[ardecila]

I can easily differentiate between a sketch and a final design. But the sketch was made for the explicit purpose of giving a rough visualization of what such a project might eventually look like. It's designed to communicate a vague concept, which is why the lines aren't very well-defined.

But upon seeing the sketch, I've realized just how wrong this can go if it's not handled properly. I'd like to see a definite design by a real architect (hopefully NOT Lucien Lagrange) before I give my support to the demolition of the handsome building that stands there currently.

[ardecila]

208 North LaSalle - new entrance by Lucien Lagrange. (This is the Adams Street side - even Lagrange isn't fool enough to mess with the LaSalle facade of a historic building)

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8403/208lasalle1or5.jpg

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/8472/208lasalle2um9.jpg

[honte]

I'm astonished at the folks here who seem unable to differentiate between planning and architecture. You make a rough sketch to show the idea to people who might have trouble visualizing it. Maybe it impresses them enough that they give you the money to actually design it. And when it's designed, you make some renders and study it some more and eventually produce working drawings. Criticizing the precise treatment of 333's south wall at this point is as premature as complaining about one of the subcontractors not being a DBE.

The problem is that the politicians cannot see the difference. Then, when the design comes out, they say "Hey, you took that nice arch off that ugly building at 333."

Definitely with ardecila on this one - we should always demand a great design - and proof that it won't be compromised - before we permit something decent or better to be tossed aside.

[cbotnyse]

thanks for those sketches. Gives me a much better idea of the plan. I was having trouble visualizing it. I think I like it. I'm hopeful for a great design.

[trvlr70]

Of course, there will be elements of the design which are annoying but overall the effect should be positive. Illinois Center is as dull as dirt. As a pedestrian, it has an almost fortress-like quality. I'd love more cohesion between Michigan Av./Illinois Center/Lakeshore East.

Plus, how much fun would a series of steps be to run every once in a while? Chicago has no natural geographical relief so this topographical change would be nice.

[ethereal_reality]

The sketches could still be more attractive. You can be 'vague' in a beautiful way.

[HowardL]

I saw a Public Notice posted at Clybourn and Larrabee. Anyone know anything about this?:

Address 1413-1427 N. Clybourn Ave., 1414-1426 N. Larrabee St.
File No. 16249
Amendment
On 06-13, 2007, an application was filed by Clybourn Larrabee LLC, 300 W. Hubbard, Ste. 300 to change C1-2 Neighborhood Commercial District to B2-5 Neighborhood Mixed Use District then to Planned Development to establish 9-story residential building with not more than 87 units.

[VivaLFuego]

I saw a Public Notice posted at Clybourn and Larrabee. Anyone know anything about this?:

Address 1413-1427 N. Clybourn Ave., 1414-1426 N. Larrabee St.
File No. 16249
Amendment
On 06-13, 2007, an application was filed by Clybourn Larrabee LLC, 300 W. Hubbard, Ste. 300 to change C1-2 Neighborhood Commercial District to B2-5 Neighborhood Mixed Use District then to Planned Development to establish 9-story residential building with not more than 87 units.

I remember reading about this on a plan commission agenda a month or so ago. I don't think anyone has spotted any renderings yet. Regardless, the proposed density is great; here's hoping that all of Clybourn from Division to North can be built so densely.

[pilsenarch]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the 'Spanish Steps' in Rome not only arrive at a large public plaza but connect to another dense part of a city known for its pedestrian traffic. Arguably the most important aspect is that the Spanish Steps face south and are drenched with sunlight year round....

Although I like the planning concept of the Illinois Center Steps, I am far from convinced that they will not end up being a almost always dark, shaded and forbidding climb to a barren plaza. Maybe retail along the edge of the steps and/or in the plaza will help to activate this new urban space....

[ethereal_reality]

Your point about the 'Spanish Steps' facing south is right on the mark.
I hadn't thought of that at all. I've been there...but I had no idea which way I was facing.

So now...maybe they could incorporate another project by
Anish Kapoor to somehow guide the sunlight into the space.
He had that GIANT mirror set up in Rockefeller Plaza.
And it would 'connect' the 'Steps' somewhat with nearby Millenium Park
and his ever so popular BEAN.

Just DREAMING here. :)

[ethereal_reality]

here is Kapoor's Sky Mirror.
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/3550/redxdressonflickrmjr0.jpg
redxdress on flickr

[emathias]

Just read about the Wicker Park mixed use development in the same article. 111 parking spaces for 33 units and 20k-sqft of retail, down the block from a subway station? Unacceptable.

I totally agree, but it's even worse than that because they're such large units. I have no problem with larger, car-oriented development going up in the city, but for crying out loud to authorize such a (relatively) low-density development less than a block from a subway stop - a subway that's part of a larger system that just raised our collective taxes by almost half a billion dollars a year, no less - is idiotic, wasteful and should actually be criminal for how disrespectful of existing infrastructure it is. A lot of small units mostly targeted to people willing and able to live without a car should be build in such close proximity to a subway station, not a car-oriented, big-home place. Alternately, if they want to build large units, they should build a lot of them in a tall building instead of just a few of them in a building that's smaller than Metra-oriented developments in the suburbs.

When will our damn elected officials learn to stop wasting our tax dollars? (*$#&%(*@#&$(*&^#@%(*

[VivaLFuego]

I totally agree, but it's even worse than that because they're such large units. I have no problem with larger, car-oriented development going up in the city, but for crying out loud to authorize such a (relatively) low-density development less than a block from a subway stop - a subway that's part of a larger system that just raised our collective taxes by almost half a billion dollars a year, no less - is idiotic, wasteful and should actually be criminal for how disrespectful of existing infrastructure it is. A lot of small units mostly targeted to people willing and able to live without a car should be build in such close proximity to a subway station, not a car-oriented, big-home place. Alternately, if they want to build large units, they should build a lot of them in a tall building instead of just a few of them in a building that's smaller than Metra-oriented developments in the suburbs.

When will our damn elected officials learn to stop wasting our tax dollars? (*$#&%(*@#&$(*&^#@%(*

Apparently the neighborhood group was strongly in favor....one step forward for blocking the shitbox Walgreens accross the street, 2 steps back for auto-oriented McLuxurySoftlofts.

[spyguy]

The report also included suggestions on street and building lighting
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/329/45299198mx7.jpg
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/1054/97504352ez0.jpg

[Chicago Maroon]

In the next couple of weeks I will be interviewing with an organization called the Center for Neighborhood Technology for a summer internship. They operate out of the nation´s thirteenth building to be certified Platinum LEED, near the Damen blue line stop, which I think is pretty cool. Anyway, I am curious as to if anyone might know what their stances in the past have been concerning Chicago developments? Outside of their official reports, I haven´t been able to glean much information about them and figured this would be the place to ask. You can PM me if you would like.

Also, my alderman is attempting to remove a popular (500 +users per day) bus stop to put in 4 parking spots. Understandably, the alderman has the last word, but what are some steps I can take to try and convince her otherwise? For those interested, the stop is at 57th and University in Hyde Park and serves the 171 with direct service to the red and green lines.

[Busy Bee]

That first sketch seems extremely reminiscent of the State Street monsters that held out until the 1970's. I think I actually prefer the originals. It's funny how something considered so hideous not so long ago can come almost full circle:

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q286/urbsinhorto/P12901.jpg
Image: Cushman Collection

Although I give them kudos for thinking about an entire design "package" including streetlights for this stretch of Michigan, I don't think there is anything wrong AT ALL with the beautiful Boulevard Electroliers that are practically brand new and match the rest of Michigan. I say, give North Michigan an overhaul and replace those nasty cobra heads in what is supposed to be the cities premier shopping district before you start something new, especially if it's unnecessary.

[DCCliff]

I agree, there is NO reason to replace the electroliers; they may be fussy, but they are a legitimate Chicago icon. Atg least good sense prevailed in bringing them back. Long may they shine.

And, incidentally, the Spanish Steps face west, but get mucho light except for early a.m. when blocked by the Villa Borghese park rising behind them. But the low-rise nature of the surrounding dense urbanity allows light most of the day. I agree that a lurking shadow and darkness problem would likely plague this development. A truly original urban and urbane set piece (that just happened to have steps) might be a great success, as long as it in no way looked to Rome as a model.

[ardecila]

That first sketch seems extremely reminiscent of the State Street monsters that held out until the 1970's. I think I actually prefer the originals. It's funny how something considered so hideous not so long ago can come almost full circle:

That's the first thing I thought of, too. What's next, are they gonna declare Michigan from Randolph to Wacker as a pedestrian mall?

[VivaLFuego]

Also, my alderman is attempting to remove a popular (500 +users per day) bus stop to put in 4 parking spots. Understandably, the alderman has the last word, but what are some steps I can take to try and convince her otherwise? For those interested, the stop is at 57th and University in Hyde Park and serves the 171 with direct service to the red and green lines.

A few thousand dollar donation to her campaign fund would certainly help make your case. More precisely, you should outbid whoever is pressuring her for those 4 parking spots (one of which, I suspect, will be permitted to someone or some institution in particular, or support a specific business).

I wish I was joking.

[cbotnyse]

(not sure where to put this)

Little Company of Mary Hospital in Evergreen Park is demolishing its historic tower. Anyone that grew up on the south side knows this tower, and probably somebody born there. It is really a shame to see it go, it is very beautiful. I dont have a larger picture sorry.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/aerial.jpg

New plans here (http://www.lcmh.org/body.cfm?id=227)

[Abner]

A few thousand dollar donation to her campaign fund would certainly help make your case. More precisely, you should outbid whoever is pressuring her for those 4 parking spots (one of which, I suspect, will be permitted to someone or some institution in particular, or support a specific business).

I wish I was joking.

I can't believe she could get away with removing that stop. There are ALWAYS like a dozen people waiting there. I would think that something funny must be going on with the university if it hasn't put its weight behind keeping the stop there.

[ardecila]

That's a real shame about Little Company of Mary. I lived in Beverly until I was 8, but I do remember the building (vaguely).

The renderings of the "new campus" are tremendously ugly compared to the formal plan of the original hospital.

[honte]

^ Yes, agreed. It never struck me as a great building, but it was pleasant and added some nice variety and height to that area.

______

Tomorrow the Landmarks Commission will discuss a very nice building in my old 'hood. It is the 6901 S. Oglesby Coop. I am not sure what is motivating this particular designation - it's a lovely building, but the whole neighborhood is of this vintage and quality (there really should be a district). Perhaps they are seeking Class L or something to assist them with repairs. It should be interesting to see what the designation report singles out as the particularly great features.

Often, landmark districts in Chicago are built up around already existing "anchors." So, this action - in conjunction with the Kenna flats - could be the prelude to eventual designation for that whole area. Man, how I miss living in South Shore!

It also might be a "tit for tat" trade in "exchange" for them allowing the nice house on South Shore Drive to come down.

[AdrianXSands]

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/1054/97504352ez0.jpg
that's awesome :yes:

[Alliance]

I love the crosswalks, but the lights scare me.

They didn't work in the 50's, they're not wroking now. They're even more obstructionist than the current lamps (which plague my photographs, especially at nights. Unless these lamps are solar powered, low energy LED lamps or something, I don't think its necessary. Spend the money on the El.

[aaron38]

I love the crosswalks, but the lights scare me.

Yeah, those right angle lights could either create a really cool tunnel effect for the street, or a really claustrophobic tunnel effect for the street.
I'm leaning towards claustrophobic.

But if they were full cutoff lights it would at least be a step in the right direction. And getting rid of the glare so the buildings could be seen would be a plus.

[honte]

It's all just another example of dumping money into things that are perfectly fine already (cf Daley Bi plaza proposal). When I see a visionary proposal like this for Englewood or Garfield Park, I'll get excited. I agree with Alliance that the money should be spent on real problems (although I think the light "tunnel" looks awesome).

Everybody loves to hate Illinois Center, but I personally think it's great. A touch better access would be fine. Before they screw with it, they should look carefully at what Mies envisioned, and what corners were probably cut in the actual execution.

[schwerve]

the proposal isn't being funded by the city, if they decide to do something (again there's nothing other than a couple of ideas) it'll be funded by the businesses in the directly affected areas, its a private effort to improve the north-south and east-west pedestrian flow through the area, not a city concern.

[honte]

^ True, they want a special tax. But if the owners pay a special tax that would be implemented by the city, wouldn't you rather it go to something more beneficial? I suppose no good businessman would want that money invested in an area beyond would have personal benefit.

[schwerve]

certainly there are more pressing needs for the city of chicago but I don't see how this has any relation to those. if this was the city pushing this it'd be a different argument but why should anyone begrudge a group of businesses wanting to invest in their corner of chicago. the city is only a proxy in this collecting and distributing the funds. I applaud the initiative and the idea. I don't have an opinion on the design as there is no design to have an opinion on. that area of the city is horrible for pedestrian access as east-west flow dead ends at michigan and with the lakeshore east development, it shouldn't at all. walking north south is dark and uninviting and reduces pedestrian movement between north michigan and millenium park. its a problem, albeit not vitally important to the function of the city but if that area wants to pay for a solution itself, I say awesome, do it to it. I can't see what's to hate at this stage of the game.

[honte]

^ Yeah, I can agree with that. I don't hate the idea by any means, especially if what they do is sensitive to the complex context.

It's just sad to see so much money constantly invested in the same tiny little area, especially on things that in the overall scheme of things are perfectly fine - but that's the way our American cities work. There are parts of the South Side where you can literally fall into gaping holes in the vaulted sidewalks, know what I mean? Always, you have to balance doing wonderful things with the more routine stuff. I suppose this whole tangent isn't really even worth discussing much; sorry I helped inflame it.

[Nowhereman1280]

Everybody loves to hate Illinois Center, but I personally think it's great. A touch better access would be fine. Before they screw with it, they should look carefully at what Mies envisioned, and what corners were probably cut in the actual execution.

Speaking of screwing with Illinois Center, has anyone else noticed the raping they are giving it by building some curvy new atrium/overhang bullshit in the plaza they have fenced off along Michigan?

I'm really pissed about this because the new over hang is completely unnecessary and ruins the straight line rigidity of the original design!

[honte]

^ You bet I noticed it. Man. :( This is the second screwing-around with that plaza in, what, 5 years?

Just like in the 1960s all of the classical buildings got dropped ceilings - or worse, total Modernist gut redos (some of which were pretty well done for what they were, actually). Now everyone's scrambling to peek under the dropped ceiling and hope something nice is left.

By the way, you should see what they've been proposing for the hotel in IBM. It's landmarked now, so they can't rip the canopy off - thank god, since they probably would love to. What I saw was the next worst option - think tacky canopy below the existing canopy. I am hoping they will do some more thinking on that one.

[the urban politician]

I'm really bullish about IIT's UTP (as well as the future of that part of town) and found this article very interesting:

IIT welcomes dynamic firms
SCI-TECH SCENE | Technology Park draws U. of C. startups, targets companies from NU

March 9, 2008
BY SANDRA GUY Sun-Times Columnist
The Illinois Institute of Technology, once known for its drafty dorms and isolated South Side location, has quietly emerged as the bustling home to dozens of software and other high-tech start-up companies, as well as a new Starbucks coffee shop and a soon-to-open FedEx/Kinko's store.

The campus' enhanced stature helped prompt Metra to design a new stop on the Rock Island District line at Federal and 35th Street, slated to open in 2009. The Metra stop will be immediately west of the University Technology Park at IIT.
Sun Times (http://www.suntimes.com/technology/guy/832865,CST-FIN-ecol09.article)

[JV_325i]

Barney's expansion
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2487/dsc03305rb1.jpg
Some gutted row houses (I am pretty sure these are getting rehabbed)
http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/2150/dsc03303bk3.jpg
Shots of Esquire theater (you know, for the record books)
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/7370/dsc03309eg9.jpg
http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/8496/dsc03308ii7.jpg
Some project near intersection of Chicago and Milwaukee. Anyone know about this one?
http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/6456/dsc03229mf8.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

^ Mondial

[honte]

^ Mondial.

EDIT: :haha: beat me to it, but I punctuate!

[JV_325i]

^Haha thanks guys.

[UChicagoDomer]

I'm really bullish about IIT's UTP (as well as the future of that part of town) and found this article very interesting:

IIT welcomes dynamic firms
SCI-TECH SCENE | Technology Park draws U. of C. startups, targets companies from NU

March 9, 2008
BY SANDRA GUY Sun-Times Columnist
The Illinois Institute of Technology, once known for its drafty dorms and isolated South Side location, has quietly emerged as the bustling home to dozens of software and other high-tech start-up companies, as well as a new Starbucks coffee shop and a soon-to-open FedEx/Kinko's store.

The campus' enhanced stature helped prompt Metra to design a new stop on the Rock Island District line at Federal and 35th Street, slated to open in 2009. The Metra stop will be immediately west of the University Technology Park at IIT.
Sun Times (http://www.suntimes.com/technology/guy/832865,CST-FIN-ecol09.article)

so, let me get this straight. Metra is opening a new station approximately directly in between (i.e. .1 miles from each) two CTA El stations? this simply tops the list for RTA waste - worse even than the slew of slow buses competing against Metra Electric from Hyde Park. i thought the entire point of the RTA reforms was to eliminate such waste!

anyway, sorry for ranting about transit in the real estate forum...

[VivaLFuego]

so, let me get this straight. Metra is opening a new station approximately directly in between (i.e. .1 miles from each) two CTA El stations? this simply tops the list for RTA waste - worse even than the slew of slow buses competing against Metra Electric from Hyde Park. i thought the entire point of the RTA reforms was to eliminate such waste!

anyway, sorry for ranting about transit in the real estate forum...

The stop is expected to draw most of its ridership from the southwest suburbs (and Beverly), headed to either IIT (work/school) or the Cell. Definitely not the highest priority or highest-ridership infill stop that Metra could build, but it definitely won't be worthless. Not sure what it's expected to cost.

[orulz]

That station could also be an intermodal transfer point, from Metra commuter rail to the CTA (L or buses), although I suspect such transfers are more important on paper than in real life.

[Mr Downtown]

Well, let's see. A Metra stop requires some sidewalk squares next to the tracks and a sign on a post. Since this is on an embankment, let's add a sidewalk descending at ADA-prescribed angles down to 35th Street. So obviously, there's $40,000 worth of work to be done here.

Therefore, in 2005 Metra budgeted the work at $4.1 million freaking dollars. In 2006, Metra approved a contract for $800,000 just to design the station!

[VivaLFuego]

Well, let's see. A Metra stop requires some sidewalk squares next to the tracks and a sign on a post. Since this is on an embankment, let's add a sidewalk descending at ADA-prescribed angles down to 35th Street. So obviously, there's $40,000 worth of work to be done here.

Therefore, in 2005 Metra budgeted the work at $4.1 million freaking dollars. In 2006, Metra approved a contract for $800,000 just to design the station!

$800K to design? That better be a 'not-to-exceed, cost-plus' contract and not a lump sum, otherwise that's absurd (or suspect...not that anyone ever turns a scrutinizing eye towards Metra, the most generously funded commuter rail system in the nation that still doesn't bother to run more off-peak or have any owl service....funded so generously that they're lax about fares and still give well over a hundred million a year in operating funds to their capital budget just to get down to their mandated 54% farebox recovery ratio, and so cocky/unchallenged as to hike fares immediately after they receive a subsidy increase of over $100mn/year...all despite the fact they don't actually have many station facilities to take care of, they pass that burden on to the municipalities... but I forgot, it's CTA that's bloated, inefficient, and crooked....ahem.).

I guess the cost driver is the ramps? I would have pegged this at about $2 million construction, $400K design/engineering, which isn't too outlandish if it serves 50-100 commuters a day and 100-200 rides (diverted drivers->reduced VMT) for Sox games, considering maintenance costs for Metra stations are negligible.

[UChicagoDomer]

City Room: Zoning Restricts Bank Branches
from New York Times

Requirements for the new Special 125th Street District, which were approved by the City Planning Commission, restrict the number of bank branches, on the theory that they can deaden neighborhoods.

click here (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/zoning-restricts-bank-branches-on-125th-street/#comment-234277)


it would have been nice if chicago had had something like this in place before the catastrophe at Milwaukee-North-Damen happened....

[spyguy]

Esquire Theater Proposal

A rejection of the proposal was sent to the developer due to serious concerns regarding the potential negative impact such an intense use as hotel could have on the broader Gold Coast neighborhood. As you know, Oak Street is a world-renowned retail destination that has functioned, and indeed thrived, within its present height and density since its inception. We await a revised proposal from M Development which hopefully is more appropriate for the site.

Three Arts Building

This proposal is currently "on hold" until the developer fully articulates the scope of his plans and conducts the mock-up demonstration for the rooftop addition with the Landmarks Division of the Department of Planning and local community representatives. Once we have those details, a public meeting will be held for the community to comment on the proposal.

Germania Club Building

Recently, Kimco Realty Corporation, a company known for its shopping center developments, recently acquired this historic property for $9.3 million dollars. Because of its significance, I sent a letter to the Commissioner of Planning and Development asking that we pursue land-marking this structure. Although there are currently no redevelopment plans before us, I would prefer to be proactive rather than reactive in order to guarantee the re-use of this significant, and important historic structure.

[aaron38]

Esquire Theater Proposal
A rejection of the proposal was sent to the developer due to serious concerns regarding the potential negative impact such an intense use as hotel could have on the broader Gold Coast neighborhood. As you know, Oak Street is a world-renowned retail destination that has functioned, and indeed thrived, within its present height and density since its inception. We await a revised proposal from M Development which hopefully is more appropriate for the site.

Ugh. There's no universe where the above paragraph makes sense. Retail destinations depend on intense uses like hotels.
And in fact, from the Tribune article:

Retailers for the most part are in favor of the project, eager for the foot traffic it would bring and the prospect of getting rid of the darkened theater, which closed last year and sits empty in the middle of the strip.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sat_notebook_0901sep01,0,6009943.story

Even SOAR supports the project.

[honte]

^ Yeah, the only thing he could validly argue is the preservation argument, but he's not. So, I say, Reilly comes out looking like an idiot again. If they're going to bulldoze it, it had better be for a nice high-rise.

[honte]

it would have been nice if chicago had had something like this in place before the catastrophe at Milwaukee-North-Damen happened....

Vi Daley started trying to limiting branch banks in 43 at least 4 years ago. I don't know if she was on solid footing with that, and I don't know if it was actually done, but the idea was there.

[k1052]

Ugh. There's no universe where the above paragraph makes sense. Retail destinations depend on intense uses like hotels.
And in fact, from the Tribune article:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sat_notebook_0901sep01,0,6009943.story

Even SOAR supports the project.

If the development falls apart hopefully they will consider re-leasing it as a theater. It can do substantial business but was neglected and very poorly managed by Lowes and later by AMC who didn't care about the property.

[ardecila]

Well, at least we have good news about the Germania Club. If it can be landmarked, we might potentially avoid the kind of anti-urban crap that Kimco is known for.

Can Kimco possibly argue anything against the city legally, for limiting the redevelopment potential and therefore land value of the site?

Also, not a total bad news on the Three Arts proposal. It's a bad idea to approve nebulous plans anyway - the full scope of the plan should be presented to the community in all cases.

As for the Esquire, I'm seriously disappointed in Reilly.

[EarlyBuyer]

Photo's taken 3/16/08 by EarlyBuyer

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2493/dsc0035ux5.jpg


http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/9495/dsc0039xy9.jpg


http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/5593/dsc0033mn7.jpg


http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9384/dsc0114lx8.jpg

[the urban politician]

I hope they use quality materials for the facades of the parkhomes & midrise

[the urban politician]

Millennium East Plaza
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/6531/rendering3ah4.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4448/chinamercmartws4.jpg

^ Does anybody have any info about this? I really like the bottom site plan, and I'm hoping this is a redo. I really hate the strip mall-esque look of the top rendering. See Wong's website still shows the top rendering, but I'm hopeful that he simply hasn't updated it yet

[honte]

^ Oh, so it is a Wong. Sorry, I was wrong about that.

The bottom one's architecture seems slightly better too, in addition to location at the corner.

[ardecila]

Millennium East Plaza is totally WONG for the South Loop!!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist. :haha:

[Chicago3rd]

Note 49 Story Building Reference
http://wilbsnodgrassiii.smugmug.com/photos/266850162_Bzwkf-XL.jpg

Note 52 Story Reference
http://WilBSnodgrassiii.smugmug.com/photos/266850176_6SzTP-XL.jpg

http://WilBSnodgrassiii.smugmug.com/photos/266850211_WzLWB-L.jpg

http://WilBSnodgrassiii.smugmug.com/photos/266850190_pFiLD-L.jpg

[ardecila]

There's probably just a counting error there. The floor count on the CDOT sticker probably includes basements, whereas the building permit only counts above-grade floors.

[wrabbit]

Luxury hotel planned for portion of former IBM Building
By Robert Manor | Tribune reporter
March 19, 2008
-----
Designed as an office tower by acclaimed architect Mies van der Rohe, the former IBM Building is about to get a major update, complete with bellhops and bathtubs.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-wed_ibm-hotel-mar19,1,6877950.story

[Via Chicago]

Luxury hotel planned for portion of former IBM Building
By Robert Manor | Tribune reporter
March 19, 2008
-----
Designed as an office tower by acclaimed architect Mies van der Rohe, the former IBM Building is about to get a major update, complete with bellhops and bathtubs.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-wed_ibm-hotel-mar19,1,6877950.story

I'd like to believe this whole thing will be handled with care, but it really worries me than many elements of the design are going to be compromised.

[honte]

I'd like to believe this whole thing will be handled with care, but it really worries me than many elements of the design are going to be compromised.

This is being done under the supervision of the Landmarks Commission, which is the best we can do. So far, what I have heard / seen is still cringe-worthy, but it's 100% better than what we would have had without their guidance.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/page.pl?id=2166

Chicago: West Loop Promenade, 1137 W. Jackson Blvd., 266,000-sq.-ft. mixed-use building, July 2008, $40 million.

Chicago: Old Chicago Post Office Mixed-Use Building, Van Buren St. and Canal Street, mixed-use complex, September 2008, $300 million.

[jpIllInoIs]

^Uhmmm there were a couple of others of note....


Chicago: N. Riverside Plaza Hotel and Apartment Towers, 150 N. Riverside Plaza, 300-room hotel tower and 655-unit apartment tower, October 2008, $150 million.


Evanston: Fountain Square Tower, 708 Church St., 49-story mixed-use tower, June 2009, $80 million



http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/page.pl?id=2166

[honte]

^ Well, that is exciting. The unit count on the apartment tower is high for that piece of land, especially if he continues the plaza scheme from earlier proposals (basically necessitated due to NIMBYs in the loft behind, who want to protect their river views).

Did Reschke say he was dropping the two-tower plan? Either way, we could see a very slender, tall tower there, if the proposal is a good one. :)

[ardecila]

^^ Yes - but I believe Lucien Lagrange has been chosen for the design. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing - something modernist in the vein of X/O, or or Erie On The Park, would be fantastic.

As far as I can see, even when Lagrange has the opportunity to use classic materials (Union Station Tower) he still produces crap, because he doesn't understand proper proportioning.

[Busy Bee]

Isnt it true though that the people mostly responsible for Erie on the Park and x/o are younger architects in the Lagrange firm? Didn't someone say a while back that he fired some of them?

[the urban politician]

Remember that ugly strip mall proposed by Smithfield in Bucktown last fall? Here's a bit of closure on that issue:

3/19/2008 10:00:00 PM
Bucktown condo plan morphs
Community group says design deviates from original proposal

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER
Editor

Excerpt:

Representatives of Smithfield Properties did not attend the meeting although the company was scheduled to present plans for a commercial development east of the residential units. The company requested changes to its planned development proposal last October that would push buildings back from the street, creating a strip mall effect.

The Bucktown Triangle Association and Flores have both rejected plans for the strip mall, saying the development should mimic a traditional Chicago-style streetscape.
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=4326&TM=36406.1

[honte]

Isnt it true though that the people mostly responsible for Erie on the Park and x/o are younger architects in the Lagrange firm? Didn't someone say a while back that he fired some of them?

Yep. But "young" isn't exactly the best description.

The LaGrange firm continues to try their hand at Modern (like the casino), but I don't have high hopes. Personally, I think Erie and Kingsbury were the high points. X/O could get butchered and look really cheap if they don't detail it well. Let's keep our fingers crossed. I am sure there are still some talented people left over there.

I cannot understand why Reschke hired LaGrange anyway. Even if he couldn't resist the PoMo junk, he's already been through Bofill and DeStefano. It just doesn't seem like good business sense to switch firms at this point, when the others are so familiar with it. Perhaps he was demanding to DeStefano that they do something PoMo, but they refused? Wouldn't that be nice?

[aaron38]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=4326&TM=36406.1

Good news on this, and how can you not love this quote?
"If the city feels they need more room, then they should reduce the number of units," Durkin said. "I don't know why they call it a planned development if they don't stick to the plan."

[JV_325i]

Remember that ugly strip mall proposed by Smithfield in Bucktown last fall? Here's a bit of closure on that issue:

3/19/2008 10:00:00 PM
Bucktown condo plan morphs
Community group says design deviates from original proposal

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER
Editor

Excerpt:

Representatives of Smithfield Properties did not attend the meeting although the company was scheduled to present plans for a commercial development east of the residential units. The company requested changes to its planned development proposal last October that would push buildings back from the street, creating a strip mall effect.

The Bucktown Triangle Association and Flores have both rejected plans for the strip mall, saying the development should mimic a traditional Chicago-style streetscape.
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=4326&TM=36406.1

Good to hear. Hopefully they can get the developer to produce something decent for that segment of Milwaukee. I live about an 1/8 mile from that site and just southwest of it exists two ugly stripmalls that for some reason insisted on having their parking face the street rather than the El tracks (which is how a neighboring development did it--it is possible).

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4052/dsc03493lo6.jpg

Milwaukee is just outside the frame of this picture on the left. The brickish building in the background has its parking up against the El in the back of the building.

[Chicago3rd]

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4052/dsc03493lo6.jpg



If it needs that parking it should be in the back. Building should be in line with the sidewalk in the city.

[honte]

There is a nice article on sustainability that features Jahn's Near North Apartments here:

>>> http://construction.com/CE/articles/0803edit-1.asp

[amfleisch]

Good to hear. Hopefully they can get the developer to produce something decent for that segment of Milwaukee. I live about an 1/8 mile from that site and just southwest of it exists two ugly stripmalls that for some reason insisted on having their parking face the street rather than the El tracks (which is how a neighboring development did it--it is possible).

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4052/dsc03493lo6.jpg

Milwaukee is just outside the frame of this picture on the left. The brickish building in the background has its parking up against the El in the back of the building.


i just walked that stretch of milwaukee yesterday. theres a couple of strip malls right next to eachother on that side of the street that really ruin the streetscape for me.

[honte]

Good news on this, and how can you not love this quote?

By the way, John Hanna, the architect under fire, is the guy responsible for all of the horrible angle-fronted condos you see repeated all over West Town and Bucktown, and now other places like McKinley Park. :tup: Seen one, seen 'em all. http://www.mcm1001.com/site/property/user_view_property.exc?cmd=view_property&co_id=465&isApp=true&item_id=52242&property_id=5401&skip_search=false&contact_id=0 (Not 100% sure this is his, but you'd have to be a fool to copy this design.)

MCM is a company that likes to screw artists and others by buying nice buildings and replacing them. http://www.timeout.com/chicago/articles/out-there/20356/negative-space

[the urban politician]

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4052/dsc03493lo6.jpg

^ I believe this is also a Smithfield development.

While they do fine with highrises, they lazily seem to cling to the fugly strip mall mentality when it comes to retailing in urban neighborhoods. It's annoying as hell; their retail center at Armitage and California was a joke. It's about time they get the message that people don't want this crap in Chicago's neighborhoods. I'm glad their plan got rejected

[honte]

their retail center at Armitage and California was a joke.

Really? I think it's one of the more elegant strip malls in the city... :shrug:

[SolarWind]

March 20, 2008

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/7938/dsc0046yp3.jpg

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2529/dsc0080pl0.jpg

[Mr Downtown]

Problem is that retailers want customer parking that actually attracts customers, and they only want to staff one door. If you're leasing space for your laundromat, UPS Store, or dry cleaners, you won't voluntarily choose a place with parking in the back. The person driving down Milwaukee won't think of it as convenient if he can't see a parking space, and the person walking down Milwaukee won't mind walking across 30 feet of parking lot.

Clybourn taught some sobering lessons in the early 90s to those of us who thought it would work to "just put the parking in the back." Those shopping centers didn't lease nearly as well, and one failed completely.

[honte]

^ Can't we address it with better signage?

Like the motel on Lincoln with the giant red neon arrows pointing to the "mouth"? ;)

[Jibba]

Problem is that retailers want customer parking that actually attracts customers, and they only want to staff one door. If you're leasing space for your laundromat, UPS Store, or dry cleaners, you won't voluntarily choose a place with parking in the back. The person driving down Milwaukee won't think of it as convenient if he can't see a parking space, and the person walking down Milwaukee won't mind walking across 30 feet of parking lot.

Clybourn taught some sobering lessons in the early 90s to those of us who thought it would work to "just put the parking in the back." Those shopping centers didn't lease nearly as well, and one failed completely.

(Note: this is still the same person behind JV_325i but for some reason I have been unable to enter my account--when I try to sign in the screen goes blank, nothing happens, the ccPxySvc.exe process goes haywire, my CPU usage maxes out, and I have to restart my machine. No idea what is going on. This new name works perfectly, however.)

I'm not going to argue the rationality behind the economics of the situations that cause developers to produce parking schemes such as the one posted by me above. I am, however, going to argue their aesthetic value, namely that they devalue the neighborhood aesthetic significantly. The emotional aspect of the situation is therefore exerting its influence into the economic equation in the opposite direction: some people do have a problem with walking across 30 feet of parking lot with their laundry, all the while dodging idiotic motorists backing up and maneuvering as they please without the slightest idea of who happens to be walking in their vicinity (these people who do not want to do this include myself). Granted, the counter-productive force of this side of the equation is not nearly enough to shift the economics to an extent such that developers will not desire to place parking in the way as has been done in the afforementioned strip mall. Hence, some type of governmental body over and above the power of the free market must step in to insure that developments like the one above are simply not allowed to produce such iterations of their desired plans. As impractical (and perhaps impossible) as that may be and as much as that means I may be wasting my breath it does not change how I feel about the matter, and there are plenty of other people that feel the same way that I do. I'm all for being pragmatic about things, but not to such an extent that it consistently influences me to accept things that are antithetical to the way I want things to be.

What if it was simply mandated throughout the entire city that parking must be placed in locations that do not face a street and/or major pedestrian thoroughfare? And what if this mandate was highly publicized and announced to the citizens of Chicago such that people would know that parking for places that provided off-street parking would be in a location not so obvious as facing the street. And if they didn't know this they could spend five minutes of their time doing the obvious thing of investigating the parking scheme of a business that they planned on patronizing. If this mandate was city-wide, then every potential developer and retailer would be on a level playing field. Would all of the people of Chicago abstain from doing things such as doing their laundry or shopping for stuff at CVS? Certainly not.

[ardecila]

What if it was simply mandated throughout the entire city that parking must be placed in locations that do not face a street and/or major pedestrian thoroughfare?

You can't make it retroactive and expect existing strip malls to be rebuilt. The existing strip malls with parking in front just add confusion.

Better signage is the answer. My mom once circled for 10 minutes in the parking lot of a CVS on Milwaukee trying to look for a way out. The problem: both curb cuts into the parking lot had large signs saying "Enter" but not "Exit". (this is how we tell a native suburbanite, btw)

[Jibba]

You can't make it retroactive and expect existing strip malls to be rebuilt. The existing strip malls with parking in front just add confusion.

Better signage is the answer. My mom once circled for 10 minutes in the parking lot of a CVS on Milwaukee trying to look for a way out. The problem: both curb cuts into the parking lot had large signs saying "Enter" but not "Exit". (this is how we tell a native suburbanite, btw)

I am well aware of the fact that you would not be able to make this mandate retroactive, and as much as I like to address potential problems within my own arguments (I was going to touch on this fact) it would have expanded the scope beyond what I wanted to get across: the economics of these situations in a free market favor the production of convenient, visible parking in these types of developments, but that does not mean that we should allow this fact to negate any desires to produce schemes that go against what is economically the most sensical.

[honte]

^ This is one reason I like the strip center on Armitage / California. It manages to hold the streetwall somewhat and anchor the corner, but also presents an environment that retailers will find comfortable.

And the materials and detailing are nice.

[the urban politician]

^ This is one reason I like the strip center on Armitage / California. It manages to hold the streetwall somewhat and anchor the corner, but also presents an environment that retailers will find comfortable.

^ If you're talking about that strip mall as a unique, individual example, then yes, it's not the worst thing ever built. But to me it's still 10 times worse than a poorly executed strip mall that places parking in the rear. It's at best tolerable.

Lets put it this way. Would you like to see strip malls like the one at Armitage/California pop up all over the city in some of the densest neighborhoods? Is it really that ''attractive" to you, or are you simply tolerant of it because it's not as ugly as some other ones you've seen.

To me, all of the good materials and design in the world are for naught. Streetwalls and street-front shops define what I love about cities, and the utter disregard for the pedestrian is what I hate about suburbia. Whatever strip malls have already been built are obviously going to be grandfathered in, but the city is rightfully rejecting them as an ongoing part of the city's streetscape (except in some areas of town)

[the urban politician]

Problem is that retailers want customer parking that actually attracts customers, and they only want to staff one door. If you're leasing space for your laundromat, UPS Store, or dry cleaners, you won't voluntarily choose a place with parking in the back. The person driving down Milwaukee won't think of it as convenient if he can't see a parking space, and the person walking down Milwaukee won't mind walking across 30 feet of parking lot.

Clybourn taught some sobering lessons in the early 90s to those of us who thought it would work to "just put the parking in the back." Those shopping centers didn't lease nearly as well, and one failed completely.

^ Well, that's because Chicago (and many other cities, of course) made such a big mistake by opening up Pandora's box. In other words, by allowing strip malls to get built with ample and convenient parking, the city essentially allowed these projects an advantage that traditional streetfront retailers never had. What Chicago should to is level the playing field--an argument I've made before.

If everybody has rear (or ideally, no) parking, then nobody will really have an advantage, unless they want to be west of, say, Western Ave.

What Chicago is doing now, this hodgepodge that we're seeing, isn't going to work. All of these wonderful condo buildings in the neighborhoods with ground level retail are being punished because, half a mile away in a former industrial site (whose zoning remains commercial due to community/Aldermanic prerogative), giant strip centers with huge parking lots will be built. Why would any retailer set up shop in the ground floors of these condo buildings when they can rent a space in the strip mall 1/2 mile away anyhow? That's why when you drive on Belmont west of the red line, you see blocks and blocks of new condo buildings with vacant ground level retail spaces.

Level the playing field, Chicago.

[Mr Downtown]

So your solution to level the playing field is to hobble all the players?

To say, "we prefer the streetscape produced by the 19th century, so we insist that those be the only kind of buildings allowed in the 21st" is just building tableaux and then trying to persuade people to live in them. It has nothing to do with a world where women work outside the home, where professionals value their time highly, where unskilled labor is more expensive than mechanization, and where consumers have high expectations about goods and services.

[VivaLFuego]

I don't see how every strip mall having their parking in back is a problem. If everyone did, then that's just how it would be in Chicago - if you need parking, always look behind the strip stores. Voila. tup is right in that it breaks down once you start allowing the parking in front (though I disagree with him that the 'ideal' is zero parking....I'd leave the quantity of off-street parking provided to the free market).

In higher-density areas with higher property values, then you can put the parking in a garage (behind), or as a deck on the roof, etc.

There are ways to do auto-friendly, modern commercial/retail space without making it sprawlburban pedestrian-hostile schlock.

[wrabbit]

Go figure - guess you really can't please some people. From today's Trib:

Residents oppose Edgewater lakefront park plan
Privacy and safety top concerns for condo owners

By Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah | Tribune Reporter
10:52 PM CDT, March 20, 2008

When Friends of the Parks revived an idea for expanding Chicago's string of lakefront parks further north, they thought they had a way around the objections—enlist residents to design their own vision of beaches, an extension of the bike path and off-shore islands.

But it's turning out to be not so easy. Residents living in high rises abutting the shoreline north of Hollywood Avenue are putting up a fight.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-edgewater-lakefront-21mar21,1,1474243.story

[Marcu]

I don't see how every strip mall having their parking in back is a problem. If everyone did, then that's just how it would be in Chicago - if you need parking, always look behind the strip stores.

The city can standardize a "parking in back" sign that strip malls can use to make drivers aware of the available parking. It really wouldn't be an issue.

[the urban politician]

So your solution to level the playing field is to hobble all the players?

To say, "we prefer the streetscape produced by the 19th century, so we insist that those be the only kind of buildings allowed in the 21st" is just building tableaux and then trying to persuade people to live in them. It has nothing to do with a world where women work outside the home, where professionals value their time highly, where unskilled labor is more expensive than mechanization, and where consumers have high expectations about goods and services.

^ I think Viva's post (right after yours) sort of answers this for me. I really don't see everybody being "hobbled" by requiring retailers to put the parking that they need in the rear, and I think it's a gross exaggeration to suggest so.

With the parking in the rear, it's a reasonable compromise, and ultimately everybody wins. The pedestrian/transit user doesn't have to dodge insensitive drivers, the drivers still get a place to park, and the aesthetics of the city remain intact.

[wrabbit]

^ Comparable to the service uses of Chicago's alley system

[honte]

^ If you're talking about that strip mall as a unique, individual example, then yes, it's not the worst thing ever built. But to me it's still 10 times worse than a poorly executed strip mall that places parking in the rear. It's at best tolerable.

I am looking at it in terms of the circumstances. That land was a total crap vacant lot before the strip mall went in. The area was very rough. I used to go over there all the time.

What we got out of it is an aesthetic solution that was able to draw businesses into the area. It addresses some of your concerns. It addresses some of mine. Without question, it has helped revitalize that section of the street. You may not like it 100%, but I give it credit and I think it's a decent solution.

I am not as streetwall-anxious as many of the rest of you. I actually appreciate breaks in the streetwall from time to time, as long as what I am looking at isn't ugly or hostile. Retail that is set back from the street allows light to come down to the street and provides visual interest. Honestly, many of Chicago's pedestrian strips that have buildings built up to the sidewalk at all times can be rather depressing. West Montrose or parts of Lawrence, for example. It's too narrow and so repetitive. I am not saying that strip malls are the answer (like on Milwaukee Avenue), but I do believe that an environment like Clybourn near North is actually more stimulating to the eye and potentially more pleasant to walk around. I'd far rather walk around there than the depressing cheap-materials-in-your-face streetwall they've managed to build on Belmont. In fact, I don't think I've ever walked down Belmont since they started ruining it with ugly buildings on every block.

Now, an area like Armitage in Lincoln Park by the Brown Line is unbeatable, I am sure we can agree. But you have to remember that you are talking about great architecture, lots of money, good upkeep, and streetwall. It's a very unusual circumstance.

Oh, and by the way TUP, before you start getting on the city for allowing strip malls, I would mention that there are examples of this that date back all the way to the early 1930s (possibly 1920s).

[SolarWind]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but there's a work stoppage at the La Quinta (1 S. Franklin). A sign says that the site is in violation of code 13-32-120 Construction Contrary to Approved Plans. It's dated March 12.

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/516/laquinto1amv4.jpg

[Pandemonious]

^Its ugliness certainly is a violation of my taste...

Id also prefer to see a mixed use building there, or something as well.

[UChicagoDomer]

apologies for the off-topic question: does anyone know what CHA's plans for the Harold Ickes Homes (app. Cermack & State) are? the last I heard, it was being used as a re-location area for CHA residents kicked out of Cabrini and as a re-location area for the so-called "worst of the worst" in the CHA system. thus, as one recent report showed, it has the highest crime level and lowest income level in all of CHA. but that was over a year ago, so i was wondering what's going on with it now.

[the urban politician]

I am not as streetwall-anxious as many of the rest of you. I actually appreciate breaks in the streetwall from time to time, as long as what I am looking at isn't ugly or hostile. Retail that is set back from the street allows light to come down to the street and provides visual interest. Honestly, many of Chicago's pedestrian strips that have buildings built up to the sidewalk at all times can be rather depressing.

^ Sorry, but seeing the back ends of cars is not my idea of something even remotely aesthetically attractive. Strip malls are ugly, and I would even venture to say that they add nothing to urban streetscapes. I view them as placeholders waiting for something more significant to make better use of their space

I am not saying that strip malls are the answer (like on Milwaukee Avenue), but I do believe that an environment like Clybourn near North is actually more stimulating to the eye and potentially more pleasant to walk around.

^ What? One of our most vocal architecture critics suddenly doesn't mind completely design-less, featureless strip-centers with nothing more than corporate signage and acres of pavement? Hello Schaumburg? And you follow that with this statement:

I'd far rather walk around there than the depressing cheap-materials-in-your-face streetwall they've managed to build on Belmont. In fact, I don't think I've ever walked down Belmont since they started ruining it with ugly buildings on every block.

^ Yet somehow Best Buy (or is it Circuit city? I forget) at North/Clybourn solves the issue of using cheap materials by simply hiding its ugliness behind 1,000 belching mufflers..

Oh, and by the way TUP, before you start getting on the city for allowing strip malls, I would mention that there are examples of this that date back all the way to the early 1930s (possibly 1920s).

^ Sorry, but something being built in 1930 draws no reverence from me like it does from some people. Putting the car in front of the pedestrian is just a bad idea when applied to city planning, and I have little tolerance for it. Some people (Mr. D) falsely attribute it to some 19th century nostalgia, but I'd gladly welcome streetscapes of glass and steel, or even other zany materials, over anything that puts the pedestrian in harm's way. That's why I'm excited about projects like the British School. If they can do it in European cities, then why not here?

[honte]

^ The last statement was not about historic significance, but to point out that this is not a new phenomenon. It is incorrect just to state that all the "good old" streetwalls were perfect lines of buildings without interruption, and to blame this on modern policy.

You guys must have a ton of plazas and arcades in New York, but around here people park cars on the street too. So, you kind of see them (front and back) when you walk down the street anyway. I guess you could only look to the side at the storefronts, but you tend to run into things if you do that.

I stand behind my comment about North / Clybourn. Why do I prefer it? Because there is diversity, good design every so often, activity, and a mixture of old and new. I am more referring to the part of Clybourn north of North Avenue, which has a smattering of old buildings - some Victorian, some rehabbed lofts - mixed in with a variety of styles of urban retail. There are strip malls, buildings with parking to the side, some vertical configurations, etc. It's much more engaging. Belmont from California to the Red Line is a disaster now, with only a few bright moments.

On the other hand, something like Elston Avenue is far worse than Belmont - it has followed the pattern of a Schaumburg or, really, more like Villa Park or something less upscale. It is lifeless and ugly from start to finish. Driving down it is bad enough; I would go out of my way not to walk there.

[honte]

^ By the way, there are several examples throughout Chicago of large commercial / residential buildings from the 1920s that have parking in back and portals that allow cars through to the parking. That model never seems to have any problem with people finding the parking. They put a giant sign in front of the portal, and since the building consumes the whole lot, there aren't any other places for grandma to mistake for the entrance. It's probably a bit more dangerous to the pedestrian than a strip center, but you can't have it all.

[jstush04]

^ I like the North/Clybourn area, but I would never view it as a place I'd like to walk around in. I certainly don't mind walking from my parked car to any given place (typically AE :rolleyes:), but i wouldn't walk around there for fun (maybe once the new bridge is completed, I'll give it a try)

But Belmont?? are you kidding me? Belmont is about as walkable (from Damen east, anyway) as anywhere in the city. I love that frickin street :cool:

[Mr Downtown]

^ By the way, there are several examples throughout Chicago of large commercial / residential buildings from the 1920s that have parking in back and portals that allow cars through to the parking.
I can think of vintage Lake Shore Drive residential buildings like this, but no commercial examples spring to mind. What examples were you thinking of, and how did the drivers get into the shops? How did the peds access the shops?

The inevitable result of parking-in-rear solutions is a hand-lettered sign on the sidewalk entrance saying USE "REAR" DOOR.

[VivaLFuego]

I can think of vintage Lake Shore Drive residential buildings like this, but no commercial examples spring to mind. What examples were you thinking of, and how did the drivers get into the shops? How did the peds access the shops?

The inevitable result of parking-in-rear solutions is a hand-lettered sign on the sidewalk entrance saying USE "REAR" DOOR.
Offhand, the building on Belmont that used to house Ann Sather's leaps to mind. I think honte's right, I've seen a couple others but I'm blanking at the moment. It definitely wasn't a 'prevalent' paradigm though.