[wrabbit]

..... 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.....

I walk my dog in this area all the time. The two-block stretch of Clybourn between Willow & the Armitage/Racine peel-off is pretty darn good, with an intact streetscape & parking relegated to the rear. But the stretch between North & Willow (CVS, etc.) suffers from proximity to the blacktop hell of Best Buy/Whole Foods, IMHO. But, given the stratospheric sales figures in the area, I don't expect the blacktop to be around much longer - some chains have better sales here than they do at their Michigan Ave flagships.

[honte]

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.

There is a large one on Milwaukee, just south of Diversey. The old Issen building (I'm probably butchering the name) at Broadway / Wilson has a portal too, which now leads to Truman College's parking lot. You might think at first that this was an alteration for Truman purposes, but if you look at it closely, you will see that it's integral to the original structure (or a very early modification). There are several others around, such as VivaL's suggestion.

I would have to return to these structures to see exactly how the access to the interiors was arranged (and also to see if they have been altered to address some of your other points). However, to my recollection, you simply walk on a sidewalk back through the portal and use the entrances on the street.

[Abner]

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

This is true, and extra point for pointing out that these signs always seem to feature incorrect quotation marks. One half-way counterexample is the north side of Cermak through Cicero and Berwyn. Some sections have diagonal parking off the street, but the whole stretch has parking in the former right of way of the Douglas branch in the alley. People park in back but still go around to the front entrance. Probably this is because the buildings predate this arrangement, so the rear doors are only set up as service doors.

[Chicago3rd]

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.

What???? Clybourn has always been busy as hell with very very poor pedestrian environment.....we weren't even given the privilage of having one side walk connect all the stores through all those parking lots inbetween. What store failed...because of the parking situation?

Michigan Avenue, Armitage, Broadway, Clark, Belmont, Lincoln all fantastic areas that do wonderfully without parking strips.

[the urban politician]

^ Thank you.

Chicago's most successful neighborhoods have the least parking. The notion put forth that lack of parking will doom a retailer has no merit

[Abner]

I've always been kind of curious about the evidence that minor parking inconveniences actually deter people from shopping in certain areas. Obviously it depends on the type of shopping; I can imagine dry cleaners suffering for lack of parking, but most of the stores at North and Clybourn are destination-type places. And I mean, what do you think is actually more of a hassle--parking behind a store and walking around to the front, or driving a car in the treacherous traffic hell that is North and Clybourn? I think businesses use parking as an excuse when they don't do well.

[Mr Downtown]

There are lots of different kinds of neighborhoods and lots of different kinds of retail. Restaurants in dense areas do fine without parking; pet stores not so much. It's also dangerous to generalize from East Lakeview or Streeterville, areas with densities three times that of other Chicago neighborhoods. A dry cleaner in a highrise needs no parking. But in Bucktown or St. Ben's, some nontrivial number of the potential customers might commute by car to suburban jobs or drive the kids to Montessori school. The dry cleaner with a couple of parking spots will do better than the one without.

[VivaLFuego]

There are lots of different kinds of neighborhoods and lots of different kinds of retail. Restaurants in dense areas do fine without parking; pet stores not so much. It's also dangerous to generalize from East Lakeview or Streeterville, areas with densities three times that of other Chicago neighborhoods. A dry cleaner in a highrise needs no parking. But in Bucktown or St. Ben's, some nontrivial number of the potential customers might commute by car to suburban jobs or drive the kids to Montessori school. The dry cleaner with a couple of parking spots will do better than the one without.

Agreed; I do agree that many retailers in many neighborhoods will in fact need some off-street parking to survive. My only beef is in providing that parking in a format that's hostile to pedestrians and transit users. Parking in the rear (with requirements for front and rear doors) generally solves this problem with negligible added cost to the overall development.

I think the new zoning code should have defined different Business/Commercial classifications appropriate for neighborhoods of different density, with the primary distinction being in provision of off-street parking. The off-street parking requirement for commercial developments in LP, Lakeview, Edgewater etc is ludicrous.

[Taft]

The off-street parking requirement for commercial developments in LP, Lakeview, Edgewater etc is ludicrous.

To anyone who might know:

How are these requirements drawn up? Are parking requirements and design requirements (no strip malls, etc.) city-wide? Or are they done per ward?

Taft

[the urban politician]

Agreed; I do agree that many retailers in many neighborhoods will in fact need some off-street parking to survive. My only beef is in providing that parking in a format that's hostile to pedestrians and transit users. Parking in the rear (with requirements for front and rear doors) generally solves this problem with negligible added cost to the overall development.

^ I totally agree. I don't know why the argument against strip malls in their worst format (parking up front) is somehow viewed as a threat to retailing in urban neighborhoods. Nobody is getting rid of space for cars, we just want to see parking put in a place that 1) respects the neighborhood and 2) respects people who are on their two feet.

If it's being done with residential (garages facing a rear alley/private drive) I'm sure it can easily be adapted to commercial.

[Mr Downtown]

Zoning requirements must legally be the same citywide. The differentiation is done by having different districts based on intensity. So, for instance, inland areas might have all the commercial areas classified C-4, in which offstreet parking is required and allowed to be visible. In dense lakefront neighborhoods, there might be no C-4 districts, but all the streetcar strips might be zoned C-2, which would not require offstreet parking and would forbid it along the sidewalk frontage. (Hypothetical examples).

The idea, of course, is that the districting is done to comply with, and in furtherance of, a comprehensive plan. Since Chicago doesn't have a comprehensive plan, the districting is done at aldermanic whim.

[Nowhereman1280]

There are lots of different kinds of neighborhoods and lots of different kinds of retail. Restaurants in dense areas do fine without parking; pet stores not so much. It's also dangerous to generalize from East Lakeview or Streeterville, areas with densities three times that of other Chicago neighborhoods. A dry cleaner in a highrise needs no parking. But in Bucktown or St. Ben's, some nontrivial number of the potential customers might commute by car to suburban jobs or drive the kids to Montessori school. The dry cleaner with a couple of parking spots will do better than the one without.

You see I would disagree with that, most of Chicago's neighborhoods have at least one healthy retail district and most of those districts consist of old buildings with next to no parking. For example, I work on Clark Street in Andersonville, not the densist area, and nearly all of the quality retail tenants there have no parking at all. For example, Athletico and Anderson Pet Hospital share 4 spaces out back with our loading dock.

Its only when you get the big chains that you see parking dragged in. For example, Jewel has a massive parking lot, 7-11 has a parking lot, McDonalds has a parking lot. The music store, the pet hospital, the Jewish Deli, and the gay Dentist have no parking except for what is found on the street. I see a corellation here between culture diluting chains and parking, where there is one there is the other. Neighborhood retail does not need parking to survive, but big chain stores do.

The same goes for Rogers Park, where there is parking there is a Dunkin' Donuts, McDonalds, and a Popeyes. Where there is no parking there is a mile long stretch of ethnic restaurants and markets and stores. Another example, who is the anchor tennant of the Granville? Staples (or was it Office Max). Does the Granville have a lot of parking? Yes...

Other examples can be found in Wicker Park, Hyde Park, Logan Square, and even, to some extent, Greektown and the West Loop.

[aaron38]

Preparing for 2.8 million more people by 2040
Agency looking into Chicago area's future
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=159207

The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning launches its GO TO 2040 campaign today. The agency aims to create a comprehensive plan that guides growth and development in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry and Will counties for the next three decades.
It could be the region's last chance to get a handle on a population boom of more than 2.8 million people expected by 2040, and planners want the public to participate.
"We're asking people to take a moment and think about what they want for their children and themselves over the next 20 to 30 years," CMAP Executive Director Randy Blankenhorn said.
"We're starting with a blank sheet of paper."

For information about the GO TO 2040 regional plan and to participate in surveys, visit the CMAP site at www.goto2040.org.


The article is comparing this to Burnham's plan. I wouldn't hold my breath, but they are doing surveys, so I think everyone should put their 2 cents in.

But it sounds like the first thing this agency needs to do is get a handle on the NIMBY population. If the metro population is going to increase by 30%, we're going to need the high density TOD that keeps getting shot down. And we're going to need lots of buildings that are "out of scale with the neighborhood".

[Marcu]

If the metro population is going to increase by 30%, we're going to need the high density TOD that keeps getting shot down. And we're going to need lots of buildings that are "out of scale with the neighborhood".

Serious TOD in the burbs may actually lead to a short-term decline for Chicago (untl it's able to adjust). If Chicago ever loses its urban setting monopoly in the region, it will no longer be able to maintain its relatively high tax structure, schools that are viewed as "bad", and government with serious special-interest capture issues. Most people work in the burbs already, and I'm sure we all know quite a few people that live in Chicago and reverse commute just to be able to live in an urban setting. They, as most Chicagoans, constantly comment on the high taxes, bad schools, etc (whether justified or not). Once we start to see some serious TOD in the burbs beyond a stretch of condos behind a strip mall as we're seeing now, many people from urbanized north side neighborhoods will make the move. We've already seen how successful urbanized suburbs like Evanston have become partially selling themselves as an alternative to Chicago.

Imagine if people have the option of living in some random city in Will County that resembles an urbanized Chicago neighborhood like Lakeview but is also lower taxed, has cheaper housing, better schools, less percieved corruption, and is closer to the office park.

[the urban politician]

Serious TOD in the burbs may actually lead to a short-term decline for Chicago (untl it's able to adjust). If Chicago ever loses its urban setting monopoly in the region, it will no longer be able to maintain its relatively high tax structure, schools that are viewed as "bad", and government with serious special-interest capture issues. Most people work in the burbs already, and I'm sure we all know quite a few people that live in Chicago and reverse commute just to be able to live in an urban setting. They, as most Chicagoans, constantly comment on the high taxes, bad schools, etc (whether justified or not). Once we start to see some serious TOD in the burbs beyond a stretch of condos behind a strip mall as we're seeing now, many people from urbanized north side neighborhoods will make the move. We've already seen how successful urbanized suburbs like Evanston have become partially selling themselves as an alternative to Chicago.

Imagine if people have the option of living in some random city in Will County that resembles an urbanized Chicago neighborhood like Lakeview but is also lower taxed, has cheaper housing, better schools, less percieved corruption, and is closer to the office park.

^ You're forgetting one key fundamental, though: urbanization leads to higher taxes. As long as suburbs have remained low density communities in which everybody drives everywhere, they have needed relatively few services and have mostly been heavily subsidized.

[Marcu]

^ I'm not sure I follow. There is absolutely no reason that high density areas areas need to be taxed higer than lower density areas in the US. Low density requires more city services (roads, sewers, etc.). High density should lead to higher product due to lower transaction costs and therefore, a lower overall tax burden as % of income. This should more than off-set any kind of subsidy you may be speaking of.

[VivaLFuego]

Imagine if people have the option of living in some random city in Will County that resembles an urbanized Chicago neighborhood like Lakeview but is also lower taxed, has cheaper housing, better schools, less percieved corruption, and is closer to the office park.
And this is a bad thing? I dream of the day when Chicagoland's 300 municipalities are competing with eachother to be the most urban and dense!

^ I'm not sure I follow. There is absolutely no reason that high density areas areas need to be taxed higer than lower density areas in the US. Low density requires more city services (roads, sewers, etc.). High density should lead to higher product due to lower transaction costs and therefore, a lower overall tax burden as % of income. This should more than off-set any kind of subsidy you may be speaking of.
In regards to basic city infrastructure services, you're right. There are other issues at play of course. In the suburbs, usually 75-90% of property tax goes to education, in contrast to about 50% of our property tax bills in Chicago. Additionally, we pay higher overall higher county tax, largely on account of Cook County having the second largest public health system in the country (hospitals/health are well over a third of the county budget I believe).

Where I disagree with you is that I believe suburban taxes are artificially low because they are free riders on the services that we Cook/Chicago residents pay for. These include, for example:
1. Our property taxes to support the parks/museums that help maintain Chicago as a tourist destination
2. Our public health system that generally improves regional public health by treating infectious disease etc.
3. Transit system subsidy, reducing congestion and air pollution

These are all public goods that suburbanites benefit from via property values, quality of life, etc. but don't pay taxes for. If people did flee Chicago to get their urban fix in the suburbs, they would gradually increase their tax burden to support those amenities.

[cbotnyse]

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

looks like they are starting to clear some floor space for the proposed hotel.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/trump/DSC_0015-2.jpg

[SolarWind]

March 24, 2008

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/2060/dsc0075ed4.jpg

Barneys
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9008/dsc0065xs6.jpg

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3605/dsc0077av0.jpg

[spyguy]

Nice photos. Anyone know what's going into the old Gino's building and what they need an addition for? If it's all retail that would be amazing.

[the urban politician]

^ Seriously, the rate at which that part of town is transforming is simply staggering (pardon my overuse of the word 'staggering' lately, the other occasion being when I found out that over 1 quadrillion dollars were traded by CME group last year ;) ).

[the urban politician]

Serious TOD in the burbs may actually lead to a short-term decline for Chicago (untl it's able to adjust). If Chicago ever loses its urban setting monopoly in the region, it will no longer be able to maintain its relatively high tax structure, schools that are viewed as "bad", and government with serious special-interest capture issues. Most people work in the burbs already, and I'm sure we all know quite a few people that live in Chicago and reverse commute just to be able to live in an urban setting. They, as most Chicagoans, constantly comment on the high taxes, bad schools, etc (whether justified or not). Once we start to see some serious TOD in the burbs beyond a stretch of condos behind a strip mall as we're seeing now, many people from urbanized north side neighborhoods will make the move. We've already seen how successful urbanized suburbs like Evanston have become partially selling themselves as an alternative to Chicago.

Imagine if people have the option of living in some random city in Will County that resembles an urbanized Chicago neighborhood like Lakeview but is also lower taxed, has cheaper housing, better schools, less percieved corruption, and is closer to the office park.

^ On second look at this comment, I think the silly debacle taking place with Evanston's Fountain Square proposal pretty much answers why suburbs will never offer the same level of urbanity that the Chicago center city will. If arguably Chicago's most urban, intense suburb can't even get itself to allow a tower of (compared to Chicago) mediocre height, there's really not a lot of hope for the kind of density which you've described

[Marcu]

And this is a bad thing? I dream of the day when Chicagoland's 300 municipalities are competing with eachother to be the most urban and dense!

Certainly not a bad thing. But for thse that are primarily concerned with Chicago's prominence in the region, this may not be such a good thing.



In regards to basic city infrastructure services, you're right. There are other issues at play of course. In the suburbs, usually 75-90% of property tax goes to education, in contrast to about 50% of our property tax bills in Chicago. Additionally, we pay higher overall higher county tax, largely on account of Cook County having the second largest public health system in the country (hospitals/health are well over a third of the county budget I believe).

Where I disagree with you is that I believe suburban taxes are artificially low because they are free riders on the services that we Cook/Chicago residents pay for. These include, for example:
1. Our property taxes to support the parks/museums that help maintain Chicago as a tourist destination
2. Our public health system that generally improves regional public health by treating infectious disease etc.
3. Transit system subsidy, reducing congestion and air pollution

These are all public goods that suburbanites benefit from via property values, quality of life, etc. but don't pay taxes for. If people did flee Chicago to get their urban fix in the suburbs, they would gradually increase their tax burden to support those amenities.

They are indeed public goods. But let's break the ones you lsited one by one.

Parks/museums are funded in part through fees (eg the museum of science and industry is now $20 for gen ad w/ omnimax). The revenue coming in from the hotel tax (i think now over 15%), rental car tax, airport landing fees, and disproportionate share of restaurant tax revenue should more than sufficiently fund the rest.

Public health gets a huge chunk of their cash from the feds and the state (medicaid - state provides matching funds). In any case, many people in the region, the same ones I references above as willing to move out, don't view Cook County hospital as a public benefit. Without some data showing this region has a more than a marginally higher level of "public health" than regions w/o a large public health system, I tend to agree.

I agree on transit. But funding sources should likely shift with changes in the type of development in the burbs as use goes up.


^ On second look at this comment, I think the silly debacle taking place with Evanston's Fountain Square proposal pretty much answers why suburbs will never offer the same level of urbanity that the Chicago center city will. If arguably Chicago's most urban, intense suburb can't even get itself to allow a tower of (compared to Chicago) mediocre height, there's really not a lot of hope for the kind of density which you've described

Good point. I guess if something significant does happen, it will likely be in an entierly new area and not a mature suburb.

[VivaLFuego]

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3605/dsc0077av0.jpg

Awesome

[honte]

This Barney's building, does anyone even know what it's supposed to look like?

[Patel]

looks like they are starting to clear some floor space for the proposed hotel.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/trump/DSC_0015-2.jpg

Some interesting facts on the Hotel




Originally Posted by 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...,6877950.story



The hotel is expected to offer 335 rooms, with the standard guest room offering 525 square feet, large by Chicago standards. The hotel also will offer suites, some as large as 2,350 square feet.

Rutledge said work on the hotel will begin almost immediately, and it should open some time in 2010.

It also may be possible to check in by boat. The property is on the river walk, and boats can dock there. Rutledge said the hotel will look into a water-borne check-in.

[Abner]

^ On second look at this comment, I think the silly debacle taking place with Evanston's Fountain Square proposal pretty much answers why suburbs will never offer the same level of urbanity that the Chicago center city will. If arguably Chicago's most urban, intense suburb can't even get itself to allow a tower of (compared to Chicago) mediocre height, there's really not a lot of hope for the kind of density which you've described

This is a little overstated. It's a false dichotomy. Evanston isn't going to be the Loop, but the idea that only 50-story buildings can provide a sufficient level of density is just kind of weird. Not that many people, in the scheme of things, are interested in living in skyscraper-dominated areas. (I'm probably more radically pro-urban than most of the people here, but I would never live in River North.) That doesn't mean they wouldn't live in dense areas; of course, there are plenty of neighborhoods in San Francisco and many European cities with few highrises that nonetheless are denser than all but a few neighborhoods in Chicago. I'd rather not turn people off of urbanism by suggesting that they need to embrace such a polarizing type of built environment. Maybe Evanston would be better served by five ten-story buildings than one fifty-story one.

[the urban politician]

^ When you've got high parking requirements and very high unit size requirements, most 5-6 story buildings simply don't cut it.

Everybody demands that these new developments have fewer 1-bedrooms & studios, and more 2-3 bedrooms units, which I'm sure will mostly end up being wasted space.

[Abner]

Then why not try criticizing these silly requirements rather than increasing the heights of buildings? I think parking requirements in particular can diminish the actual density of a neighborhood more than we even acknowledge. My concern is that parking paranoia will continue to spiral into madness as neighborhoods become more dense and more short of street parking--which is, of course, what everybody actually wants when they demand off-street parking for other people.

[honte]

^ Why build short buildings when you can have 1) fewer teardowns, 2) equal or greater density, 3) a skyline, 4) light, air, and visual complexity, 5) different options for different lifestyles? All factors point toward high-rise construction in my opinion, so long as it's handled tastefully and skillfully.

[SolarWind]

This Barney's building, does anyone even know what it's supposed to look like?
http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/8805/barneysrs6.jpg

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/3036/dsc0060te4.jpg

[honte]

^ Excellent, thank you. (But I am sorry I asked!)

[the urban politician]

Last updated: March 25, 2008 11:18pm
$19M Seed Jump-Starts Condo, Retail Project
By Gina Kenny

CHICAGO-A joint venture between JFJ Development Co. and Dionysus Enterprises LLC have received an $18.9-million pre-development loan for a residential and retail development in Chicago's Lakeview neighborhood.
Dennis Nyren, a principal with Chicago-based MJ Partners Capital Services, says the development at 3030 N. Broadway St. will be constructed in two phases. The estimated cost for the 150,000-sf phase one is about $50 million, he tells GlobeSt.com.
http://www.globest.com/news/1122_1122/chicago/169374-1.html

[the urban politician]

^ And I believe that is this project:

Looks like the residential development on the Dominick's Broadway site will be called Broadway 3030:

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7209/bdwy3030dd6.jpg

[the urban politician]

March 26, 2008

Centrum switches to apartments for Lakeview project
By Alby Gallun

(Crain’s) — Another condominium developer has taken down the “For Sale” sign and put a “For Rent” sign in its place.

Adjusting to the shifting residential market, Centrum Properties has decided to build luxury apartments instead of condos in the Lofts at Lakeview Collection, a proposed $100-million mixed-used development at the intersection of Belmont, Ashland and Lincoln avenues.
http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28706

[VivaLFuego]

^ When you've got high parking requirements and very high unit size requirements, most 5-6 story buildings simply don't cut it.

Everybody demands that these new developments have fewer 1-bedrooms & studios, and more 2-3 bedrooms units, which I'm sure will mostly end up being wasted space.

Perfectly put. Modern/contemporary demands dictate off-street parking, high minimum unit sizes, setbacks, and open space. The only way to acheive these while still having a vibrant, truly 'urban' neighborhood are with high-rises. See "Vancouver." You can't do it without the kind of unit density provided by high-rises. There simply won't be a critical mass of residents to support a vibrant retail strip. See "West Loop Desolation."

Most of Chicago's vibrant low-rise neighborhoods are basically a sea of non-conforming uses with either too little open space, too many units per acre, too small an average unit size, no off-street parking, or some combination thereof. As these neighborhoods are gradually renovated, redeveloped etc, their unit density and population density (also a function of declining average household size) continue to decrease.

[Taft]

^ And I believe that is this project:

What a disappointing render! Given this development's focus on street level retail, it would be nice to see how the site would be actively used at ground level as well as how the building fits into the Broadway streetwall.

From that render, I'm not terribly hopeful about how this project will come out. At least it will be an improvement from that surface lot previously and currently occupying that space.

Taft

[k1052]

What a disappointing render! Given this development's focus on street level retail, it would be nice to see how the site would be actively used at ground level as well as how the building fits into the Broadway streetwall.

From that render, I'm not terribly hopeful about how this project will come out. At least it will be an improvement from that surface lot previously and currently occupying that space.

Taft

Looks ok to me so far and the store is to be at ground level. Dominick's usually does a decent job when part of larger/existing structures . Then again it would be a shame to do away with the crappy lot and the double wide bank trailer that inhabits the site....

[honte]

I think it looks great.

[Marcu]

Perfectly put. Modern/contemporary demands dictate off-street parking, high minimum unit sizes, setbacks, and open space. The only way to acheive these while still having a vibrant, truly 'urban' neighborhood are with high-rises. See "Vancouver." You can't do it without the kind of unit density provided by high-rises. There simply won't be a critical mass of residents to support a vibrant retail strip. See "West Loop Desolation."

Most of Chicago's vibrant low-rise neighborhoods are basically a sea of non-conforming uses with either too little open space, too many units per acre, too small an average unit size, no off-street parking, or some combination thereof. As these neighborhoods are gradually renovated, redeveloped etc, their unit density and population density (also a function of declining average household size) continue to decrease.

Great points. But since this discussion started with the reference to Fountain Square in Evanston possibly decreasing to 30 or 35 stories from 49, I'd like to note that while a row of 2 or 3 flats can no longer provide the type of density we are looking for, a building with 12 stories can. Let alone a 35 story highrise.

Also, we have to look at the situation within context. Yes units now must be bigger, have off-street parking, etc. making it difficult to maintain vibrant retail strips. But as wages, disposable income, and in turn consumption rates rise, it's possible to support the same number of retail options wih fewer people. Of course it will be very difficult to keep consumption rates steady with the highest big city sales tax in the country.

[Abner]

I'm not familiar with newer unit size requirements (as opposed to parking requirements, open space requirements, etc.) and how they compare to older unit sizes. Can somebody give a brief explanation?

[Taft]

Looks ok to me so far and the store is to be at ground level. Dominick's usually does a decent job when part of larger/existing structures . Then again it would be a shame to do away with the crappy lot and the double wide bank trailer that inhabits the site....

True that Dominick's does a pretty good job at ground level. Would have been nice to see that in the rendering. Does anyone know Dominick's is the only retail tenant in the project or is there other space available?

Maybe I should clarify my position: *love* the project (especially given what's there), but was disappointed with the render. Architecturally, I have no problems, but the render is so lifeless, doesn't show how the building fits into the streetwall or against its neighbors.

Contrast that render with a similar project at Belmont and Lincoln:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/images/random/lakeviewcollection.jpg

[emathias]

I'm not familiar with newer unit size requirements (as opposed to parking requirements, open space requirements, etc.) and how they compare to older unit sizes. Can somebody give a brief explanation?

I don't think it's a city-wide thing, it's mainly local residents associations, like WLCO, that "require" larger average unit sizes in order to not impede a development.

WLCO actively pushes for a high number 1400+ square foot units. For the life of me, I can't fathom why, since market prices will make it damn near impossible to sell a large number of units of that size unless they get better services in the area, and they won't get better services until they increase density, which is hard to do when you're insisting on such enormous home sizes.

For reference, 1400 square feet is only slightly smaller than the average new single family home was 30 years ago - in other words, in a rational world it'd be absurdly large for a central city condo or apartment.

[VivaLFuego]

I don't think it's a city-wide thing, it's mainly local residents associations, like WLCO, that "require" larger average unit sizes in order to not impede a development.

WLCO actively pushes for a high number 1400+ square foot units. For the life of me, I can't fathom why, since market prices will make it damn near impossible to sell a large number of units of that size unless they get better services in the area, and they won't get better services until they increase density, which is hard to do when you're insisting on such enormous home sizes.

For reference, 1400 square feet is only slightly smaller than the average new single family home was 30 years ago - in other words, in a rational world it'd be absurdly large for a central city condo or apartment.

Actually, there are stipulations in the zoning code, very briefly and roughly summarized as follows:

- The average square footage of all units in the property must be above 500 sq ft
- No more than X percent of the units can be efficiencies (which includes studios - X varies between 0-20% depending on the classification)

Other important restrictions:
- Setbacks usually mandate about 1/3 of the lot be open space (varies depending on the classification and the size of the lot)
- minimum 1 off-street parking space per unit
- Minimum lot area of X per unit (this severely limits the unit count, a typical Chicago lot of 25x125 is allowed about:
1 unit in an R3 zone (many neighborhoods, including West Town, Lincoln Square, etc.)
3 units in an R4 zone (West Lincoln Park, West Lakeview, Wicker Park, Uptown, Rogers Park)
4 units in an R5 zone (Old Town, East Lincoln Park, East Lakeview, East Edgewater)
...with R6 being the only residential classification that would allow much of Chicago's residential housing stock to be built. And if you've looked at a zoning map lately, you see that R6 zoning is very, very few and far between.

Commercial zoning is a little more generous with the number of available units, but not much; only the highest 2 classifications allow for reasonable density (e.g. 4+ units per lot).

So you can quickly see how Chicago's existing vibrant low-rise neighborhoods are thoroughly unbuildable under existing zoning; the 50% efficiency, 50% parking ratio 4+1s. The old workman's cottages chopped up into 4 units. 2 buildings per lot in Pilsen. Large, full-depth courtyard buildings with 30+ units and zero off-street parking. i.e. almost every Chicago residential vernacular: Non-conforming, all. Even the rush of lakefront highrises built in the R7 and R8 zones along the lakefront following the 1957 zoning code are of course now generally non-conforming, and are all would be subject to the price-inflating "Planned Development" shakedown process, as would anything over 110ft tall (the new zoning code got rid of R7 and R8).

That said, of course as Mr. Downtown always like to point out, zoning in this city is a political- and property-value-tool, not an actual land use tool, so "anythings possible" depending on who the alderman is.

[k1052]

True that Dominick's does a pretty good job at ground level. Would have been nice to see that in the rendering. Does anyone know Dominick's is the only retail tenant in the project or is there other space available?

Maybe I should clarify my position: *love* the project (especially given what's there), but was disappointed with the render. Architecturally, I have no problems, but the render is so lifeless, doesn't show how the building fits into the streetwall or against its neighbors.

Contrast that render with a similar project at Belmont and Lincoln:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/images/random/lakeviewcollection.jpg

The article says that National City has a 3000 sq ft lease also on the ground floor.

The render seems pretty basic, hopefully better visuals are provided at some point.

[the urban politician]

3/26/2008 10:00:00 PM Email this article • Print this article
Burnett brokers deal for West Loop mid-rise
Condo complex to help build Rosa Parks Apts.

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER
Contributing writer


A compromise plan for a proposed 9-story, mixed-use condo building in the West Loop could help finance a 94-unit affordable housing complex in West Humboldt Park.

Neighbors have negotiated for a year and a half over the condo development at 1260 W. Madison by Pickus Cos., arguing that the structure was too tall and dense for area. The original plan would have built two 13-story buildings, each standing 155 feet tall.

The compromise plan released last week would construct a 90-foot-tall modern glass building with 318-units, 343 parking spots and 16,000 square feet of retail space. Developer Joel Pickus said the planned development also includes a smaller 32-unit condo building with 8,500 square feet of retail space at 1300 W. Madison.
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=4416&TM=34095.32


3/26/2008 10:00:00 PM Email this article • Print this article
Development plugs along in Uptown
Sleek designs, vintage rehabs and a new movie theater complex in store for neighborhood

By LORRAINE SWANSON, Editor
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=49&SubSectionID=142&ArticleID=4385&TM=34453.68

[emathias]

...
- Minimum lot area of X per unit (this severely limits the unit count, a typical Chicago lot of 25x125 is allowed about:
1 unit in an R3 zone (many neighborhoods, including West Town, Lincoln Square, etc.)
3 units in an R4 zone (West Lincoln Park, West Lakeview, Wicker Park, Uptown, Rogers Park)
4 units in an R5 zone (Old Town, East Lincoln Park, East Lakeview, East Edgewater)
...with R6 being the only residential classification that would allow much of Chicago's residential housing stock to be built. And if you've looked at a zoning map lately, you see that R6 zoning is very, very few and far between.

Commercial zoning is a little more generous with the number of available units, but not much; only the highest 2 classifications allow for reasonable density (e.g. 4+ units per lot).

So you can quickly see how Chicago's existing vibrant low-rise neighborhoods are thoroughly unbuildable under existing zoning; the 50% efficiency, 50% parking ratio 4+1s. The old workman's cottages chopped up into 4 units. 2 buildings per lot in Pilsen. Large, full-depth courtyard buildings with 30+ units and zero off-street parking. i.e. almost every Chicago residential vernacular: Non-conforming, all. Even the rush of lakefront highrises built in the R7 and R8 zones along the lakefront following the 1957 zoning code are of course now generally non-conforming, and are all would be subject to the price-inflating "Planned Development" shakedown process, as would anything over 110ft tall (the new zoning code got rid of R7 and R8). ...

Wow, I knew the new code reduced the guaranteed right to density of the previous code, but I didn't realize it limited it by that degree. That's really, really disappointing, especially since the adjustments I've seen for being near an "L" station really aren't very generous. Were I the zoning czar, I think I'd be pushing for R6+ for anything mentioned in the Central Area Plan, and anything within 1/2 mile walk of an "L" or Metra station (in my mind, that would basically look like a diamond-shaped zone around each of them). If I was feeling cocky, I might also include any area with bus service above a certain level per resident. That would cover almost everywhere that's currently dense and almost anywhere else that density could be reasonably accommodated. Places that are currently best served by rail transit need density. I suspect at least some of those areas still have density-enabling zoning, but from what you've said it sounds like fewer do than should.

[wrabbit]

Actually, there are stipulations in the zoning code, very briefly and roughly summarized as follows.....

Very informative & interesting - thank you for posting.

[VivaLFuego]

Wow, I knew the new code reduced the guaranteed right to density of the previous code, but I didn't realize it limited it by that degree. That's really, really disappointing, especially since the adjustments I've seen for being near an "L" station really aren't very generous. Were I the zoning czar, I think I'd be pushing for R6+ for anything mentioned in the Central Area Plan, and anything within 1/2 mile walk of an "L" or Metra station (in my mind, that would basically look like a diamond-shaped zone around each of them). If I was feeling cocky, I might also include any area with bus service above a certain level per resident. That would cover almost everywhere that's currently dense and almost anywhere else that density could be reasonably accommodated. Places that are currently best served by rail transit need density. I suspect at least some of those areas still have density-enabling zoning, but from what you've said it sounds like fewer do than should.

A few notes:
1. The Central Area is mostly zoned "D" for downtown zoning, which is moderately more generous than the neighborhood zoning but still has pretty low FARs (the highest as-of-right is 16, but most of the area is zoned for FAR of 3.0, 5.0, or 7.0)

2. Some of the 'bombed out' areas, namely East Garfield Park and parts of Bronzeville and Washington Park, are zoned for pretty good density (R5), but of course no one wants to live there so for now it's moot; however, eventually these could be pretty great dense neighborhoods.

3. The R3 classification needs to be re-written to allow 2-flats as of right, regardless. As it is now, 2-flats are only allowed in R3 in the cases where basically the entire street is already 2-flats. They created an "R3.5" to "solve" this problem, but almost nowhere is zoned R3.5 so it's moot.

4. The B/C zoning classifications need to be re-written so more of the classifications (e.g. in addition to B2, include C1 and B1) allow ground-floor residential as-of-right. By all means, still require it to conform to commercial standards (e.g. 13' ceilings) so it can be converted later if necessary. But in most neighborhoods there is way, way, WAY too much commercial zoning relative to the population density allowed by the residential zoning, leaving us with our hundreds of miles of desolate commercial streets in otherwise intact neighborhoods. If there is a demand for commercial space, the property owner will gladly do so because the income from commercial space is far greater than that of a residential unit; planners need not worry about residential units preventing a retail district. See Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver for how, by concentrating a limited amount of commercial zoning at certain intersections, even a bungalow-belt neighborhood of SFHs can have a lively ped-friendly retail district.

5. The shakedown procedures have got to end or be substantially re-worked. The most egregious is:
a. the "affordable housing" requirement, which of course only accomplishes making housing less affordable like rent control in NYC. Now, any upzoning requires either provision of "affordable" units, or a "contribution" to the affordable housing fund. Of course, this just increases the cost of development and thus, the cost of housing for anyone not lucky enough to be part of the "affordable housing" program. Of course, an upzoning for more density would otherwise improve the housing affordability issue, whereas the people who actually are exacerbating the affordability issue by tearing down vintage 3-flats to build luxury single-family home as in Bucktown and Lincoln Park can do so as of right with no contribution to the affordable housing fund. The city has got this exactly backwards, but that's because planners, people in gov't "housing departments", and "community activists" have a propensity to be communists with approximately zero concept of economics, market pricing, and development finance. Just pass a law to solve any problem!

b. The Planned Development process. I'd ideally get rid of it completely since it's basically turned into a shakedown that majorly increases the cost of development, with those costs not born by the people responsible for creating them (e.g. "the neighbors", aldermen, etc.). They're also pretty bad in being used to obliterate the historical Chicago urban form. See Central Station, all of those gated townhome communities in Lakeview and Lincoln Park, Dearborn Park, etc. Alleys? 25' lots? Street grid? Pssh, who needs 'em. The PD process's usefulness for things like placing a tower in the best part of a lot to alleviate light/air/wind concerns, planning accessory open space, finding the best parking access locations etc is overshadowed by the extortion that they are used for in practice.

6. Like you say, we need a "Transit-oriented Development" overlay for areas surrounding transit stations. In my ideal world, these would make private surface parking lots illegal (existing ones would stay as non-conforming, and public lots would be ok if they are available to transit users). For example that big Cole Taylor Bank parking lot right next to the Western-O'hare Blue Line stop really grates at my soul. Also, drive-thrus disallowed (like the drive-thru auto title loan place....also right at Western-O'hare Blue Line). Off-street parking requirements would be .5, instead of the measely ".75 within 600 ft of a rail station entrance" that we have now. And , higher housing density as well, as of right (Absolute minimum within 1/4 mile of transit stations should be R4, and commercial zoning should have absolute minimum allowable FAR of 3.0).


Voila,

[k1052]

3/26/2008 10:00:00 PM Email this article • Print this article
Development plugs along in Uptown
Sleek designs, vintage rehabs and a new movie theater complex in store for neighborhood

By LORRAINE SWANSON, Editor
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=49&SubSectionID=142&ArticleID=4385&TM=34453.68

I highly doubt this is going to come together given the inexperience of the "developer" , the difficulties/cost of construction, and sheer economics concerning more condos in that neighborhood.

Personally I'd much prefer to see a multiplex theater/retail development that integrates (and refurbishes) the Uptown theater. Ideally the 4500 seat room would again double as a movie theater when not being used as a live venue instead of idling. Such a development would catalyze a lot more growth around Lawrence/Broadway.

[Abner]

A few notes:

4. The B/C zoning classifications need to be re-written so more of the classifications (e.g. in addition to B2, include C1 and B1) allow ground-floor residential as-of-right. By all means, still require it to conform to commercial standards (e.g. 13' ceilings) so it can be converted later if necessary. But in most neighborhoods there is way, way, WAY too much commercial zoning relative to the population density allowed by the residential zoning, leaving us with our hundreds of miles of desolate commercial streets in otherwise intact neighborhoods.

Could it be that the Chicago model of commercial zoning--completely commercial strips every half-mile, or sometimes every mile--is kind of obsolete in some areas? Portland and Seattle follow more of a "node"-centered model of commercial development, where commercial activity in residential neighborhoods is centered around intersections rather than being in a strip along a street; this was a natural result of the growth patterns of those cities. This means that a through street isn't continuously commercial but has blocks of housing and commercial interspersed. It is still very walkable, and might even encourage cars to slow down a little bit on through streets.

6. Like you say, we need a "Transit-oriented Development" overlay for areas surrounding transit stations. In my ideal world, these would make private surface parking lots illegal (existing ones would stay as non-conforming, and public lots would be ok if they are available to transit users). For example that big Cole Taylor Bank parking lot right next to the Western-O'hare Blue Line stop really grates at my soul. Also, drive-thrus disallowed (like the drive-thru auto title loan place....also right at Western-O'hare Blue Line). Off-street parking requirements would be .5, instead of the measely ".75 within 600 ft of a rail station entrance" that we have now. And , higher housing density as well, as of right (Absolute minimum within 1/4 mile of transit stations should be R4, and commercial zoning should have absolute minimum allowable FAR of 3.0).

Do off-street parking requirements really do any good? I suppose there is some externality element when developments cause more people to park on the street, but since people shouldn't be able to consider themselves "endowed" with abundant free street parking anyway, I don't understand why the market shouldn't determine whether new developments provide parking spaces, and if so how many.

[VivaLFuego]

Could it be that the Chicago model of commercial zoning--completely commercial strips every half-mile, or sometimes every mile--is kind of obsolete in some areas? Portland and Seattle follow more of a "node"-centered model of commercial development, where commercial activity in residential neighborhoods is centered around intersections rather than being in a strip along a street; this was a natural result of the growth patterns of those cities. This means that a through street isn't continuously commercial but has blocks of housing and commercial interspersed. It is still very walkable, and might even encourage cars to slow down a little bit on through streets.

Yes, I believe Chicago's commercial zoning mode is obsolete and dependent upon much greater population density resulting from the higher average household sizes of old. Note that the only lower-unit-density areas with notably successful continuous commercial streets are the neighborhoods like Little Village, Humboldt Park, Albany Park with major immigrant (high household size) populations. Were zoning in this city about creating the best urban environment and not just a political tool, I would quickly rewrite the code to focus on retail nodes as you say, with more flexibility in commercially-zoned stretches to allow first floor residential that could be converted to commercial if the market ever demands it. Planners in the city zoning department have long desired this (personal anecdotes), but to no avail obviously.


Do off-street parking requirements really do any good? I suppose there is some externality element when developments cause more people to park on the street, but since people shouldn't be able to consider themselves "endowed" with abundant free street parking anyway, I don't understand why the market shouldn't determine whether new developments provide parking spaces, and if so how many.

Generally agreed; the market should be able to work this out in terms of quantity. There is some value in actually planning for off-street parking, though, depending on the land use and street geometry, for safety and aesthetic concerns. Distracted drivers circling for street parking can cause major congestion and safety hazards, and the haphazard surface parking by the entrepeneur capitalizing on unavailable off-street parking in a high-demand district really breaks up the urban form and can be a relative property tax drain compared to the potential for his property. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on off-street parking, other than 1) the current rules can surely be improved and 2) there probably should be some guidelines/requirements for off-street parking for certain developments, but I'm not sure precisely what. I mean, I'd prefer a planned environment with off-street parking provided in the rear part of a lot away from the street, then a haphazard mishmash of surface lots breaking up the pedestrian continuity.

Another curveball complicating the parking issue is that on-street parking is underpriced: not only the annual city sticker fee for parking on residential streets, but also most meter rates are too low compared to the cost of sweeping, maintenance, security, and the opportunity cost of the wasted space not being on the tax rolls. If a private land owner wants to provide free parking for his customers, that's his perogative, but there's no reason the city taxpayers should collectively subsidize car storage (nor should we collectively subsidize parking for people going to church/synagogue once a week by letting their prime-location parking fields which are also used as valet lots for weekend clubbers be tax-exempt, but that's a whole separate rant). I'm curious to see what comes of Chicago's planned privatization of its meters (there is an RFQ out for this on the city website), and if meter prices will go up commensurately.

[VivaLFuego]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=4416&TM=52462.2

Burnett brokers deal for West Loop mid-rise
Condo complex to help build Rosa Parks Apts.

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER
Contributing writer

Excerpt:

A compromise plan for a proposed 9-story, mixed-use condo building in the West Loop could help finance a 94-unit affordable housing complex in West Humboldt Park.

Neighbors have negotiated for a year and a half over the condo development at 1260 W. Madison by Pickus Cos., arguing that the structure was too tall and dense for area. The original plan would have built two 13-story buildings, each standing 155 feet tall.

The compromise plan released last week would construct a 90-foot-tall modern glass building with 318-units, 343 parking spots and 16,000 square feet of retail space. Developer Joel Pickus said the planned development also includes a smaller 32-unit condo building with 8,500 square feet of retail space at 1300 W. Madison.

Alderman Walter Burnett, 27th, said he requires that all such developments in his ward contribute 15 percent affordable units, 5 percent above what the city requires. The project will include 5 percent affordable units-nine in each building-and Pickus will pay the remaining 10 percent to Bickerdike Redevelopment Corp. to help finance its Rosa Parks affordable housing complex at the corner of Homan and Ohio. The contribution is expected to include a donation of about $1.2 million plus $400,000 in tax credits.

Emphasis mine.

Say hello to some more vacant West Loop retail space and more overpriced West Loop residential. Though I suppose it's better than the lot sitting vacant for the next 30 years.

[spyguy]

http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=46&SubSectionID=139&ArticleID=4422&TM=52250.86

Dressing up the Three Arts Club
Heart of the ‘hood

FELICIA DECHTER

...M Development, owners of Dearborn Goethe LLC, which holds the deed to the property, has proposed a Soho House, an international, private club with lodging.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28733

Veteran developer stays on the march
By Andrew Schroedter

About a mile north of his father's old store, Mr. Taxman is planning one of his largest projects ever, a $65-million mixed-use development at Halsted and Madison streets. Construction is scheduled to begin next year on the 120,000-square-foot retail portion, which would include a 63,000-square-foot grocery store run by Milwaukee-based Roundy's Supermarkets Inc.

...Given the weak downtown condominium market, he's scrapped a plan to build a 230-unit condo tower in favor of offices or a boutique hotel. Mr. Taxman doesn’t anticipate a problem securing a loan for the project, despite the credit crunch.

[cbotnyse]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28733

Veteran developer stays on the march
By Andrew Schroedter

About a mile north of his father's old store, Mr. Taxman is planning one of his largest projects ever, a $65-million mixed-use development at Halsted and Madison streets. Construction is scheduled to begin next year on the 120,000-square-foot retail portion, which would include a 63,000-square-foot grocery store run by Milwaukee-based Roundy's Supermarkets Inc.

...Given the weak downtown condominium market, he's scrapped a plan to build a 230-unit condo tower in favor of offices or a boutique hotel. Mr. Taxman doesn’t anticipate a problem securing a loan for the project, despite the credit crunch.There is already a grocery store there??? :shrug:

[emathias]

http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=46&SubSectionID=139&ArticleID=4422&TM=52250.86

Dressing up the Three Arts Club
Heart of the ‘hood

FELICIA DECHTER

...M Development, owners of Dearborn Goethe LLC, which holds the deed to the property, has proposed a Soho House, an international, private club with lodging.

I used to live across the street from the Three Arts Club and have been quite dismayed over what's become of it.

There was a nice letter in this week's Reader by a former resident there, also bemoaning the loss of a cultural treasure.

[emathias]

There is already a grocery store there??? :shrug:

It certainly wouldn't be the first place with grocery stores within sight of each other. I agree in principle it's more than a little silly, though. A grocery store near Ogden and Randolph or VanBuren would seem to make more sense.

[cbotnyse]

It certainly wouldn't be the first place with grocery stores within sight of each other. I agree in principle it's more than a little silly, though. A grocery store near Ogden and Randolph or VanBuren would seem to make more sense.This is much closer that within sight, its directly across the street! Make it a few screen movie theater or something. Just seems like a waste of space to me.

[the urban politician]

Say hello to some more vacant West Loop retail space and more overpriced West Loop residential. Though I suppose it's better than the lot sitting vacant for the next 30 years.

^ Seems like the project will have a decent amount of density. Not sure what there is to criticize (other than, of course, the fact that it could even be denser, but whatever..)

[Marcu]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=4416&TM=52462.2

Burnett brokers deal for West Loop mid-rise
Condo complex to help build Rosa Parks Apts.

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER
Contributing writer

Excerpt:

Emphasis mine.

Say hello to some more vacant West Loop retail space and more overpriced West Loop residential. Though I suppose it's better than the lot sitting vacant for the next 30 years.

Who buys these units? I for the life of me do not understand why anyone would buy in the West Loop at current price levels.

[the urban politician]

^ People like Eric Sedler do

[cbotnyse]

Who buys these units? I for the life of me do not understand why anyone would buy in the West Loop at current price levels.I actually found the west loop to be more reasonably priced compared to the south loop, especially in terms of new construction.

[Taft]

I actually found the west loop to be more reasonably priced compared to the south loop, especially in terms of new construction.

Agreed. Compared to other upscale neighborhoods, as well. I definitely don't think housing in that neighborhood is ridiculously priced. I mean, I think just about every neighborhood is a bit overpriced right now, but West Loop isn't particularly worse than most neighborhoods and is better than many.

Taft

[VivaLFuego]

Agreed. Compared to other upscale neighborhoods, as well. I definitely don't think housing in that neighborhood is ridiculously priced. I mean, I think just about every neighborhood is a bit overpriced right now, but West Loop isn't particularly worse than most neighborhoods and is better than many.

Taft

Really, it seems pretty overpriced to me considering how undesirable it is for anyone other than an auto-driving commuter. At least in parts of South Loop, and certainly anywhere Gold Coast/Streeterville/River North, you're actually in the thick of a bustling city and all that has to offer. West Loop is a desolate wasteland devoid of pedestrian activity and interesting retail other than some very nice and very expensive restaurants near Randolph/Halsted and some snooty clubs along Lake and Fulton.

[emathias]

Really, it seems pretty overpriced to me considering how undesirable it is for anyone other than an auto-driving commuter. At least in parts of South Loop, and certainly anywhere Gold Coast/Streeterville/River North, you're actually in the thick of a bustling city and all that has to offer. West Loop is a desolate wasteland devoid of pedestrian activity and interesting retail other than some very nice and very expensive restaurants near Randolph/Halsted and some snooty clubs along Lake and Fulton.

Well, the eastern part of the West Loop is noticeably better than it was even five years ago, but that part of the West Loop probably also close enough to the Loop to support the pricing just for location. My brother lives at Ogden/Ashland/Monroe, though and that area really isn't conducive to much except awesome skyline views from his 8th floor unit, which probably support those prices. You can see that view in the background of this pic of my dad last Thanksgiving:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2257/2056871683_5f76b83bf9.jpg

I like the West Loop, but when I bought I bought in River North because I couldn't see a path for the West Loop to get to the necessary density within a reasonable timeframe exactly because of people like Eric Sedler. If he can be overcome, the West Loop could become one of the best area neighborhoods in 15 years, but if he gets his way it'll still be languishing in 30.

[cbotnyse]

Really, it seems pretty overpriced to me considering how undesirable it is for anyone other than an auto-driving commuter. At least in parts of South Loop, and certainly anywhere Gold Coast/Streeterville/River North, you're actually in the thick of a bustling city and all that has to offer. West Loop is a desolate wasteland devoid of pedestrian activity and interesting retail other than some very nice and very expensive restaurants near Randolph/Halsted and some snooty clubs along Lake and Fulton.I completely disagree! "desolate wasteland devoid of pedestrian activity!" wow. no way! The restaurants along Randolph are great, and throw in all the Greek places on Halsted and its some of the best dining in the city. The are also a good hand full of watering holes all around the west loop. Its also very CTA friendly with buses running east on every other block going into the loop.

The South Loop is what is desolate! Of course it has great access to the lakefront, but outside of that there is barely any dining/drinking or retail options. (especially east of Michigan)

[Marcu]

^ From what I've seen, the western part of the West Loop is no more than 5-10% cheaper than the South Loop. I think people are/were buying into the area because of the growth potential and driving up pricing without realizing that with the current political climate and land use regulations in the area that's never going to happen.

The mix of students, ethnic restaurant districts, converted warehouse + new condo housing stock, and the draw of United Center could have turned the area into something truly unique in Chicago. Doesn't look like we'll see that any time soon.

[cbotnyse]

^ From what I've seen, the western part of the West Loop is no more than 5-10% cheaper than the South Loop. I think people are/were buying into the area because of the growth potential and driving up pricing without realizing that with the current political climate and land use regulations in the area that's never going to happen.Why do you think there is no growth potential?

[VivaLFuego]

Why do you think there is no growth potential?

See:

Sedler, Eric
WILCO
Ald. Fioretti.

I hope Burnett gets as many high-density projects in his ward approved soon as possible, because he's probably toast the next election cycle due to 1) growing NIMBYism in all parts of his ward 2) reduction of his former power base of Cabrini-Green residents.

[cbotnyse]

See:

Sedler, Eric
WILCO
Ald. Fioretti.

outside of a google search of these names, I dont know anything about the apparent problems they are causing. Can you give me a brief explaination? I still don't see how the west loop has not grown in the last 5-10years. I think it is fast becoming a very diverse and livable neighborhood, much more so than the south loop. The only thing the south loop has going for it is the proximity to the lakefront, IMO. (and taller buildings I guess)

[emathias]

outside of a google search of these names, I dont know anything about the apparent problems they are causing. Can you give me a brief explaination? I still don't see how the west loop has not grown in the last 5-10years. I think it is fast becoming a very diverse and livable neighborhood, much more so than the south loop. The only thing the south loop has going for it is the proximity to the lakefront, IMO. (and taller buildings I guess)

It's grown, it's just that the people named are trying very hard to limit the growth and density. It's an area as well-equipped as anywhere in the city to handle density, though, so all the roadblocks just kill otherwise worthy projects, raising the prices so that fewer people can afford to move in, which slows the growth and limits the diversity of the area.

I understand the desire of some in the area not to turn into River North, but there is a vast difference between focusing projects on good planning and architecture and arbitrarily limiting heights, unit sizes and parking allotments, which is what Eric Sedler, et al, are doing.

[emathias]

I apologize if I've missed a previous mention of this, but is there any plan on what will go into the building Barney's currently occupies when it moves across the street into their new digs?

[cbotnyse]

It's grown, it's just that the people named are trying very hard to limit the growth and density. It's an area as well-equipped as anywhere in the city to handle density, though, so all the roadblocks just kill otherwise worthy projects, raising the prices so that fewer people can afford to move in, which slows the growth and limits the diversity of the area.

I understand the desire of some in the area not to turn into River North, but there is a vast difference between focusing projects on good planning and architecture and arbitrarily limiting heights, unit sizes and parking allotments, which is what Eric Sedler, et al, are doing.well I certianly dont agree with that at all. I believe the density should always be dictated by demand. However I do not fell like it is artifically keeping prices higher, of course I dont think thats the intent either.

Even with these restrictions the west loop is still a great neighborhood and nothing at all like the "desolate wasteland" previously described. Once these restrictions are lifted, which they probably will someday, the area will continue to grow.

[Jibba]

I apologize if I've missed a previous mention of this, but is there any plan on what will go into the building Barney's currently occupies when it moves across the street into their new digs?

For some reason (either I heard it on this board or from someone at the actual store) I am thinking that the "co-op" label along with other similarly-priced labels will occupy the entirety of the current store and all of the more upscale brands will occupy the new store. I also could be wrong. :shrug:

[VivaLFuego]

outside of a google search of these names, I dont know anything about the apparent problems they are causing. Can you give me a brief explaination? I still don't see how the west loop has not grown in the last 5-10years. I think it is fast becoming a very diverse and livable neighborhood, much more so than the south loop. The only thing the south loop has going for it is the proximity to the lakefront, IMO. (and taller buildings I guess)

They all seek to prevent high unit density and a healthy mix of smaller/affordable and larger housing (which could combine to actually support vibrant retail strips with pedestrian activity 18-hours-a-day), and they increase the cost of development through their demands thereby increasing the cost of housing. They also demand way too much off-street parking (see pedestrian friendliness, above). So you're left with a neighborhood almost as expensive as Gold Coast but without the desirability/urbanity and just generally inferior other than its proximity to a major expressway interchange.

By so severely limiting development potential, they also deprive the city budget of potential tax revenue that could avert the need for property tax hikes.

If you define "South Loop" as around 18th street then I'd largely agree with you in terms of overall deadness, but time was that was considered "Near South Side" and South Loop actually referred to the Printer's Row area, generally between Congress and Roosevelt, which has much much MUCH more going on than West Loop, not to mention superior relative location to the best urban assets of Chicago.

[cbotnyse]

They all seek to prevent high unit density and a healthy mix of smaller/affordable and larger housing (which could combine to actually support vibrant retail strips with pedestrian activity 18-hours-a-day), and they increase the cost of development through their demands thereby increasing the cost of housing. They also demand way too much off-street parking (see pedestrian friendliness, above). So you're left with a neighborhood almost as expensive as Gold Coast but without the desirability/urbanity and just generally inferior other than its proximity to a major expressway interchange.

By so severely limiting development potential, they also deprive the city budget of potential tax revenue that could avert the need for property tax hikes.

If you define "South Loop" as around 18th street then I'd largely agree with you in terms of overall deadness, but time was that was considered "Near South Side" and South Loop actually referred to the Printer's Row area, generally between Congress and Roosevelt, which has much much MUCH more going on than West Loop, not to mention superior relative location to the best urban assets of Chicago.Halsted, Madison and Randolph are some of the most vibrant, pedestrian friendly streets in the city. When compared to the south loop (south of Roosevelt, east of Michigan), the west loop blows it away as far as dining/drinking and retail. I'm not saying its better, because of the lakefront and cultural options the SL has, its just a matter of what you prefer to have in a neighborhood. And the west loop is just as close to the loop as Printer's Row is, furthermore Congress is probably the least pedestrian friendly street in the city. I dont see the "much much MUCH more" that is going on. I mean, name one restaurant besides Bar Louie in Printer's Row. I cant even think of a single bar either.

And comparing it to the GC is silly, the GC has a 100 year head start as a residential neighborhood.

I just did an exhaustive search for my girlfriend for a one bedroom condos in the entire downtown area and found the west loop to be the lowest priced of all neighborhoods bordering the loop, especially for new construction.

Like I said, I dont agree with the restrictions at all, but I dont think its having the detrimental effects you're stating.

[Mr Downtown]

I also find myself a little puzzled by discussions of the West Loop as a dead zone. When I bike through there, it seems to have a perfectly respectable street-level retail scene--moreso than the South Loop--and feels reasonably friendly to pedestrians. Is it East Lakeview? No, but no neighborhood anywhere in North America ever again will be. We just cannot reassemble that combination of tiny apartments and tiny retail spaces with lots of well-off young people living there. (If you think the mere physical combination of density and ground-level retail spaces is sufficient, I invite you to stroll along 71st Street in South Shore).

Skyscraper streets do not generate retail; they seem to extinguish it. Exhibit 1: Sheridan Road in Edgewater. Or any street in East Streeterville. The streetscapes we admire and enjoy walking, around the world, are those with maximum six-story buildings.

[Taft]

Like I said, I dont agree with the restrictions at all, but I dont think its having the detrimental effects you're stating.

I largely agree. I can see how the restrictions and demands made of new developments could theoretically push prices up. However, comparing prices in the West Loop with South Loop, River North, Streeterville or the Loop, the West Loop comes off looking relatively cheap, especially as you go west of Halsted.

What I do agree with is that those other neighborhoods are (or are quickly becoming) "nicer" neighborhoods to live in, in terms of density and amenities. I personally look at the neighborhood as an upscale "up and coming" neighborhood. It is a nice neighborhood, it is getting better and it's proximity to the loop will only keep that trend going, IMO. The prices are a bit high, given that, but still lower than the alternatives surrounding the loop.

As prices continue to slide (that's my prediction, anyway), West Loop could look like a pretty good investment in the near future.

Taft

[emathias]

...(If you think the mere physical combination of density and ground-level retail spaces is sufficient, I invite you to stroll along 71st Street in South Shore).

South Shore isn't terrible, just less wealthy. If you wanted more wealthy people there, you'd start by improving transit access to the Loop, but until Metra Electric starts being run like the "L," I don't think that area's gonna be popular with the kids these days.

Skyscraper streets do not generate retail; they seem to extinguish it. Exhibit 1: Sheridan Road in Edgewater. Or any street in East Streeterville. The streetscapes we admire and enjoy walking, around the world, are those with maximum six-story buildings.

Sheridan Road isn't vacant because it's surrounded by high-rises, it's vacant because it's less than a block from the Lake and therefore is freezing cold 8/12 months of the year. It's also become more or less a defacto extension of LSD, with speeding cars racing up or down it half the time. Those two factors MORE than negate any plus OR minus factor the high rises have. Plus, the hi-rises there aren't designed to be conducive to street-level retail.

The best retail districts in the world have been that way for decades, if not a century, so many of them were built before highrises. Many others are in cities that simply don't allow highrises. I think this particular argument of your is a little disingenuous. :-)

Both State Street and Michigan Avenue have quite a few 12+ story buildings along them and I'd argue once you're over 12 it doesn't make much difference. 5th Avenue in New York is also a helluva shopping street and it's nearly 100% highrise. There are also shopping streets in Boise, Seattle, Portland and San Francisco that are dominated by high rises. If most shopping districts don't have high-rises, it's because most cities and neighborhoods don't have highrises, not because highrises don't lend themselves to retail.

[cbotnyse]

^^ it actually is a good question. Do highrises discourage or encourage street level retail and pedestrian friendly streets? I think there are examples of it doing both. Might make for a good thread in the city discussion forum.

[the urban politician]

Both State Street and Michigan Avenue have quite a few 12+ story buildings along them and I'd argue once you're over 12 it doesn't make much difference. 5th Avenue in New York is also a helluva shopping street and it's nearly 100% highrise. There are also shopping streets in Boise, Seattle, Portland and San Francisco that are dominated by high rises. If most shopping districts don't have high-rises, it's because most cities and neighborhoods don't have highrises, not because highrises don't lend themselves to retail.

^ Well put

[emathias]

^^ it actually is a good question. Do highrises discourage or encourage street level retail and pedestrian friendly streets? I think there are examples of it doing both. Might make for a good thread in the city discussion forum.

Well one thing that I think absolutely discourages street level, pedestrian-oriented retail is stand-alone surface parking lots. Excessive setbacks are also anathema to pedestrian-friendly shopping. Second-level parking above a single level of retail is also not especially friendly - all that darkness drains light from the street and light is the life of nighttime shopping. But that's not a highrise problem so much as a planning and design problem, since it could happen with a 6-story building just as easily as a 60-story one.

[Marcu]

Sheridan Road isn't vacant because it's surrounded by high-rises, it's vacant because it's less than a block from the Lake and therefore is freezing cold 8/12 months of the year. It's also become more or less a defacto extension of LSD, with speeding cars racing up or down it half the time. Those two factors MORE than negate any plus OR minus factor the high rises have. Plus, the hi-rises there aren't designed to be conducive to street-level retail.



Sheridan road area is actually much nicer during the spring, summer, and fall. Less humid and has a nice breeze, as does any part of the city near the lake. But yeah it pretty much is LSD extension. With just as many potholes too. Much of the retail serving the area is on Clark a few blocks west and east/west streets like Morse, Howard, Devon.

[SolarWind]

March 28, 2008

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/6245/dsc0126hn4.jpg

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4333/dsc0128rv4.jpg

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9681/artinstpanem3.jpg

[SolarWind]

March 28, 2008

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9489/dsc0123qv4.jpg

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/7125/dsc0084bn8.jpg

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3680/dsc0085qo8.jpg

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/345/dsc0120nb0.jpg

http://www.artic.edu/aic/modern_wing/press_room/mwct.pdf

The Nichols Bridgeway: CONSTRUCTION FACTS

SCHEDULE
Groundbreaking: September 20, 2007
Anticipated opening: Spring 2009

BRIDGEWAY DIMENSIONS
• 620 feet long
• 15 feet wide
• Railings 42 inches tall
• 5.6% grade

BRIDGEWAY MATERIALS
Structural steel (painted white), stainless steel mesh, aluminum planking

BRIDGEWAY FEATURES
• Meets ADA standards for universal accessibility
• Heating elements to prevent formation of ice
• Anti-slip walkways

The Nichols Bridgeway: DESIGN HIGHLIGHTS
• The Nichols Bridgeway was added to the master plan of the Modern Wing by the Art Institute of Chicago and architect Renzo Piano in 2005.
• The Bridgeway will begin near the southwest corner of the Great Lawn in Millennium Park, rise over Monroe Street, and connect to the Modern Wing at the third floor of the west pavilion, where visitors will find a public sculpture terrace and dining facility.
• The design for the Bridgeway was inspired by the hull of a boat or sleek racing shell. It is a long, thin structure with a rounded bottom.
• The bottom of the Bridgeway will be made of structural steel painted white and the floors are textured aluminum planking. The railings of the Bridgeway will be made of steel that sits atop stainless steel mesh sidings.
• The Bridgeway and the South Exelon Pavilions in Millennium Park (also by Renzo Piano) were designed to complement the Modern Wing.
• The Bridgeway will afford views like no other of the Michigan Avenue “streetwall,” the lakefront, and Millennium Park.

[wrabbit]

Valerio Dewalt Train's Halsted Blackhawk Block (British School, etc), 29 March:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/Untitled_Panorama2.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/2008-03-29at10-07-39.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/2008-03-29at10-02-19.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/2008-03-29at10-04-23.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/2008-03-29at10-17-50.jpg

[the urban politician]

^ Nice. A lot of people criticize this project but, at least from the pictures, I'm impressed.

My only concern is how this will look in 30 years

[honte]

^ Where have you seen all of that criticism? Are there people complaining about the style of the building? I don't remember anyone, at least around here, who wasn't pretty excited.

My only complaint, as it stood even way back in the render stage, is that the facade is a little too dull - say, compared to Jahn's State Street Village, which uses a similar vocabulary but succeeds on many more levels. But that's minor in the scheme of things. This one definitely gets a thumbs up, especially considering what it could have been.

[Busy Bee]

^ Nice. A lot of people criticize this project but, at least from the pictures, I'm impressed.

My only concern is how this will look in 30 years

Probably something like this:
http://www.rachelleb.com/images/2004_03_19/chicago_sun_times.jpg

I'm not making any apologies for this one. I think VDT does great work but I don't think this building is one of them. I particularly don't think it works in this location. If people thought that Sun-Times looked like barge....

One more I couldn't resist:
http://home.houston.rr.com/diecasttanks/images/RIndianaCharBisB.jpg

That's right, it's the tank from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

[honte]

^ Ha, very interesting Busy Bee.

_________

In other news, Thursday the Landmarks Commission will consider preliminary landmarking for the Germania Club building and (a surprise to me) the Village Theatre next door. A "trade" for the Esquire Theatre perhaps (:()?

:D overall.

[VivaLFuego]

Thursday the Landmarks Commission will consider preliminary landmarking for the Germania Club building
Good news...

and (a surprise to me) the Village Theatre l.

:hell: What does that accomplish? The building is a dump, and with Michael's restaurant right next door these are prime re-development, up-density candidates. Now we'll be stuck with a decaying building and a moribund retail stretch, with underutilized land that should be brining in much more tax revenue ( as opposed to being a tax revenue sinkhole as a decaying 'landmark') and providing more vibrancy to the area. Granted the Village facade is very nice, but there is nothing behind that facade even remotely worth saving. This site is zoned B3-5, what reason is there to not build a 6-7 story building with first/second floor commercial space and perhaps 30-40 units on upper floors (with park and lake views, I might add, so they'd be worth a pretty penny)? This is such a valuable site (in terms of potential), just like the Burger King a block away at North/LaSalle that is now becoming a dumpy 1-story Fifth Third bank. Another total frickin' waste. God, can Ald. "Hack" Reilly go 5 minutes without doing something to ruin this ward? I can't wait to get elected 42nd alderman and pass an ordinance undoing every decision this tool has made.

As an immediate neighbor to these properties, this frosts me. I actually did "my part" and went to the Village theatre about once a month, and if the anti-change 'progressive' smog-belching Mastercard Marxists (Reilly's core NIMBY constituency) in the area had done the same rather than piling into the BMW and driving to the AMC River East, it probably would have survived. But now that it's gone, and clearly un-economical to maintain as a theater (see, AMC River East above) let's move forward for god's sake.

[honte]

^ Whoa there! We have no idea what the landmarking designation will include for the building. As you know, the Commission has been overly generous in allowing people to do facadectomies on landmarks in Chicago. If the interior is wholly compromised, as you state, they probably will either allow a developer to gut it (a la Biograph theatre up the street - not much of a dump any longer, is it?) or do the facade treatment with a larger structure where the diner is now.

Also, don't forget that a rehab of the Village Theatre could qualify a developer for a density bonus, producing a restored facade and a taller building at the corner of North / Clark, which is something I'd personally really like to see.

Last, I would like to add that (unless you have other information that I haven't seen) the Commission may have elected to pursue the theatre without Reilly getting involved. They do act on their own sometimes, although of course they like to have the Alderman's consent.

[BWChicago]

Granted the Village facade is very nice, but there is nothing behind that facade even remotely worth saving.

Well, we know that all landmarking protects in Chicago is the facade anyway, so not to worry. Just look at the Biograph or Farwell Building. Maybe a high rise behind it could be a little more difficult, but I bet they could make it happen. The Village, like the Germania, has been before landmarks before and hasn't gotten nearly as far as Germania did.

Incidentally although the Village may not look like much inside now it's probably restorable in theory at least, although to what end I don't know. I don't buy the River East argument, though, considering Pipers Alley still hangs on. http://www.mekong.net/random/cinema16.htm is a shot of the auditorium from the mid-80s. Pretty typical for a 1915-16 theater. Likely much of this is just covered up; some of the large plaster sconces are now at the Theatre Historical Society in Elmhurst. Frequently when splitting theaters owners were looking to do as little work as possible, so ornament was not necessarily removed. I recall that some of the proscenium and organ screen plaster was still there while it was operating, which usually indicates that it wasn't totally gutted.

Incidentally, although facadism is now clearly OK with landmarks, that;s the same thing that led to the Esquire NOT being landmarked; after the interior was almost entirely redone in the late 80s and the facade somewhat altered the City Council commission in 1994 ruled that the historic character had been too severely compromised, which clears the way for demolition now.

[BWChicago]

Well, I guess Honte and I are on the same page.

[honte]

^ Definitely, but I like your arguments better! Let's see how much of the theatre is left before we consign it to history. Very interesting about the sconces etc.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by "has been before landmarks before." If they actually discussed this before and voted it down, they would not legally be able to revisit it. Maybe someone from the public suggested it, but they just nodded and moved on?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ Where have you seen all of that criticism? Are there people complaining about the style of the building? I don't remember anyone, at least around here, who wasn't pretty excited.

Count me as one of the strong supporters. I don't know why this doesn't work in that location, Busy Bee, especially considering Jahn's project is a stone's throw away.

Furthermore, dated is the first step in a process that leads to classic so I'd hold off on using that as a qualifier.

[honte]

Furthermore, dated is the first step in a process that leads to classic so I'd hold off on using that as a qualifier.


I love it! I am going to have to quote that some day. :cheers:

[VivaLFuego]

Well, we know that all landmarking protects in Chicago is the facade anyway, so not to worry. Just look at the Biograph or Farwell Building. Maybe a high rise behind it could be a little more difficult, but I bet they could make it happen. The Village, like the Germania, has been before landmarks before and hasn't gotten nearly as far as Germania did.

Incidentally although the Village may not look like much inside now it's probably restorable in theory at least, although to what end I don't know. I don't buy the River East argument, though, considering Pipers Alley still hangs on. http://www.mekong.net/random/cinema16.htm is a shot of the auditorium from the mid-80s. Pretty typical for a 1915-16 theater. Likely much of this is just covered up; some of the large plaster sconces are now at the Theatre Historical Society in Elmhurst. Frequently when splitting theaters owners were looking to do as little work as possible, so ornament was not necessarily removed. I recall that some of the proscenium and organ screen plaster was still there while it was operating, which usually indicates that it wasn't totally gutted.

Incidentally, although facadism is now clearly OK with landmarks, that;s the same thing that led to the Esquire NOT being landmarked; after the interior was almost entirely redone in the late 80s and the facade somewhat altered the City Council commission in 1994 ruled that the historic character had been too severely compromised, which clears the way for demolition now.

To honte and BW, I would graciously, gleefully welcome a facadectomy in this case, as I acknowledge the facade is quite excellent, but really the theatre behind it is quite dumpy at this point (having spent alot of time in movies there). Don't let my hyperbole in the matter give the impression this is something I lose sleep over, but put simply "I disagree with this decision." :yes: The Germania is in good condition and is fully utilized and contributes to the surrounding streetscape and neighborhood. Given it's historic and architectural importance, I think it's an obvious landmarking candidate. The Village Theatre? Not so much; if anything, I think a drive to landmark this structure is exactly the sort of campaign that demeans the entire preservation movement and supports the reasons why many people don't take the movement seriously.

I'm reminded of an older gentleman who spoke up at a community meeting for 830 S. Michigan, saying in regards to the rotting YWCA building: "So why are you guys saving that crappy building?" In some instances, this is a good question. The Village is nowhere on the same spectacular scale as say, the Uptown. Nor would reuse of the existing building as a high-traffic venue (e.g. for concerts) be a desired use as far as the neighborhood is concerned (omg the parking!!!1), so the Congress/Riviera model is also inapplicable. About the only thing I could see would be something a la the Biograph, but I can't possibly see how the economics work out favorably for that in this location.

In re: the River East factor in killing the Village, I still maintain the argument because:

1) Pipers Alley has parking, Village does not.
2) Village almost exclusively focused on 'mainstream movies'. River East is mostly mainstream with typically one or two "art" films on the billing at any time. Pipers Alley is exclusively devoted to "art" and "foreign" films, like the Century a couple miles north, and thus are not competing with River East as was the Village.

BTW some really great photos at that site you linked, BW. Also noticed you're a major contributor at cinematreasures, good stuff.

[honte]

^ The building qualifies for landmarking simply because it is one of the few to survive Sandburg Pillage. That won't be their argument, but I think you could make that case.

In any case, your argument that only the facade is worth saving applies to about 60-70% of Chicago landmarks, so I don't put much stock in it. I can't see how you would like to trade this facade for a measly 6-7 story building that has a 95% chance of being hideous, given building practice today.

Trust me, you're far more likely in this political climate to convince the city to allow a facadectomy on a landmark than you are to convince them to protect a facade of an un-landmarked building, so I think you should be happy they're doing anything. Just my two cents.