[Mr Downtown]

the theatre behind it is quite dumpy at this point

So "dumpy at this point" equals "not worth saving" to you?

[VivaLFuego]

So "dumpy at this point" equals "not worth saving" to you?

In this context, yes. But the same argument doesn't apply to every potential preservation case. Sometimes a property's past neglect/alteration are not justification to deny landmarking or approve tear-down. But for this theatre? We're not talking about the Gage Group, or even about the Farwell.

I'm not anti-preservation (as people who know me will attest to), but I do think there's a great deal of value in not demeaning the cause of the preservation movement by latching on to properties that really don't need to be saved. The end result is that the landmarks commission, developers, aldermen, etc. just roll their eyes at the preservationists then consistently approve facadectomies (see Farwell). Better to set sights on the few of clear historical and/or architectural significance that absolutely must be preserved more or less in their entirety, rather than any building over 80 years old. Perhaps this could be solved with a nuanced tier approach with differing "grades" of landmarked property; certain properties will qualify for similar tax breaks as a landmark property etc. etc. but substantial redevelopment is still legally feasible. I dunno, just throwing ideas out there.

[k1052]

So "dumpy at this point" equals "not worth saving" to you?


The Village Theater really is in terrible shape and has been for a while. Nobody wanted to put any money into it and the film exhibitor of last resort (Village Entertainment) ran what was left of it into the ground. Whenever you see VE take over a theater property it is almost certainly a few years away from closing or being demolished. Even in it's heyday it wasn't a spectacular theater. That said it probably could have been saved by doing a signifigant renovation and adding booze+food service and playing films that work well with the 21+ audience. There is enough of a well off population in walkable distance to have made worthwhile. God only knows what condition the building is in now having been shuttered for a while.

As facilities degrade people tend to go elsewhere. I avoided going to the Esquire, Webster (prior to an extensive renovation), and still Piper's Alley. I flat out refused to patronize the Village or the 3 Penny. Even if it was out of my way by a lot I'd go to the River East or 600 just to avoid sitting in another theater the cheapasses at Loews/landlords had let fall apart.

If you want to focus on saving theaters that can be of real use, the Esquire and the Uptown are the places to be expending effort.

[Nowhereman1280]

At first I thought you guys were saying the Village North Theater in Rogers Park was being landmarked and I was going to start laughing. If you want to see a dump, that is it. That place is completely illgocially laid out and is literally falling down...

[Abner]

As somebody who doesn't like and can't necessarily afford multiplex cinemas, it's always sad to see yet another small theater get destroyed. A city the size of Chicago should have three times as many screens showing non-mainstream movies as it currently does, and it should have five times as many cheap theaters. Not saying the most recent incarnation of this theater was optimal in either respect, but the supply of cheap old screens in this city is extremely limited. Too bad.

[Marcu]

^ If anything, the boutique theatres would charge more just as small boutique retail stores charge more due to less volume. What we really need us some second run theatres like we had 5 or 10 years ago. Unfortunetly, the studios ran those out with the DVD market.

[Haworthia]

At first I thought you guys were saying the Village North Theater in Rogers Park was being landmarked and I was going to start laughing. If you want to see a dump, that is it. That place is completely illgocially laid out and is literally falling down...

Booooooo! I love that theater! My wife and I used to go there all the time when she lived up in Rogers Park. It's really cheap and well frequented by locals. It's not a landmark, but it does add valuable life to the area. I'd be sad to see it go.

[Abner]

^ If anything, the boutique theatres would charge more just as small boutique retail stores charge more due to less volume. What we really need us some second run theatres like we had 5 or 10 years ago. Unfortunetly, the studios ran those out with the DVD market.

In reality the most expensive theaters are always the big new corporate ones. I don't know of a single "boutique" theater, even pricier ones like the Music Box and the Portage, that charges more than a multiplex in the same city (edited to add: those two can have comparable prices to big theaters depending on the show and when you buy tickets), and the smaller theaters almost always have better deals on off-peak hour tickets. I do agree that it's sad that we're losing second-run and otherwise "crummy" theaters. How long will it be before we lose the Logan?

[VivaLFuego]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=46&SubSectionID=154&ArticleID=4424&TM=53483.66
From Skyline:
Reilly preceded the market announcement by saying the planned development at 501 W. Huron is being reconceived. Instead of building a 30-story tower, developers will recycle the existing building, making new zoning for the property unnecessary.

"That's a good story of downzoning in River North," Reilly said. "Those are rare in the 42nd Ward; but when we have the opportunity, we'll take it."

[k1052]

In reality the most expensive theaters are always the big new corporate ones. I don't know of a single "boutique" theater, even pricier ones like the Music Box and the Portage, that charges more than a multiplex in the same city (edited to add: those two can have comparable prices to big theaters depending on the show and when you buy tickets), and the smaller theaters almost always have better deals on off-peak hour tickets. I do agree that it's sad that we're losing second-run and otherwise "crummy" theaters. How long will it be before we lose the Logan?

Shrinking video windows and the ever increasing cost of doing business in Chicago have squeezed out almost all the second run/small operators. Older theaters have substantial upkeep costs due to their age and are typically ruinously expensive to rehabilitate depending on their condition.

[aaron38]

As somebody who doesn't like and can't necessarily afford multiplex cinemas, it's always sad to see yet another small theater get destroyed. A city the size of Chicago should have three times as many screens showing non-mainstream movies as it currently does, and it should have five times as many cheap theaters. Not saying the most recent incarnation of this theater was optimal in either respect, but the supply of cheap old screens in this city is extremely limited. Too bad.

A lot of that is economics and city politics, which puts a lot of pressure on small businesses. I was walking in Lincoln Park last summer and passed the 3 Penny, which had closed. I don't know how much of this was posturing by the owners, but the sign on the door claimed that they were forced to close because the studios were demanding more and more money, and that the city's new entertainment taxes were the last straw, and they couldn't make a profit any more.

Does anyone know if they really were squeezed out by taxes, or was that just BS?

[Nowhereman1280]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=46&SubSectionID=154&ArticleID=4424&TM=53483.66
From Skyline:

Reilly is a complete whorish douche bag...

Booooooo! I love that theater! My wife and I used to go there all the time when she lived up in Rogers Park. It's really cheap and well frequented by locals. It's not a landmark, but it does add valuable life to the area. I'd be sad to see it go.

If you knew the guy who owns the place and how its run you might not think so kindly of it. That and the fact that there are frequently bums and drug users in there make it less than appealing for me. I don't know how you could have gone there years ago when it was much much worse.

Loyola Students know the Village North as the "Ghettoplex"...

[emathias]

Shrinking video windows and the ever increasing cost of doing business in Chicago have squeezed out almost all the second run/small operators. Older theaters have substantial upkeep costs due to their age and are typically ruinously expensive to rehabilitate depending on their condition.

It's sad. I can't believe how many movie theatres I've been to here in Chicago that no longer exist, at least not as cinemas. And I'm neither old nor originally from here - were I either I'm sure the number would be far greater.

RIP
Fine Arts (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/1018/)
Chestnut Station (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/5651/)
900 North (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/5760/)
Water Tower (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/2933/) (live theatre now, so not a total loss)
Burnham (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/5790/)
McClurg Court (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/442/)
Village (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/409/)
Biograph (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/273/) (live theatre now, so not a total loss)
Three Penny (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/921/)
Esquire (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/256/)
Adelphi (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/1041/)
Broadway Cinema (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/1849/) (live theatre now, so not a total loss)

We have gained three since I moved here that I can think of:
River East 21 (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/6087/)
City North 14 (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/13970/)
Landmark Century City (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/385/) (this is a regain)

[emathias]

If you knew the guy who owns the place and how its run you might not think so kindly of it. That and the fact that there are frequently bums and drug users in there make it less than appealing for me. I don't know how you could have gone there years ago when it was much much worse.

Loyola Students know the Village North as the "Ghettoplex"...

It was actually pretty decent in 1995, when I lived in Rogers Park my first summer in the city. Some sources say it was split up into smaller theatres in 1990, but in 1995 when I lived there I went there frequently and there was still one big screen so either my mind is totally mush or the 1990 date is wrong.

In 1995, there was a record shop on the south corner of the block, then the "Atomic Cafe," a cute bistro type place, next to it. In 1999, when I revisited, there was a head shop where the cafe was and the music shop was closed. I think that's when it really became a "Ghettoplex."

[emathias]

A lot of that is economics and city politics, which puts a lot of pressure on small businesses. I was walking in Lincoln Park last summer and passed the 3 Penny, which had closed. I don't know how much of this was posturing by the owners, but the sign on the door claimed that they were forced to close because the studios were demanding more and more money, and that the city's new entertainment taxes were the last straw, and they couldn't make a profit any more.

Does anyone know if they really were squeezed out by taxes, or was that just BS?

I don't think it was new taxes that drove them under, I think it was they just didn't pay their taxes and it finally caught up to them.

[k1052]

It's sad. I can't believe how many movie theatres I've been to here in Chicago that no longer exist, at least not as cinemas. And I'm neither old nor originally from here - were I either I'm sure the number would be far greater.

RIP
Fine Arts (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/1018/)
Chestnut Station (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/5651/)
900 North (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/5760/)
Water Tower (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/2933/) (live theatre now, so not a total loss)
Burnham (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/5790/)
McClurg Court (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/442/)
Village (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/409/)
Biograph (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/273/) (live theatre now, so not a total loss)
Three Penny (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/921/)
Esquire (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/256/)
Adelphi (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/1041/)
Broadway Cinema (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/1849/) (live theatre now, so not a total loss)

We have gained three since I moved here that I can think of:
River East 21 (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/6087/)
City North 14 (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/13970/)
Landmark Century City (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/385/) (this is a regain)

Some of those units really did need to close due to their conditions and new competition. The new theater list is going to grow by two in 2009 when the 16 screen Kerasotes in Roosevelt Collection opens and when Muvico opens in Block 37.

The Esquire isn't a goner quite yet. Reilly seems to be doing his best to kill the redevelopment, which I personally wouldn't mind. It is a hell of a lot harder to build theaters than hotels in this city and downtown is under screened as it is. The building itself is supposedly sound so a couple million dollars worth of interior/sound/projection work could make the place quite nice.

Many of the best examples have been saved: Chicago, Palace, Oriental, Auditorium, Schubert, etc..
The last biggie I'd say is the Uptown which looks like it is going to make the cut (finally).

[BWChicago]

Nobody wanted to put any money into it and the film exhibitor of last resort (Village Entertainment) ran what was left of it into the ground. Whenever you see VE take over a theater property it is almost certainly a few years away from closing or being demolished. Even in it's heyday it wasn't a spectacular theater. (...)
If you want to focus on saving theaters that can be of real use, the Esquire and the Uptown are the places to be expending effort.

While this is generally the case with Village, they had in fact been running it since 1993, after it had been chopped into four screens in 1991; this was their second location and, obviously, the one from which they took their name and applied it to the 400, now the Village North. They didn't really get into the crash-and-burn tendency until the late 90s, after they and Meridian took over former Cineplex Odeon theaters that Loews had to divest. And they've been at the 400/Village North since 1989 and have put a lot of money into it; as bad as it is now, it was far worse before. The Esquire is useless as a theater; the lobby was basically re-created in 1989 when the interior was gutted and a floor added, and the theaters themselves are nothing. The only way you could use it as a theater again would be to totally reconfigure the former auditorium space. What I'd like to see happen with the Esquire would be to either use the lobby as an entrance to some sort of boutique-mall, or else use the facade to hide the podium of whatever new development. The lobby's not necessarily worth saving since it's a pale recreation. The Uptown is worthwhile but not really comparable to the Village in scale, ornateness, design, or potential use.

Better to set sights on the few of clear historical and/or architectural significance that absolutely must be preserved more or less in their entirety, rather than any building over 80 years old. Perhaps this could be solved with a nuanced tier approach with differing "grades" of landmarked property; certain properties will qualify for similar tax breaks as a landmark property etc. etc.

Isn't that theoretically the idea behind the Chicago Historic Resources Survey, though, with the multiple color designations? Perhaps not the tax breaks, but the idea that the properties are somehow significant and possibly eligible for designation that could bring such benefits... anyhow I think we all know how well CHRS works. (The Village, incidentally, is Orange rated)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/custom/landmarks/chi-landmarksfront-htmlstory,1,6448395.htmlstory?coll=chi-newsspecials-hed
http://www.northendsquare.com/paths_of_destruction_a_tribune_i.htm


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.

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). 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.

I pretty much agree; I'd be perfectly happy to see a facade job here. I would point out that there are other successful models of similar theater reuses to compare. The Lakeshore theater is quite similar in capacity, layout, potential, and even degree of decoration (the Village was a little more elaborate). That same kind of one-night headliner show could probably work here. Works well enough for Zanies a couple blocks away. Hard to say what is really left of the original interior, but given that it was pretty simple, if small fragments are left it would be pretty easy to recreate if you wanted; or you could look to the Morse Theater (http://www.themorse.com/) as a model for a gut rehab and reformatting; or the Bell theater (Fluevog Boutique) in Wicker Park or the Three Penny (now being converted to retail of some sort with some original ornament remaining) for examples on how a little remaining ornament can give a shop or restaurant a lot of character. But again, given the location and uncertain condition, who's to say what's left. It was unquestionably a dump when it closed, but it may still have potential. I do know, however, that it was completely stripped of theater equipment (seats, projection, sound, screens, etc) when it closed.


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?

More or less. It's actually part of how the Biograph got landmarked. In 1995 Ron Rooding, who owns Village Entertainment and leased the theater, tried to do so to protect it from "the continual and perpetual threat" of destruction. "The commission decided to examine other theaters of its era to determine if the Village, built in 1917, merits the designation. They cited the 400 Theatre, the Bryn Mawr and the Biograph as possibly being better examples of old theaters." Of course, the 400 remains in operation, with a virtually identical interior (although similarly chopped and covered now); the Bryn Mawr had a highly altered facade then and now and remains closed; and the Biograph was landmarked under the criteria of being a better-preserved example of a old theater and subsequently gutted. (Incidentally the Biograph was originally recommended to have parts of the interior protected as well, but that was dropped by the time it was designated) And after all that occurred, the Village really has a better facade. You compare what's left of the Biograph to what's left of the Village, and tell me which is a better example of a prewar theater.

As for the Germania, it has gone before the Landmarks Commission a number of times, but from what I can gather, it has just been passed over, not acted on. It first went before the commission in 1975-76 without action being taken; the Tribune never reported on the outcome. It was in front of them again in 1995-96 when Rooding made his attempt. Seems to just have fallen off the agenda or something...


Does anyone know if they really were squeezed out by taxes, or was that just BS?

This (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=21117) Crain's article describes pretty well how the Three Penny was squeezed out. The former owners are really not doing well, from what I hear. Very sad, they spent 30 some years in the theater business and ended up basically losing it all.

[k1052]

While this is generally the case with Village, they had in fact been running it since 1993, after it had been chopped into four screens in 1991; this was their second location and, obviously, the one from which they took their name and applied it to the 400, now the Village North. They didn't really get into the crash-and-burn tendency until the late 90s, after they and Meridian took over former Cineplex Odeon theaters that Loews had to divest. And they've been at the 400/Village North since 1989 and have put a lot of money into it; as bad as it is now, it was far worse before. The Esquire is useless as a theater; the lobby was basically re-created in 1989 when the interior was gutted and a floor added, and the theaters themselves are nothing. The only way you could use it as a theater again would be to totally reconfigure the former auditorium space. What I'd like to see happen with the Esquire would be to either use the lobby as an entrance to some sort of boutique-mall, or else use the facade to hide the podium of whatever new development. The lobby's not necessarily worth saving since it's a pale recreation. The Uptown is worthwhile but not really comparable to the Village in scale, ornateness, design, or potential use.


The individual units are nothing impressive and had been let run down under Loews and later AMC. The presentation was nothing short of a spectacular wreck almost every time I went there, complimented by the 3 day old popcorn they were serving.

The location however is gold. The Esquire could still draw pretty well when they got film even in the condition it was. There aren't going to be any more theaters built in the Gold Coast (ever probably), holding on to this one would be a wise move.

[honte]

Isn't that theoretically the idea behind the Chicago Historic Resources Survey, though, with the multiple color designations? Perhaps not the tax breaks, but the idea that the properties are somehow significant and possibly eligible for designation that could bring such benefits... anyhow I think we all know how well CHRS works. (The Village, incidentally, is Orange rated)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/custom/landmarks/chi-landmarksfront-htmlstory,1,6448395.htmlstory?coll=chi-newsspecials-hed
http://www.northendsquare.com/paths_of_destruction_a_tribune_i.htm

Thanks for all of your insight into the theatres. You certainly know this topic well. I have no idea how the theatre could have gone before the commission and come out with no action. It's possible that someone from the public made the suggestion, but it wasn't on the agenda. :shrug: Things worked differently back then.

The CHRS was an effort largely to help the Commission designate districts and prioritize its efforts. It wasn't intended in the beginning to have any legal aspects, which came about much later with the demo delay ordinance. But the way it is structured doesn't really lend itself to "protect the whole thing," "protect parts of it," etc. It's more about someone's (the surveyor's) idea of what was historic at the time. Far from perfect. If something appeared to be too altered, it got knocked down a notch. If something had great historic significance, but the person looking at it wasn't aware of it, it didn't make the cut. And so forth. The criteria were based on perceived integrity and significance, not necessarily what "type" of landmark something could become.

The Commission is essentially creating a variety of classes for landmarks, like it or hate it. But they are not doing so in an official manner; this is coming about mostly due to strange "exceptions" and variances such as the McGraw-Hill building or the Page Brothers building.

[Abner]

We have gained three since I moved here that I can think of:
River East 21 (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/6087/)
City North 14 (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/13970/)
Landmark Century City (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/385/) (this is a regain)

There was also the renovation and reopening of the Portage Theater, which closed in 2001 and came back in 2006. It's a single screen, but the theater is very large. If you haven't been there you should definitely go, especially for one of the silent pictures, when there is live organ music. The silent films are a little pricey though. The nice thing about this theater is that it has the potential to really help out the Six Corners.

Many cities have lost a lot of movie theaters, but it is kind of ridiculous how hard-hit Chicago has been in this regard. There are really hardly any venues to see second-run, independent, or vintage films anymore. I mean there are probably more of these theaters in Portland. There are a bunch of theaters there that charge $2-3 and make their profit by selling beer. I think the only place in Chicago operating on this model is Brew & View at the Vic.


There aren't going to be any more theaters built in the Gold Coast (ever probably), holding on to this one would be a wise move.

This is my main concern. There is a small supply of these theaters, and new megaplexes are not substitutes for them.

[VivaLFuego]

It's sad. I can't believe how many movie theatres I've been to here in Chicago that no longer exist, at least not as cinemas. And I'm neither old nor originally from here - were I either I'm sure the number would be far greater.
Ditto on being young and still seeing so much change; from that list, I went to all but one (the Adelphi). Commercial space, be it retail or any other purpose (office, industrial, warehouse...), is the most 'dynamic' and 'whimsical' of land uses, with a single space not being economically viable for more than a few decades, tops. It's just sort of a fact of life that unlike housing (for which there will always be a demand), commercial space will undergo drastic changes, often quite rapidly. Theatres fall into this guise; these old theatres served a purpose as second-run, cut-rate neighborhood joints until the DVD/online/TV market finally did them in too. Sounds like city taxes and regulations didn't help the cause either, it might be that the Portland-style business model is just too hard to make work here with a few niche exceptions like the Vic (whose ticket prices aren't particularly cheap given the dreadful sound quality and overall "viewing experience").

[VivaLFuego]

Spotted a neighborhood development. Nothing extraordinary, though somewhat unique because it's on a corner slice of a 6-corner intersection (Diversey/Lincoln). That's one property type for which we haven't seen a cookie-cutter "new condo building" in this boom. This is a rather small lot, that is currently just a bunch of gravel. Looks like 9 units + 1 corner retail spot. I wonder if the gods will smile and have the corner retail space be something other than a bank branch, real estate broker's office, or cell phone store? Is even a mere Cold Stone Creamery or some such too much to ask?

http://2800lincoln.com/index.php

http://2800lincoln.com/uploads/images/18_0810_helios_diversey_final_v2_u.jpg

[Taft]

Spotted a neighborhood development. Nothing extraordinary, though somewhat unique because it's on a corner slice of a 6-corner intersection (Diversey/Lincoln). That's one property type for which we haven't seen a cookie-cutter "new condo building" in this boom. This is a rather small lot, that is currently just a bunch of gravel. Looks like 9 units + 1 corner retail spot. I wonder if the gods will smile and have the corner retail space be something other than a bank branch, real estate broker's office, or cell phone store? Is even a mere Cold Stone Creamery or some such too much to ask?

http://2800lincoln.com/index.php

http://2800lincoln.com/uploads/images/18_0810_helios_diversey_final_v2_u.jpg

I noticed the signs up for that the other day. Looks like something unique.

Anyone remember that lot sinking a few years back? As I recall, the lot had been paved and the entire center started sinking. Eventually the pavement split and a small cliff appeared in the sinkhole. They filled it up and put gravel there and it hasn't sunk since.

Could this be a challenge for the developers or a risk to the buyer?

Taft

[emathias]

I noticed the signs up for that the other day. Looks like something unique.

Anyone remember that lot sinking a few years back? As I recall, the lot had been paved and the entire center started sinking. Eventually the pavement split and a small cliff appeared in the sinkhole. They filled it up and put gravel there and it hasn't sunk since.

Could this be a challenge for the developers or a risk to the buyer?

Taft

First, that's a really awesome-looking development! I think that even in this market they should have no trouble selling that out quickly as long as they can build it for a reasonable price.

Second, I do remember the sinkhole, but I think that was probably caused by pushing debris into the basement of whatever used to be there and then that debris settling it. I'd imagine they'd excavate that all out and start from scratch, so I seriously doubt there'd be any significant engineering challenges associated with the site compared to any other narrow corner lot.

[the urban politician]

Just Google streetmapped that intersection

That intersection has a LOT of potential. Good to see projects like this. It would be nice to eventually see that gas station developed as well, but then again I doubt that's likely to happen

[Taft]

Just Google streetmapped that intersection

That intersection has a LOT of potential. Good to see projects like this. It would be nice to eventually see that gas station developed as well, but then again I doubt that's likely to happen

There is actually a fair amount of gas-station redundancy in that area, with gas stations at Diversey/Southport and Diversey/Ashland. Then, there seems to be an insatiable desire for gas stations in the city, so who knows...

Taft

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28833

Kellogg planning major new building in Evanston
By: Steven R. Strahler April 03, 2008

Apparently suffering from an edifice complex, Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management is looking to make a bold, new statement on its Evanston campus.

The MBA factory, whose rise to pre-eminence has been an information-age success story for Chicago, is laying the groundwork for a building likely to cost more than $100 million

[i_am_hydrogen]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-childrens-museum-webapr04,0,1128317.story

Showdown expected after Children's Museum filing
Controversial new facility sought in Daley Bicentennial Plaza

By Dan Mihalopoulos and Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah | Tribune reporters
1:05 PM CDT, April 3, 2008

The Chicago Children's Museum announced Thursday it has filed its application with the city to move to a new building in Grant Park, setting up a showdown with neighbors who oppose the controversial plan.

The museum's plans to relocate have been controversial from the beginning. Three years ago, the museum said it wanted to move from Navy Pier to Daley Bicentennial Plaza at the northeast corner of Grant Park. Since then, it has found critics in the residents of high-rises across the street from the site, Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) and civic groups who oppose any buildings in the park. The fight flared last fall and picked up again last month as the museum hired a public-relations firm to begin its push for approval.

[Marcu]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28833

Kellogg planning major new building in Evanston
By: Steven R. Strahler April 03, 2008

Apparently suffering from an edifice complex, Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management is looking to make a bold, new statement on its Evanston campus.

The MBA factory, whose rise to pre-eminence has been an information-age success story for Chicago, is laying the groundwork for a building likely to cost more than $100 million


Holy crap. That's one expensive building. Especially since it will likely be less than 4 stories.

[Nowhereman1280]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2008-04/37503956.jpg

The worst part about this whole thing is that it is a K&S design so its likely to be extremely badass. Its too bad we have to kill it for trying to build it in the park. I don't get why they would want an entire children's museum underground, with no regular windows. Maybe that would be a good place to put a holocaust museum or something creepy like that, but not a children's museum.

[honte]

^ Yeah, it never made much sense.

I'm sure they already have an alternative site lined up behind the scenes. K+S probably would get the job again.

[pilsenarch]

Wherever the children ‘s museum is built, it would contain little to no windows….the museum program eliminates them (like most museums) so they can control the exhibits.

So, knowing that, I don’t understand the opposition to this K+S design. It replaces an existing building while adding more useable park space. No one could possible argue that this end of the park would not be an improvement with the replacement of Daley Bi….(see Diagram above)

So is this just an opportunity for the populists to stick it to the all-powerful mayor and the Pritzkers?

[honte]

^ Well, you might not agree with me, but I have indeed argued that point somewhere in the past. I can dig it up for you in a PM if you really like; I'll save the rest of the forum the headache of hearing it again.

However, as always, my position has been that this museum could make a much better impact elsewhere. That's my primary reason for objecting.

Most museums do not contain many windows, this is true. However, museums without sufficient connection to the outdoors are disorientating and uncomfortable, in my opinion - especially if the plans are contorted as K+S's appear to be. The new Libeskind addition to the DAM suffers from this, IMO. Many people complain about it; I've been there, and I thought it really suffered as a building.

[wrabbit]

While I don't always agree with the Trib editorial board, they did a decent job of laying out objections to the GP CM site in this recent editorial; emphasis on the first objection, which I feel to be the strongest, is mine:

The Grant Park land grab
March 30, 2008

The Chicago Children's Museum officials who last year tried to ram a new museum building into Grant Park are back with their terrible idea. Which raises three questions:

•Why don't the museum officials—is there no voice of reason and courage in their ranks?—choose a site other than the one Chicago park that has extraordinary open-space protection against even the most worthy civic projects?

•How can the museum officials not understand that Chicagoans strongly dislike their plan to take over a part of Grant Park?

•Do current stewards of the museum not realize that public revulsion to their land grab could tarnish what in the past has been a platinum brand name? .....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0330edit1mar30,0,5861714.story

[pilsenarch]

Honte has made the ONLY objection that makes any sense....that, arguably, the museum might be disorienting architecturally.

However, the Trib editorial is very revealing "...this land grab isn't really about children. This land grab is about clout." What does that mean? Are we really supposed to believe that the non-profit Children's Museum's only interest is sticking it to the people of Chicago? That the board of the museum is so obssessed with their potential political power that they have lost all sight of their mission?

But since this forum isn't about politics, but rather buildings, I would have to reiterate that we focus on the actual design. Honte may have a valid point, but the CCM did select one of the best Chicago architects and there has been enough presentations of the design to evaluate it on its architectural merits or lack thereof.

Once again, I feel it is necessary to ask again, how can this possibly not be an improvement to what exists today?

Would the children be happier on the west side, downtown, or somewhere in the Museum Campus? Maybe, but it would be a difficult argument to make that whatever benefits of another location would outweigh the increased visitor traffic due to Millenium Park along with the access to existing public transportation.

[VivaLFuego]

So is this just an opportunity for the populists to stick it to the all-powerful mayor and the Pritzkers?

It's also an opportunity for Hack Reilly to be humilated :notacrook: which would be one of the best possible things to happen to this city outside of a successful O'hare expansion. I assume that Da Mare and the Pritzkers wouldn't be advancing this for approval if they weren't comfortable that they had the votes lined up, otherwise they'd just be humilating and weakening themselves.

[VivaLFuego]

Once again, I feel it is necessary to ask again, how can this possibly not be an improvement to what exists today?


I'd also like to hear an explanation as to how the "forever free open and clear" claptrap isn't completely meaningless in this context, given that Grant Park is an interactive, formal park with plenty of fee-entry activities already; this is not a nature/serene park, it's an activity park. honte's concern is the most legitimate, but the BS being put forth by "the neighbors" and Hack Reilly is disingenuous.

EDIT: what, did the Trib let the cranky smog-belching anti-change progressive NIMBYs in 400 E. Randolph write that editorial? It's a nightmare of logical reasoning.

[Marcu]

^ "forever free, open, and clear" is not absolute and I'm not sure why opponents of this plan are treated it as such. Sure some lakefront events/structures violate the notion on its face (eg Soldier Field), but it's absurd to treat the concept with complete disregard for the circumstances and other factors at play; just as it would asburd to permit people to shout fire in a crowded theatre because the First Amendment on its face prohibits punishment.

[wrabbit]

.....I don't get why they would want an entire children's museum underground, with no regular windows.....

They are attempting to address the GP charter (prohibiting buildings) by locating the museum (mostly) underground - the skylights protrude above-ground, but K&S has designed these, and the museum is promoting them, as sculptural elements; sculpture is not prohibited by the charter.

.....
But since this forum isn't about politics, but rather buildings, I would have to reiterate that we focus on the actual design.......

This program is a response to the restrictive GP covenant. That is why the museum is subterranean. I don't see how in this instance one can consider the design apart from the GP controversy.

I wouldn't be devastated if the museum locates at GP, especially given the talent at K&S, and the renovations to DBP. But it ought to be difficult, very difficult, for any private group to build in the city's front yard. Make 'em fight for the privilege. And extract as many park-friendly concessions from them as possible in the process.

^ "forever free, open, and clear" is not absolute and I'm not sure why opponents of this plan are treated it as such. Sure some lakefront events/structures violate the notion on its face (eg Soldier Field), but it's absurd to treat the concept with complete disregard for the circumstances and other factors at play.....

I don't believe that the SF site falls within the GP covenant. Nor museum campus, which was created after Field's failed attempt to locate his museum in GP. The Art Institute got in before Montgomery Ward filed his lawsuit to enforce the GP charter. And the Gehry was allowed in only after it was classified as "sculpture".

I'd also like to hear an explanation as to how the "forever free open and clear" claptrap isn't completely meaningless in this context, given that Grant Park is an interactive, formal park with plenty of fee-entry activities already; this is not a nature/serene park, it's an activity park. honte's concern is the most legitimate, but the BS being put forth by "the neighbors" and Hack Reilly is disingenuous.

EDIT: what, did the Trib let the cranky smog-belching anti-change progressive NIMBYs in 400 E. Randolph write that editorial? It's a nightmare of logical reasoning.

It is meaningless until someone sues to enforce it, as Ward did when Field attempted to build his museum in GP.

There are so many competing interests at play here - one can be wary of a GP site on preservation grounds alone, without being a NIMBY in any way (meaning...ahem...me, among others). Personally, I'd love to see it at the LSE park ;)

[Taft]

There are so many competing interests at play here - one can be opposed to a GP site on preservation grounds alone, without being a NIMBY in any way. Personally, I'd love to see it at the LSE park.;)

Curious LSE park didn't make it on Reily's "alternatives" list. I'd love to see CCM propose the museum there and watch Reily's head explode.

I definitely agree on the diversity of the opponents. I, myself, am not an opponent, but I completely understand the preservationists position. Reily's position, on the other hand...

Taft

[Patel]

Honte has made the ONLY objection that makes any sense....that, arguably, the museum might be disorienting architecturally.

However, the Trib editorial is very revealing "...this land grab isn't really about children. This land grab is about clout." What does that mean? Are we really supposed to believe that the non-profit Children's Museum's only interest is sticking it to the people of Chicago? That the board of the museum is so obssessed with their potential political power that they have lost all sight of their mission?

But since this forum isn't about politics, but rather buildings, I would have to reiterate that we focus on the actual design. Honte may have a valid point, but the CCM did select one of the best Chicago architects and there has been enough presentations of the design to evaluate it on its architectural merits or lack thereof.

Once again, I feel it is necessary to ask again, how can this possibly not be an improvement to what exists today?

Would the children be happier on the west side, downtown, or somewhere in the Museum Campus? Maybe, but it would be a difficult argument to make that whatever benefits of another location would outweigh the increased visitor traffic due to Millenium Park along with the access to existing public transportation.


Excellent post. I am with you on this one. The CCM really needs to be looked at and concidered in this location.

[honte]

However, the Trib editorial is very revealing "...this land grab isn't really about children. This land grab is about clout." What does that mean? Are we really supposed to believe that the non-profit Children's Museum's only interest is sticking it to the people of Chicago? That the board of the museum is so obssessed with their potential political power that they have lost all sight of their mission?



In a way, yes, I do believe this. One reason I am really happy this fight is occurring is that the deal to move them to Daley Bi was done in the dirty old way, behind closed doors, with the few players in the area lining up before anyone got notice. The announcement came and it was not a suggestion or an idea, but a backroom deal being foisted on the public. We're talking about the future of a public asset, and personally I think it's thrilling that Chicagoans and an alderman (like him or hate him) are standing up to this stupid way of planning their city. I've been sick of this for a long time... Daley should have been toast after Meigs Field and I don't understand why this kind of behavior is tolerated.

A lot of people tend to look past the process and instead at the results... "Well, I like children, so this must be for the better good." "Well, I'm not a rich pilot, so what do I care?" It's a dangerous position to take.

So, yes, I do feel that they are reacting selfishly and personally to this issue. Maybe it should be called the Big Baby Museum instead?

[pilsenarch]

Et tu, Honte?

So, indeed, this has nothing to do with the architectural and urban planning merits of the CCM Grant Park proposal?

Honte, how would you suggest they go about it differently? Originally, the mayor and CCM wanted to locate the museum at the northeast corner of Columbus and Monroe. They quickly backed down due to the opposition of the Grant Park Advisory Council and just about everyone else.

The current proposal was brought to the alderman's attention, just like any other proposal, and he, as we know, shot it down. So, do you think that a system that allows a proposal that affects the entire city and arguably has national and international implications (Grant Park, after all, does have a international reputation) to be subject to the whims of the alderman and a handful of condo owners in 400 E Randolph is the way to go?

Why don't we stop using the CCM as a populist weapon and judge the proposal on its merits. If you don't like the mayor, don't vote for him (another indication that the loudest voices don't speak for the majority of Chciagoans).

[honte]

^ No, I have tons of complaints about the project on a project basis too, which I have been voicing here for a long time. I would never support a position out of spite. But it also does interest me for the above-stated reasons, more or less as an afterthought.

That said, I don't judge proposals first on their microcosmic merits. Paramount is the NET gain to the city, not little gain here or there by taking a very nice plaza and potentially making it into a nicer museum (from 6 to 8 on a 1-10 scale). Chicago is constantly fixing problems that don't need to be fixed, and that amounts to wasted opportunity and wasted money. Meanwhile, there are serious problems all around us.

I think you have the Columbus / Monroe side of the story simplified a bit. There was more to it than that, of course.

Definitely, I have been an outspoken critic of the Aldermanic system. I think it stinks and that Chicago should go to a borough system (but my knowledge of these is admittedly limited).

What would I do differently? I think the City should pioneer some kind of referendum voting process on-line for issues that have city-wide importance. This kind of debate comes up far too often; it stagnates things and does not allow Chicago to move forward. Chicago rarely moves forward at the rapid pace of other cities because it is hindered by competing interests and a lack of trust engendered by issues like this one. With new computer technology, democracy should be increasing in this country. Obviously, this idea is riddled with difficulties, but I think someone needs to do it. Chicago has a bad image, and it would go a long way towards fixing it if we pioneered such a system.

[Abner]

In a way, yes, I do believe this. One reason I am really happy this fight is occurring is that the deal to move them to Daley Bi was done in the dirty old way, behind closed doors, with the few players in the area lining up before anyone got notice. The announcement came and it was not a suggestion or an idea, but a backroom deal being foisted on the public. We're talking about the future of a public asset, and personally I think it's thrilling that Chicagoans and an alderman (like him or hate him) are standing up to this stupid way of planning their city. I've been sick of this for a long time... Daley should have been toast after Meigs Field and I don't understand why this kind of behavior is tolerated.


I agree with you on this and think it's sad that you can be pilloried for saying it. I would love to see this issue become a victory for good government.

[Nowhereman1280]

So, do you think that a system that allows a proposal that affects the entire city and arguably has national and international implications (Grant Park, after all, does have a international reputation) to be subject to the whims of the alderman and a handful of condo owners in 400 E Randolph is the way to go?
.

Obviously he doesn't think that. That is not the issue here, the vast majority of the city is against building it in Grant Park and it would be much more beneficial (and probably more architecturally stunning) in a different location.

You do know that its against a Supreme Court ruling to build in any of Chicago's lakefront parks?

[pilsenarch]

^^How do you know he doesn't think this?

The way the system currently works is that the alderman has a 'perogative' to veto anything. Officially, it goes to the city council for approval, and that is indeed what the CCM is doing. If they approve it, then you can most likely blame your own alderman and vote him out the next chance you get.

Once again, it seems ridiculous to judge this proposal not on its own merits but on everyone's axes to grind against the system. Funny, it was the same system that created the Museum Park Campus but nobody seemed to complain about that one.

BTW, your knowledge of the law surrounding Grant Park and the other lakefront parks is wholly incorrect.

Honte, if their are details surrounding the Columbus/Monroe site that are pertinent to this discussion, then please explain....otherwise, what is your point?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Because I know honte's opinion on this and doesn't like it when aldermen and a few NIMBYs do something stupid. He is against this because it violates the whole Montgomery Ward thing and most people in the city don't want it in the park...

[honte]

Honte, if their are details surrounding the Columbus/Monroe site that are pertinent to this discussion, then please explain....otherwise, what is your point?

I am trying not to rehash a lot of things that were discussed before on this thread, because people tire of hearing me repeat my opinion. I also know that I am in the minority in my views on this subject, and bringing it up has resulted in enough lambasting.

In any case, there are a lot of players on this project. One of the key ones is Bob O'Neill, who is angling for the replacement of the fieldhouse at Daley Bi. You can put the details together there. I believe actually that the Monroe / Columbus location was not the first one proposed ... the details are not 100% clear in my memory. The point here is that there is more at work than simple placement of the Museum. This was intended to bolster my argument that this is a backroom deal and not something to be particularly proud of.

Nowhereman was essentially correct; I do not agree with the stipulations in your previous post. He doesn't know me personally, but he has had to sit through over 3000 of my posts over the last several years. ;) However, my primary personal gripe is architectural in nature: I really appreciate the current space, especially in conjunction with Millennium Park, and I think Grant Park has enough theme park atmosphere as is. Then tack on the other issues we are discussing, and I cannot be in favor of this project.

Also, the misconstruing of architectural elements as "sculpture" is just a very base, IMO. I am surprised that K+S would play along with such tomfoolery. It damages their reputation in my opinion.

[jpIllInoIs]

I keep hearing that the CCM in GP will set a bad and dangerous precident! But that precident has already been set and the "forever free and clear and open..." principle has been broken by the "Harris Theatre & Dance Center" on Randolph. That project had no business being put in the park.. If this goes to court the CCM and their supporters will cite that building as their defense.

[pilsenarch]

In any case, there are a lot of players on this project. One of the key ones is Bob O'Neill, who is angling for the replacement of the fieldhouse at Daley Bi. You can put the details together there. I believe actually that the Monroe / Columbus location was not the first one proposed ... the details are not 100% clear in my memory. The point here is that there is more at work than simple placement of the Museum. This was intended to bolster my argument that this is a backroom deal and not something to be particularly proud of.

I really appreciate the current space, especially in conjunction with Millennium Park, and I think Grant Park has enough theme park atmosphere as is. Then tack on the other issues we are discussing, and I cannot be in favor of this project.

Also, the misconstruing of architectural elements as "sculpture" is just a very base, IMO. I am surprised that K+S would play along with such tomfoolery. It damages their reputation in my opinion.

Honte, just to let you know, I am very familiar with Bob and the details of the history of this project....I was hoping that you might know something I didn't....I guess not and the inference of backroom deals seems to be misplaced. You have had plenty of time to lobby your alderman to vote against the CCM….that does not appear to be a backroom deal as far as I can tell.

I'm surprised at your fondness for the current 'space' - I see little redeeming about it. As far as 'theme park' atmoshpere, I assume you are referring to Millennium Park, and, you know, of course, you are in the extreme minority arguing with the success of that project. How you can equate a museum with a theme park is beyond me, however. You must REALLY hate the Lincoln Park Zoo and the Notebart Nature Museum theme-parking-up the north side.

Now, architecturally, you earlier made a valid criticism regarding the nature of underground buildings in general. However, due to the existing terracing of the site combined with the skills of Ron Krueck, I have confidence that this project could overcome that ‘disorientating’ feeling. As far as the sculpture argument goes, one only needs to look at the Spertus to see that glass construction can indeed be sculpture. Certainly the proposal is more beautiful than the deteriorating Daley Bi.

[honte]

^ No, again, a missed point. I am perfectly aware of the potential of glass. But to pretend that a building is sculpture, to skirt around a law is deceptive, plain and simple. If they want to build a glass sculpture that houses no people and doesn't have HVAC and a lobby, go right ahead.

I stated earlier that I am aware my opinions are in the minority, hence my reluctance to start this conversation again. My concern however, remains unchanged. My opinion of Millennium Park and whether or not it is a "theme park" is irrelevant; what is relevant, however, is a concern of the scales being tipped in favor of the carnival and out of balance in terms of the needs a park needs to fulfill in an urban context. Lincoln Park does not suffer from this problem. The north end of Grant Park is a different animal.

Daley Bi is one of the few Modernist public park designs in Chicago, and yes, I will miss it. Virtually no one is giving this any consideration, but what else is new around here. Bob thinks it's trash and voilà. Last, leave the "deteriorating" part out of it - it has no relevance on evaluation of art and never has.

Anyway, it's time for this thread to return to its purpose, don't you think? We're not going to get anywhere on this topic.

[pilsenarch]

^Help me out here, Honte....(sorry, I know you wanted the last word but I would like to focus on the building and park rather than the alleged political wheeling and dealing)...

So your opinion of Millennium and the deteriorating nature of Daley Bi are both irrelevant...OK....

What is in question then is your 'opinion' that Grant Park has become a carnival....and, if it has, that that is not a good thing. Once again, based upon how that park has been used (Taste, Lollapalooza, Blues Fest, etc. etc. etc.) you would seem to be in the EXTREME minority. Just maybe one legitimate role of a urban park is to provide a carnival?

Regardless, despite all the fear mongering, I don't believe a children's museum is going to tilt the park into a permanent midway (anymore then all the festivals already have).

I also do find it interesting you are so willing to dismiss Bob and all his work. Some might find him annoying, but no single person deserves more credit for looking after and restoring Grant Park then Bob.

As far as your opinion that the Daley Bi is a modern masterpiece maybe worthy of landmarking, well, the only part of the Daley Bi that the CCM is proposing replacing is all underground....is it the ribbon of concrete above the storefront that you are so enamored with?

Finally, I find it disappointing that an architect of all people would argue that if a piece of art contains people or HVAC then it can’t possibly be art.

[honte]

^ Not trying to have the last word, just trying to keep this thread from being a constant back and forth between the two of us that likely will be simply skipped by everyone else around here (note lack of input from other forumers).

However, you keep making points that require clarification. Briefly:

1) Of course buildings are art. How did I possibly infer that they weren't? But a building is not a sculpture, especially as it would be understood by the law. The Gehry bandsheel is obviously borderline, perhaps even crossing the line.

2) Carnivals. I think Chicago needs a fairground or some kind of public square for this. I like the geographic location of the festivals (proximity to the Lakefront and downtown and transit), but I dislike what they do to Grant Park (dead grass, trash, potable toilets everywhere). One or two is ok, but I think they hold Grant Park back from its potential by being held all summer in the same place. I was hoping Meigs would become a fairground after the Midnight Massacre, but it's too far away to transplant the big ones.

3) Daley Bi will be destroyed by this project. It's kind of like saying, "Well, what if we just put some fun little concession stands in Daley Plaza?" Or, "That boring Dan Kiley over there really would look better with a petting zoo." Minimalism does not take well to alterations; that's one of its downfalls. And they are tweaking / replacing much more than you allow. I'm not seeing any of the elements I appreciate about it in the new renders.

4) O'Neill has done some good things, sure. I never dismissed him as a person. I think his intentions are generally good. Can't agree with more than 1/4 of the things he says or does though.

So, I have a question for you: Why are you so gung-ho, 100% convinced that this is the best place for this building? As an architect, I'd expect you to seek out all possible ideas and configurations before being set on one scheme. You can disagree with everything else I've said, but the one unavoidable fact is that there are plenty of great places for this institution, and this one is chock-full of problems.

[cbotnyse]

cool new restaurant on Superior and Wells.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/trump/DSC_0035.jpg

[Pandemonious]

You definitely aren't alone on #2 Honte.. I have struggled with this for some time. Im not sure how exactly much the city benefits from an event like Lollapalooza, but the fact that they can close down half of a large public park and charge people hundreds of dollars to go somewhere that on a normal day they could go out and lounge in the grass seems like complete bullshit to me. I know grant park isn't like central park, and it is more of a formal area for festivals and activities, but lollapalooza to me is the worst offender by far imo, and I think doesn't really benefit the park itself at all.

Like you said, the proximity is attractive, but I am not sure it really belongs there.... especially if people will pull out "forever free and clear" about other projects which in my opinion have a tiny fraction of impact in comparison.


^ Not trying to have the last word, just trying to keep this thread from being a constant back and forth between the two of us that likely will be simply skipped by everyone else around here (note lack of input from other forumers).

However, you keep making points that require clarification. Briefly:

1) Of course buildings are art. How did I possibly infer that they weren't? But a building is not a sculpture, especially as it would be understood by the law. The Gehry bandsheel is obviously borderline, perhaps even crossing the line.

2) Carnivals. I think Chicago needs a fairground or some kind of public square for this. I like the geographic location of the festivals (proximity to the Lakefront and downtown and transit), but I dislike what they do to Grant Park (dead grass, trash, potable toilets everywhere). One or two is ok, but I think they hold Grant Park back from its potential by being held all summer in the same place. I was hoping Meigs would become a fairground after the Midnight Massacre, but it's too far away to transplant the big ones.

3) Daley Bi will be destroyed by this project. It's kind of like saying, "Well, what if we just put some fun little concession stands in Daley Plaza?" Or, "That boring Dan Kiley over there really would look better with a petting zoo." Minimalism does not take well to alterations; that's one of its downfalls. And they are tweaking / replacing much more than you allow. I'm not seeing any of the elements I appreciate about it in the new renders.

4) O'Neill has done some good things, sure. I never dismissed him as a person. I think his intentions are generally good. Can't agree with more than 1/4 of the things he says or does though.

So, I have a question for you: Why are you so gung-ho, 100% convinced that this is the best place for this building? As an architect, I'd expect you to seek out all possible ideas and configurations before being set on one scheme. You can disagree with everything else I've said, but the one unavoidable fact is that there are plenty of great places for this institution, and this one is chock-full of problems.

[cbotnyse]

You definitely aren't alone on #2 Honte.. I have struggled with this for some time. Im not sure how exactly much the city benefits from an event like Lollapalooza, but the fact that they can close down half of a large public park and charge people hundreds of dollars to go somewhere that on a normal day they could go out and lounge in the grass seems like complete bullshit to me. I know grant park isn't like central park, and it is more of a formal area for festivals and activities, but lollapalooza to me is the worst offender by far imo, and I think doesn't really benefit the park itself at all.

Like you said, the proximity is attractive, but I am not sure it really belongs there.... especially if people will pull out "forever free and clear" about other projects which in my opinion have a tiny fraction of impact in comparison.Lollapalooza is awesome for the city. its a three day festival where 1000s and 1000s of people come and stay in the city's hotels, eat at restaurants and drink at the bars, among many other things. We are lucky to have one of the best music festivals in the country and you're complaining about it?

[Mr Downtown]

A little additional on Chicago Children's Museum: They first proposed to move to the Daley Bi site a couple of years ago, then later suggested Columbus/Monroe. Nearly all the downtown civics (Friends of Downtown, Friends of the Parks, Metropolitan Planning Council) made clear their displeasure with that, so the mayor told them to wait until after the election. Then the Daley Bi idea reappeared.

I'm sorry to hear Reilly pilloried for an actual principled decision. To me, it's noteworthy that he didn't say "my constituents oppose it." He publicly said, "I've read the four Ward decisions, and they make clear that this is forbidden."

The four Ward decisions, and various decisions following it from the 1920s through the 1950s, make it clear that no building can be placed in Grant Park between Randolph and 11th Place. The museum campus is exempt because it's south of 11th Place. The yacht club is allowed because it's beyond the bulkhead line of the harbor. The underground garages are allowed because they have only ventilation and emergency stairs in the park, and those are considered de minimis. Petrillo Bandshell is supposedly a temporary structure, which can be removed every winter. The Buckingham Fountain pavilions technically violate the injunction (the original restrooms at the fountain were underground for this very reason), but no one legally challenged them. Millennium Park decided to seek abutter permission for the Harris Theater, even from Randolph Street abutters. Once the courts ruled that Randolph abutter permission was unnecessary, I'm not clear whether they followed through on getting permission from Michigan Avenue abutters.

I think there are three factors motivating the Children's Museum to butt its head against the wall here: First, getting tax money as a result of being in the park (though initially they claimed to have no interest in that). Second, Allstate gets a late chance to get its name into Millennium Park, alongside Chase, Wrigley, BP, Pritzker, and Boeing. Third, and perhaps most important, the recently privatized East Monroe garage has lots of unused parking spaces. The Childrens Museum would help fill those with minivans. Except for the Metra Electric and #4 and #60 buses, this site actually has lousy access to public transit, and it's not particularly important to the museum.

Are we really reduced to debating whether rooftops qualify as "sculpture" and whether a bunker is sufficiently subterranean to squeeze through a loophole in the court decisions? Just how difficult is it to comprehend the 1839 plat notation "for ever to remain vacant of buildings?"

[Chicago2020]

R. Collection

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1538/2390523125867a61052doz4.jpg
LibraryShade/FLICKR

[honte]

Here is the image of the 5640 Sheridan development, which VivaLFuego mentioned here a while back. It would replace a rather nondescript foursquare.

Kitschy enough to be kool?

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7075/5640sheridanxq3.jpg

[AdrianXSands]

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/trump/DSC_0035.jpg


awwww mman :) that's nice! :) i'm gonna go over there tomorrow.



this makes me happy!

[Jibba]

Kitschy enough to be kool?

Not quite. As far as that line of reasoning is concerned, they should have gone all in.

[StatenIslander237]

R. Collection

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1538/2390523125867a61052doz4.jpg
LibraryShade/FLICKR

OH YEAH! I saw this the other day, it looks fantastic! I am wondering...are they going to cut into the stone wall on the side the Roosevelt Road bridge to permit for the entrance? Seems like a challenge...

[Taft]

Being a Chicago forumer here can be a difficult thing. I'm not sure any city on these boards has as many heated arguments over such (relatively) small things. Stepping back, I guess that's what makes this forum great for Chicagoans and what makes Chicago so great to begin with: so many people that are passionate about the future of the city.

Honte, you mentioned not wanting to bore us with redundant opinions. Personally, I'd like to see your ideas--and the idea of all other passionate and courteous forumers--posted again and again, bringing them into the current debate. I've noticed that as time, and pages, rush forward, some of the greatest ideas and posts tend to get lost in the shuffle. Please, worry about a *lack* of information, if anything. ;)

If these small debates, which could help determine the course of future development in this city aren't relevant to general development, I don't know what is.

Taft

[Taft]

awwww mman :) that's nice! :) i'm gonna go over there tomorrow.

this makes me happy!

We had a few drinks seated at the front window of Clark St. Ale House a week ago and I sat and admired this beauty the entire time. Definitely worth seeing in person and I'll be excited to see this finished.

Does anyone know details of this building? It seems as though a restaurant is going in the space. Seems like a pricy "build-out" for a restaurant development, though....

Taft

[cbotnyse]

We had a few drinks seated at the front window of Clark St. Ale House a week ago and I sat and admired this beauty the entire time. Definitely worth seeing in person and I'll be excited to see this finished.

Does anyone know details of this building? It seems as though a restaurant is going in the space. Seems like a pricy "build-out" for a restaurant development, though....

Taftis it on clark? I thought it was Wells, couldnt remember for sure. It is definitely a restaurant. Something with "zen" in the title (may even be it)....The motto is "taking food to the next level". Looks like it could be a cool place.

edit: found it. http://www.zed451.com/

[wrabbit]

A little additional on Chicago Children's Museum.....[/B]

Thanks for the clarifications.

[nomarandlee]

2) Carnivals. I think Chicago needs a fairground or some kind of public square for this. I like the geographic location of the festivals (proximity to the Lakefront and downtown and transit), but I dislike what they do to Grant Park (dead grass, trash, potable toilets everywhere). One or two is ok, but I think they hold Grant Park back from its potential by being held all summer in the same place. I was hoping Meigs would become a fairground after the Midnight Massacre, but it's too far away to transplant the big ones.
.

I have thought about this a bit especially when thinking about Milwaukees Maier festival park or Toronto's exhibition/Ontario place. Why let the burbs have all the sucker dollars that the city could pick pick up. Charter One is going to have to go eventually, every town n the metro are getting water parks other then Chicago, the Navy Pier people obvously though there is a market for some small amusement park, put a cracy ski dome like they are building in Jersey maybe. As well you could have stretches that would be able to hold large festivals like the Taste or Lollapalooza. I would just not care to see such a fair ground directley on the lake obviously. Doing so could also maybe save Navy Pier from further indignities as well as a bonus.

[pilsenarch]

So, I have a question for you: Why are you so gung-ho, 100% convinced that this is the best place for this building? As an architect, I'd expect you to seek out all possible ideas and configurations before being set on one scheme. You can disagree with everything else I've said, but the one unavoidable fact is that there are plenty of great places for this institution, and this one is chock-full of problems.

That's just it Honte, from an architectural and urban planning perspective, I see no problems whatsoever....rather just vast improvements.

The only legitimate problems I have heard re the CCM are from the political and legal perpectives, not the architectural or urban planning. As far as comparing Daley Bi to the work of Dan Kiley or thinking that it is or ever was a minimalist masterpiece, you must admit, you stand alone with that opinion.

Look, Grant Park IS our front yard, and you might not like how the relatives are using it (I personally avoid all those festivals like the plague), it has proven very successful at doing just that. This is almost wholly due to its specific and wondrous location.

And, this is exactly why the CCM wants to be RIGHT THERE and NO WHERE ELSE. It is a singularly unique site....no other site could possibly offer the CCM what this one does. Could they exist somewhere else? Of course, but no other site offers the promise that this one does. Again, as an architect, if you don't recognize this, then you are fooling yourself. I can't think of any other uses that would be appropriate but a museum for kids does seem right. (On the other hand, the existing neighborhood field house itself does not appear to be an appropriate use....maybe they should just comletely eliminate that when they rebuild.)

Honte, when did art and architecture stop being sculpture?,

Mr. Downtown, you didn't mention the maintenance buildings on South Columbus; not one, but two Excelon Pavilions; the Bike Station building; the Restaurant along Michigan Ave; and, most signicantly, the Daley Bi Feildhouse itself.

BTW, apologies to those who are bored with the what-to-build or not-to-build in Grant Park discussion.

[Nowhereman1280]

Though I agree with your comments on Chicago Needing a Festival ground, I don't know where your idea of waterparks and themeparks is coming from. I don't want any of that cheesy crap downtown. Not to mention building a waterpark or themepark downtown would be a completely inefficient land use.

Either way, I don't think the lakefront is big enough and really wish the city would continue building the Burnham islands to expand our lakefront parks. Perhaps we could build a few larger islands south of Northerly and turn them into our festival park type area.

[cbotnyse]

Either way, I don't think the lakefront is big enough and really wish the city would continue building the Burnham islands to expand our lakefront parks. Perhaps we could build a few larger islands south of Northerly and turn them into our festival park type area.what is this, Dubai? :D

I've actually though about that before. What if Chicago did a Palm-type development in the lake and sold plots of residential land. That'd be insane. I wonder if those would ever sell? Could you imagine the cold winters on the frozen lake? On the other hand, the summers would be great.

[aaron38]

What is going on at Diversey and Lakewood? There's massive demolition going on, it looks like about 2 city blocks have been cleared.
What's being rebuilt?

[honte]

That's just it Honte, from an architectural and urban planning perspective, I see no problems whatsoever....rather just vast improvements.

The only legitimate problems I have heard re the CCM are from the political and legal perpectives, not the architectural or urban planning. As far as comparing Daley Bi to the work of Dan Kiley or thinking that it is or ever was a minimalist masterpiece, you must admit, you stand alone with that opinion.

Look, Grant Park IS our front yard, and you might not like how the relatives are using it (I personally avoid all those festivals like the plague), it has proven very successful at doing just that. This is almost wholly due to its specific and wondrous location.

And, this is exactly why the CCM wants to be RIGHT THERE and NO WHERE ELSE. It is a singularly unique site....no other site could possibly offer the CCM what this one does. Could they exist somewhere else? Of course, but no other site offers the promise that this one does. Again, as an architect, if you don't recognize this, then you are fooling yourself. I can't think of any other uses that would be appropriate but a museum for kids does seem right. (On the other hand, the existing neighborhood field house itself does not appear to be an appropriate use....maybe they should just comletely eliminate that when they rebuild.)

Honte, when did art and architecture stop being sculpture?,



You and I are looking at this entirely differently. Your argument that they "want to be right there and nowhere else" falls completely flat. Do you know how many private enterprises would like to be "right there," along the lakefront? Give me a break. Why is it so desirable after all these years? Why aren't they looking at Gary's lakefront, if they think that any old party should be able to make a claim? That was the whole point of protecting the lakefront parks.

Architecture and planning are NOT about what the client wants all the time. That is not how great cities are built.

My question was whether this is the best place for the museum, not whether it meets their needs. Again, I think in terms of net gains. And I disagree with you that it is the ideal place for them anyway. It offers low-to-zero visibility (wait until the 'compromise' plan comes out that has a fraction of the advertising 'sculptures'). It is in a low-traffic corner of the park. It has little public transit, as Mr. Downtown pointed out. The neighbors already hate it. And so forth. The institution would be much better served by building a flashy new building in a high-visibility location adjacent to public transit, but that solution doesn't satisfy the other interests and makes the Emperor look like he's weak.

Many very intelligent people will argue that architecture never was sculpture, and that is for a different thread, not here. I'm not even going to go there. Again, I am discussing this from a legal standpoint. I'm not lawyer, but this is a technical and semantic issue and has nothing to do with how you appreciate or fancy your work. It's quite obvious that the law was intended to keep buildings out of Grant Park, and that the allowance for sculpture was not implemented to be a loophole for museums and other greedy parties that think they know what's best.

I agree that Grant Park is our Front Yard. All the more reason it needs extra attention, care, and protection, and should not be prone to all pressures put on it.

Is Daley Bi a Dan Kiley? No. Is every Modernist building a Mies or Corbu? No, but that doesn't make them unimportant. But as someone with a very rich knowledge of Chicago Modernism - its history, development, and its impacts - I feel confident in my appraisals. While you are incorrect that I am alone in this opinion, I will grant you that I might be in the minority... but given the lack of respect for architecture, the general ignorance of the public and architects, and the rampant egomania in the profession, I'm used to it by now.

[honte]

What is going on at Diversey and Lakewood? There's massive demolition going on, it looks like about 2 city blocks have been cleared.
What's being rebuilt?

Is this on the South Side of the street???? There was an important sculpture there that needs to be saved if they are taking that building down. Please let me know ASAP!

[Chicago Shawn]

What is going on at Diversey and Lakewood? There's massive demolition going on, it looks like about 2 city blocks have been cleared.
What's being rebuilt?

It was a Hostess Twinkee factory getting demoed and replaced with single family homes and townhomes fronting on Diversey. Honte, I have no knowledge of the sculpture you mentioned.

[Mr Downtown]

Diversey/Lakewood was the Peerless Confection factory, the last customer for the old Milwaukee Road railroad tracks in Lakewood Avenue. No Twinkies were ever baked there.

The Testa sculpture was already gone last weekend when I went by. Demo pictures. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mss2400/sets/72157603805899968/)

[Loopy]

It was the Peerless Candy factory, and the sculpture, by Angelo Testa was headed for Elmhurst Art Museum, last I heard.

The sculpture was commissioned by Architect Bill Keck for Peerless when Keck completed an addition to their factory. Angelo Testa was a student of Moholy-Nagy at the New Bauhaus, which evolved into the Institute of Design, now part of IIT. It was Testa's last commissioned work before his death.

http://kevinforsyth.net/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/angelotesta.jpg

[pilsenarch]

Do you know how many private enterprises would like to be "right there," along the lakefront? Give me a break. Why is it so desirable after all these years? Why aren't they looking at Gary's lakefront, if they think that any old party should be able to make a claim? That was the whole point of protecting the lakefront parks.

Architecture and planning are NOT about what the client wants all the time. That is not how great cities are built.

My question was whether this is the best place for the museum, not whether it meets their needs. Again, I think in terms of net gains. And I disagree with you that it is the ideal place for them anyway. It offers low-to-zero visibility (wait until the 'compromise' plan comes out that has a fraction of the advertising 'sculptures'). It is in a low-traffic corner of the park. It has little public transit, as Mr. Downtown pointed out. The neighbors already hate it. And so forth. The institution would be much better served by building a flashy new building in a high-visibility location adjacent to public transit, but that solution doesn't satisfy the other interests and makes the Emperor look like he's weak.

Many very intelligent people will argue that architecture never was sculpture, and that is for a different thread, not here. I'm not even going to go there. Again, I am discussing this from a legal standpoint. I'm not lawyer, but this is a technical and semantic issue and has nothing to do with how you appreciate or fancy your work. It's quite obvious that the law was intended to keep buildings out of Grant Park, and that the allowance for sculpture was not implemented to be a loophole for museums and other greedy parties that think they know what's best.

I agree that Grant Park is our Front Yard. All the more reason it needs extra attention, care, and protection, and should not be prone to all pressures put on it.

Is Daley Bi a Dan Kiley? No. Is every Modernist building a Mies or Corbu? No, but that doesn't make them unimportant. But as someone with a very rich knowledge of Chicago Modernism - its history, development, and its impacts - I feel confident in my appraisals. While you are incorrect that I am alone in this opinion, I will grant you that I might be in the minority... but given the lack of respect for architecture, the general ignorance of the public and architects, and the rampant egomania in the profession, I'm used to it by now.

Other institutions want to be in the park? Which ones? What possible justification would they have to do that? Can you name any other single institution that has ever considered buiding in Grant Park or ever would?

Come on, let's leave the legal and political arguments for other threads. Instead, let's focus on the architecture and planning...

Honte, Mr. Downtown was incorrect. The site is VERY accessible to public transit....it's two blocks from the Loop! - the most accessible place in the entire metropolitan area.

So which is it? Will the CCM destroy the park? or will it have such low visibility as you suggest that no one will even know it's there? Does the location suffer from low traffic (underutlization) as you suggest? or, will it become absolutely overrun by outsiders as the NIMBYs fear?

Another site would be better? Well, be specific, which one? All of the suggestions by the alderman can be compared one-by-one, and all fail to reach the potential of East Randolph.

Others share your opinion of Daley Bi? Who? I have taught at IIT and UIC, led the AIA Design Committee, have worked with Landmarks, etc., etc., and I know of no one involved with any of those institutions who has ever considered it of any historical value. Honte, you seriously risk losing all credibility when you fight to save every modern work regardless of its intrinsic value.

[Mr Downtown]

I can't think of any other uses that would be appropriate but a museum for kids does seem right.

This, of course, is exactly what Burnham and every other civic leader was saying in 1908 about the Field Museum. Grant Park was the only appropriate location, and time was running out on Field's bequest. It's what was said about the Interstate Exposition Building, about the armory, about the Crerar Library, a new post office, city hall, and a dozen other proposed buildings. The only lonely voice of opposition was Montgomery Ward. Groups you might today expect to protect Grant Park from intrusions eagerly wear the mantle of Ward, "protector of the lakefront," while repudiating the actual principles he fought for.

In hindsight, civic groups perhaps should have been more vigilant in the 70s about Daley Bi, and definitely should have been more questioning about the Harris, the McDonald's Bicycle Station, and the Park Grill. (The Exelon Pavilions are arguably within the exceptions for de minimis stairways).

This is not some abstract principle or vague goal. In 1909 the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that, with regard to the area between Randolph and 11th Place, the covenant between the state canal commissioners and the original property owners, confirmed by the city's 1844 acceptance of the plat, was so inviolable that even the state legislature could not subsequently change it. Furthermore, any property owner on the west side of Michigan had a permanent easement across the park for light and air, which he could have enforced by injunction against the city or parks commission.

The court decisions are not difficult to understand. They have been placed online by the New East Side folks. (http://www.neweastside.org/DECISIONS.html)

[cbotnyse]

why hasnt the Art Institute ever been challenged?

[Nowhereman1280]

Other institutions want to be in the park? Which ones? What possible justification would they have to do that? Can you name any other single institution that has ever considered buiding in Grant Park or ever would?

Hmmm, lets see, EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPER IN THE WORLD. If it weren't for the fact that this is protected as a park, it would be highrises by now. Don't you see that its this court ruling protecting the park is just an extension of the basic notion of a park, that it is open space, not to be developed?

Just about every restaurant in the city would love to wiggle a franchise into Grant Park. There are hundreds of art galleries that would love to sneak into the park. However there is a rule preventing the construction of any structures in the park, so no one has been able to build there. The only reason the CCM is trying to get away with this is because they are non-profit and backed by Daley.

Come on, let's leave the legal and political arguments for other threads. Instead, let's focus on the architecture and planning...

Umm, you are aware that architecture is heavily influenced by the law right? You do know that in most cities planning is virtually synonymous with the law, right? Get this in your head: architecture is not design in a vaccum, that is art, architecture is design in the real world. The real world has laws, get over it...

Honte, Mr. Downtown was incorrect. The site is VERY accessible to public transit....it's two blocks from the Loop! - the most accessible place in the entire metropolitan area.

Do you ever venture downtown? If you spent much time down here you would realize that not only is this site more than twice as far from the loop as you mentioned, but its in a completely obscure and bizzare place that takes a knowledge of the area to access from all but one route. As the crow flies, this site is 5-6 blocks from the nearest El station. As you would have to walk on the grid system, its more like 7 or 8 blocks. Then take into account that there is really only one practical access point to the site: Randolf st. To the north of randolf you have LSE and Illinois center and its bizzare system of streets that is completely confusing to pedestrians. To the West-southwest you have tennis courts, Columbus and impractically bendy ghery bridge. To the East you have the lake and LSD. And to the south you have the vast, open, expanse of Grant Park. How is that accessable at all?

So which is it? Will the CCM destroy the park? or will it have such low visibility as you suggest that no one will even know it's there? Does the location suffer from low traffic (underutlization) as you suggest? or, will it become absolutely overrun by outsiders as the NIMBYs fear?

Why is he limited to one choice or the other, you know that you are allowed multiple arguments at once. Its both, not one or the other. This site sucks from a visibility and access standpoint and it will pollute the park with lines of school busses and structures which are in defiance of supreme court rulings.

Another site would be better? Well, be specific, which one? All of the suggestions by the alderman can be compared one-by-one, and all fail to reach the potential of East Randolph.


I could name probably 100 sites that would be twice as good as this. For example, any of the dozens of vacant parcels along the river.

I don't know why you are attacking Honte so much on this issue, he's not out of line.

[wrabbit]

why hasnt the Art Institute ever been challenged?

That is a good question - the answer is that it went in around 1893, before the Field proposal & before Ward's lawsuits, fait accompli.

[cbotnyse]

Do you ever venture downtown? If you spent much time down here you would realize that not only is this site more than twice as far from the loop as you mentioned, but its in a completely obscure and bizzare place that takes a knowledge of the area to access from all but one route. As the crow flies, this site is 5-6 blocks from the nearest El station. As you would have to walk on the grid system, its more like 7 or 8 blocks. Then take into account that there is really only one practical access point to the site: Randolf st. To the north of randolf you have LSE and Illinois center and its bizzare system of streets that is completely confusing to pedestrians. To the West-southwest you have tennis courts, Columbus and impractically bendy ghery bridge. To the East you have the lake and LSD. And to the south you have the vast, open, expanse of Grant Park. How is that accessable at all?I'm not saying I disagree with the rest of your post, becuase I'm still on the fence about the issue, but it is only 3-4 blocks from the Wabash el stops, many Metra lines run into Grant Park, there is a stop right on Randolph and Michigan, not to mention the many bus lines that circle Grant Park. I dont know how much more accessible it could be to the public.

[cbotnyse]

That is a good question - the answer is that it went in around 1893, before the Field proposal & before Ward's lawsuits, fait accompli.according to MrD's link, it has even expanded seven times., not even sure if that includes the current expansion.

[wrabbit]

^ There you've got me. Mr D, any idea of how the museum was able to expand post Ward? Does the museum own the land outright, or have their expansions perhaps been over the old rail lines only?

[Mr Downtown]

The Art Institute was under construction as Ward's lawsuit proceeded, but to forestall challenges under the city's charter, they got consent from the Michigan Avenue property owners (one woman's husband signed for her, which was accepted in those days).

In 1931 it was ruled that the original permission for the Art Institute included the right to build future extensions, so long as they didn't extend north of Monroe, south of Jackson, west of the current frontage, east of West (Columbus) drive; or rise any higher than the 1892 building ("excepting ornament, pinnacles or flagpoles"). Stevens Hotel Co. v. Art Institute of Chicago, 260 Ill. App. 555 (1931).

[Loopy]

Edit: Mr D beat me to it.

[wrabbit]

^ Thank you, Mr. D, and thanks for the links to the Ward cases, etc.

My understanding from a quick read of the last Ward decision & of Paepcke is that the original dedication of Grant Park established a private cause of action for adjacent property owners to enforce the dedication's building prohibition - so, in the case of the Art Institute, these property owners signed off on its erection (lol) and expansion. However, in the case of the Children's Museum, these property owners did not sign off; the question then becomes whether or not the museum is a prohibited "building" (subterranean, skylights as sculpture, etc.)

The question of a government taking for public use would not apply here because of the language of the dedication prohibiting structures absent approval from the adjacent property owners; although even here Paepcke suggests that a private fee-charging museum might not be a public use.

I'm guessing that the Children's Museum proposal will be litigated all the way up to the state SC; it'll be interesting to see what the arguments are.

[BVictor1]

^ Thank you, Mr. D, and thanks for the links to the Ward cases, etc.

My understanding from a quick read of the last Ward decision & of Paepcke is that the original dedication of Grant Park established a private cause of action for adjacent property owners to enforce the dedication's building prohibition - so, in the case of the Art Institute, these property owners signed off on its erection (lol) and expansion. However, in the case of the Children's Museum, these property owners did not sign off; the question then becomes whether or not the museum is a prohibited "building" (subterranean, skylights as sculpture, etc.)

The question of public use would not apply here because of the language of the dedication prohibiting structures absent approval from the adjacent property owners; although even here Paepcke suggests that a private fee-charging museum might not be a public use either.


Did property owners have to sign off on the construction of the Music & Dance Theatre?

Also if people are going to justify not constructing this museum "underground", then I propose we implode the Monroe Street parking garage and the Daily-Bi Fieldhouse, pour fill into the void and landscape it.

[Mr Downtown]

Without going back and looking over the cases carefully, I think the "free admission" stuff is really applicable only to the Art Institute, and is beside the point for other structures.

Childrens Museum advocates will claim that the new building falls within the subterranean exception that allowed the parking garages (I think Park Grill is also claimed to be subterranean). They will also make what lawyers call a laches claim: that by not objecting to the Buckingham pavilions, Daley Bi, Harris/Pritzker, Park Grill, etc., the Michigan Avenue property owners have now forfeited their right to protest. However, I think Illinois caselaw would allow a laches argument to be easily disposed of if museum opponents file a lawsuit before construction begins.

[wrabbit]

Did property owners have to sign off on the construction of the Music & Dance Theatre?.....

I'm assuming that they just didn't contest these. Does this imply consent? I dunno.

(edit: Mr. D has answered above.)

[cbotnyse]

can someone please post pictures of the proposal? I cant seem to find them anywhere. thanks. (preferably a link too)

[ethereal_reality]

Krueck + Sexton Architects
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/3171/1childrensmuseumplan200pc4.jpg

At least there would be a 'true' destination for the BP Bridge.
Right now...people walk across..... stop....look at each other baffled...
...and then turn around and walk back.

Daily Bi is without a doubt the worst thing in Grant Park (it's depressing)

Everyone can hate me now...but I think this is a perfect spot
for a Children's Museum.

[wrabbit]

^Wow - I'd forgotten how interesting (and prominent) those skylights are. Thanks for posting.

.....At least there would be a 'true' destination for the BP Bridge. Right now...people walk across..... stop....look at each other baffled...
...and then turn around and walk back."

LOL - right; there's no there there. This is one of the city's arguments for placing the museum at this site - that it gives visitors to the serpentine bridge a destination at the other end of MP. Although it is still a bit of a schlep.


.....Everyone can hate me now...but I think this is a perfect spot for a Children's Museum.

Seems to be three different (though related) threads of argument here on the board: 1) The museum is or isn't a good idea for this site; 2) The design is or isn't successful; 3) The museum and design are or aren't permissible for Grant Park.

[honte]

Come on, let's leave the legal and political arguments for other threads. Instead, let's focus on the architecture and planning...


How can you divorce the two? Sounds like architecture in a vacuum to me... the kind of architecture that ignores the interests of people and the law and just does whatever it pleases. No thank you. [Edit - wow, Nowhereman took these ideas right out of my mouth - I didn't see this whole page of stuff prior to writing.]


Honte, Mr. Downtown was incorrect. The site is VERY accessible to public transit....it's two blocks from the Loop! - the most accessible place in the entire metropolitan area.


I know the area well. After his comment, I starting thinking that a site nearer to an elevated station would be best. I could switch my opinion on that one... have to think about it more.


So which is it? Will the CCM destroy the park? or will it have such low visibility as you suggest that no one will even know it's there? Does the location suffer from low traffic (underutlization) as you suggest? or, will it become absolutely overrun by outsiders as the NIMBYs fear?


As you say, let's leave the politics out of it. I don't believe that the NIMBYs fear "outsiders" and I am surprised you buy into that Daley BS.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the museum will be downplayed to the point that it fails as a building to attact people, or it will hurt Grant Park. I do not believe there is a happy medium, despite the talent of the architectural firm. That's all there is to it - no contraditions or wavering in my statements.



Another site would be better? Well, be specific, which one? All of the suggestions by the alderman can be compared one-by-one, and all fail to reach the potential of East Randolph.


There are literally thousands of sites in Chicago. Finding one that meets all of the museum's needs and maximizes the city's gain would take a serious investigation, which I am not prepared to undertake. The only of Reilly's suggestions that pleased me (I think this was on his list) was Pritzker "park" (AKA Pritzker fenced-off and unimproved patch of dirt), which would be right on State, adjacent to all of Chicago's train lines, publicly owned, and ultra-visible.

Other sites that come to mind right away would be many vacant lots along the Eisenhower, in a location where the museum could really benefit its surroundings and also get plenty of traffic. Are you going to find another site that has an underground city garage right next to it? No, but I don't think that should be the only consideration here. The Childrens' Museum folks accuse the neighbors of being racist, but I wonder if they'd really consider setting up their shop in a minority neighborhood. Really, give that some thought.



Others share your opinion of Daley Bi? Who? I have taught at IIT and UIC, led the AIA Design Committee, have worked with Landmarks, etc., etc., and I know of no one involved with any of those institutions who has ever considered it of any historical value. Honte, you seriously risk losing all credibility when you fight to save every modern work regardless of its intrinsic value.

Do you expect me to drag real-life people into an anonymous forum? That's unfair. You can either accept my statement or not. I also know people at all of the institutions you mention, and I really wouldn't expect any of those people to care about it, to tell you the truth.

However, be very careful about your allegations. I have been letting them slide until now, but I have to call you on it. I never have said that Daley Bi was a "landmark," and I have never "fought" to save it. I think it's a respectable piece of design and one that should be considered as a relatively rare breed of design in this city before being tossed. I also think that the K+S plan is a mistake, so yes, I prefer the existing plaza and fieldhouse.

[honte]

LOL - right; there's no there there. This is one of the city's arguments for placing the museum at this site - that it gives visitors to the serpentine bridge a destination at the other end of MP. Although it is still a bit of a schlep.


Yeah, don't you love that? Spend millions of dollars on a bridge, then think... "Wait a second, when you get to the other side it sure doesn't feel like there was any point to this... let's build a new building!"

[pilsenarch]

^Look, Honte....yours and Nowhereman's rhetoric is getting a little out of control. I have designed city blocks in downtown Chicago, it is absurd to be accusing me of not understanding architecture and how it gets built. I would suggest we refrain from the personal attacks.

As far as whether your consider it a 'landmark' or not, I'm not sure what readers are meant to assume from your comments otherwise (particularly considering your byline says exactly that).

[wrabbit]

Here is the image of the 5640 Sheridan development, which VivaLFuego mentioned here a while back. It would replace a rather nondescript foursquare.

Kitschy enough to be kool?

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7075/5640sheridanxq3.jpg

Nah - just not kitschy enough. But the price points are good.

[VivaLFuego]

I'm sorry to hear Reilly pilloried for an actual principled decision. To me, it's noteworthy that he didn't say "my constituents oppose it." He publicly said, "I've read the four Ward decisions, and they make clear that this is forbidden."


This is the idiocy that ensures when you let lawyers make decisions they aren't qualified to make. This isn't an argument about case law, or at least it shouldn't be. I'm somewhat indifferent/undecided on the merits of this location vs. others, but Reilly's interpretation as alderman of past legal cases shouldn't be a deciding factor in the merits of this site. I think honte and pilarch have both raised some decent arguments; all the Ward and 1838-plat mumbojumbo seem very irrelevant for this particular case.

Sorry, I just hate to pass up an opportunity to try to put down that miserable hack of an alderman. Something about that particular weasel-lawyer makes my skin crawl even more than his neighbor Phony Phioretti.

[VivaLFuego]

Here is the image of the 5640 Sheridan development, which VivaLFuego mentioned here a while back. It would replace a rather nondescript foursquare.

Kitschy enough to be kool?

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7075/5640sheridanxq3.jpg

So-so. Happy about the density bump. The foursquare as you say is fairly non-descript, so I don't think there's much architectural loss to bemoan. My main concern with this building aesthetically, when I was looking at the site, was how the front setback of the new building will work in the context of its neighbors. It's an odd context if I remember correctly, with one neighbor set quite far back and another basically built to the lot-line, so the facade and side treatments could end up being important visually.

Of course, if it ends up being a total dog, it's not like it'll be the first in this boom in this town, and again, getting the bump of 20-some more units ain't a bad thing.