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/news/chi-cottage_grove_re_ja_02-24feb24,0,2848087.story

[UChicagoDomer]

The city pushing for TOD and a small mixed-use south side development:

#1 (full article):

Plans sought for Jackson, Washington Park sites
By Jeanette Almada | SPECIAL TO THE TRIBUNE
February 24, 2008
City planners are seeking development proposals for two South Side parcels near Jackson Park and Washington Park.

...

Blackstone Avenue in Woodlawn. It is a block west of Jackson Park and several blocks south of Midway Plaisance and the University of Chicago's south campus. The city acquired the land through sheriff's deed transactions in the 1970s.

The other is 3.52 acres on the southwest corner of King Drive and 60th Street. Acquired through city tax deed and sheriff's deed transactions from the mid-1980s through 2000, it is across King Drive from the 372-acre Washington Park, slated as a primary venue in the 2016 Olympic bid.

Planners will look for transit-oriented projects that are pedestrian friendly, with access to the 63rd Street Metra train station and the CTA's Garfield Boulevard Green Line station.

...

Proposals may request tax-increment financing or subsidies through the Chicago Department of Housing's New Homes for Chicago or Chicago Partnership for Affordable Neighborhoods programs.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/news/chi-jackson_park_re_ja_02-24feb24,0,5679936.story



it's too bad the city let a politically-powerful church group lead a tear-down of the green line over 63rd st., otherwise they would be soliciting bids for TOD all along that awkward-looking, aluminum-sided, not-made-for-residential boulevard.

[Eventually...Chicago]

it's too bad the city let a politically-powerful church group lead a tear-down of the green line over 63rd st., otherwise they would be soliciting bids for TOD all along that awkward-looking, aluminum-sided, not-made-for-residential boulevard.

there may not be a better example of a crappy community guaranteeing its future as a crappy community. Those neighborhood block organizations and church groups do a pretty darn good job of keeping people and development out of their community.

[VivaLFuego]

^I'm not too optimistic. Everyone wants retail, but not nearly as much as they are horrified by the thought of lots of new residential units that could actually provide adequate density to support retail. This is just community group circle-jerking, basically. There is no shortage of vacant retail property in that area; the problem is not enough people, not lack of expensive new-construction retail spaces. Build some serious density (a few hundred units on each parcel), then we're talking. Otherwise this is meaningless.

[Eventually...Chicago]

^^^^right on... and even if a good plan was developed, the community groups would kill it. they would not allow any outsiders to infringe on their territory.

[LaSalle.St.Station]

leave Michi alone.... just clean up 333 N mich Ave , Light it up. and ...wait for good sht.

[ardecila]

Well, there is a very unique and potentially very nice pedestrian promenade there. It's unbalanced at the moment towards loading uses for AON. The part by the Aon Center has pathetic little sidewalks, discouraging pedestrians, but this could be slightly altered and turned into a very special place. There is some great public sculpture there and the overall experience is special, with the little entry kiosk leading to stairs up, and then the power of AON and its plaza welcoming you as you ascend the stairs. The addition of the Aqua Lake Street extension, which also is a little stub street that doesn't really serve much traffic, will enhance this experience as you walk further and eventually down to Lakeshore East park. Neither AON nor the Kurokawa gym to the north are set up for retail, so forget that idea.

This "pedestrian promenade" has a 2-foot-high granite wall completely spanning its width, which you must climb over to pass, and then walk down AON's circular driveway. Whoever decided to put that there only did it to totally annoy pedestrians walking through, without actually blocking access.

Any building that disrespects pedestrians so much deserves to have noisy, polluting automobiles rammed down the throats of its pretty little plaza.

[budman]

I havent seen this reported here, but if it is duplicative, I apologize. It looks like the space immediately to the west of the new Marriott Suites, on the northeast corner of Clark and Kinzie, is going to be a parking garage. There is a picture of it in a recent Friedman Properties magazine. The rendering shows 11 stories, and they are calling it the River North Self Park. What a bummer.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sun_front0224feb24,0,2052343.story

Sweet new start for architect Adrian Smith
BY SUSAN DIESENHOUSE
February 24, 2008

...For Chicago, his home town, Smith and his partners are pitching City Hall on a two-mile crescent of parkland dotted with windmills on Lake Michigan. The reef, arching from Shedd Aquarium to Monroe Harbor, would act as a refuge for picnickers, but also help restore endangered flora and fish. The price tag would surpass $500 million, Smith said.

[Chi_Coruscant]

A quote from the same article:
"He is also discussing a couple of possible Chicago projects with developers."

What could they possible be? A rumored supertall? One could hope!!