[the urban politician]

Seriously, though, guys. The city has a stipulation that a certain percentage (60% is it?) of Block 37's retail must be of the non-chain variety.

I wouldn't worry

[ardecila]

I suppose Dick's could use some sliding thermal-glass doors, instead of garage doors. I mean, most garage doors leak heat like a sieve - I can't imagine glass doors would be much worse.

[budman]

There is really no way to view Dairy Queen and Dicks Last Resort as desireable options in their respective locations. They may be considered acceptable under the circumstances (ice cream for the masses, a cheap cartoonish saloon with fatty food), but they are really nothing more than space fillers. Nothing unique or interesting about either. At least dairy queen will be puny and may go unnoticed. Dicks last resort will go out of its way to obnoxiously intrude into the character of its surroundings. It is planet hollywood and the rain forest cafe for drunk suburbanites on the river. But a developer has a right to make money...if Reilly would put as much effort into this sort of development as he does into nixing highrises, we might be ok.

[Marcu]

^re dick's: A city is not a museum. Complaining about a few loud drunk suburbanites (who coincidently are paying the 11.25% business district sales tax and funding city services) is really no different than nimbys complaining about having their views blocked or having retail and residential mixed in with their residential neighborhood. And in any case, the riverwalk area can definetly use some excitement. Right now most of it is ghost town after 9 pm. Especially on the Loop side. At least the drunks listening to Jimmy Buffett will be heard from blocks away and make the area seem less dead. It's not my type of establishment, but so long as they don't butcher the building, I'm all for it.

[Mr Downtown]

Not sure why so much chatter about DQ. There's one at Thompson Center and one at Union Station/200 South Riverside. Used to be one in the Brunswick Bldg pedway. Will there be so much discussion if B37 includes a Starbucks?

Now Burger King--that I miss. The only one left downtown is at Thompson Center.

[cbotnyse]

Not sure why so much chatter about DQ. There's one at Thompson Center and one at Union Station/200 South Riverside. Used to be one in the Brunswick Bldg pedway.Thats not the point. There are some here who want B37 to become a world class development. There is nothing wrong with DQ, it just doesnt scream "world class" to me.

[aic4ever]

Not sure why so much chatter about DQ. There's one at Thompson Center and one at Union Station/200 South Riverside. Used to be one in the Brunswick Bldg pedway. Will there be so much discussion if B37 includes a Starbucks?

Now Burger King--that I miss. The only one left downtown is at Thompson Center.

Probably one per floor...:cool:

[aic4ever]

Thats not the point. There are some here who want B37 to become a world class development. There is nothing wrong with DQ, it just doesnt scream "world class" to me.

What constitutes Block 37 becoming a world class development? The point of the building is that it will become a transportation and commercial hub for the city. How are you going to populate the offices of that building with a vast majority of lower middle class people; secretaries, interns, young new hires right out of school and the like, who are making less than $40,000, as well as use it as a hub for shuffling the masses who take the train to work, and not furnish the building with food they can afford? Dairy Queen has better food, and far better ice cream to be sure, than McDonald's or Burger King or Arby's, which, save for BK, are all nearby the general area. I personally prefer the Mr. Sub on Jackson, just west of State, and would love to see one of those in Block 37, though I doubt it will happen.

Either way, from an economical standpoint, anybody who thinks Block 37 can be a "world class" development, and NOT contain food service like Dairy Queen or McDonald's or BK or Arby's or Subway or Jimmy Johns or Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts is fooling themself.

[Steely Dan]

This is why Marina City really ought to be landmarked. Then you would have some oversight as to what alterations get done. There would be a process for establishing what is contributing (granted, a somewhat flawed process, but far better than nothing), and if people disagreed with the decisions of this body, there would be a process to voice dissent.

As it stands now, anything could happen and compromises must be fought on the street. It's not pleasant and typically doesn't yield an ideal outcome.

I have a feeling that in this case, the Commission probably would allow the storefront to be recessed, but only if the alterations were in keeping with the original aesthetic. It seems most of the non-NIMBY opposition would wither away if they agreed to do this.


i absolutely agree that landmarking would be a good thing for MC in general, and i would support that process as a condo owner in the complex.

however, i do not support pushing through a landmark designation for the sole attempt of trying to stop a certain commercial establishment from setting up shop in the building. the grumpy old snobs who want to block DLR have now confusingly intertwined the two issues and have probably hurt the cause to get MC landmarked more than they have helped.







^re dick's: A city is not a museum. Complaining about a few loud drunk suburbanites (who coincidently are paying the 11.25% business district sales tax and funding city services) is really no different than nimbys complaining about having their views blocked or having retail and residential mixed in with their residential neighborhood. And in any case, the riverwalk area can definetly use some excitement. Right now most of it is ghost town after 9 pm. Especially on the Loop side. At least the drunks listening to Jimmy Buffett will be heard from blocks away and make the area seem less dead. It's not my type of establishment, but so long as they don't butcher the building, I'm all for it.

AMEN!

all the snobs whining about how awful DLR will be in its new location need to realize that chicago does not exist solely to please them. it's a metropolis closing in on 10 million people and tens of thousands of tourists & visitors on any given day, and if chicago is to succeed it needs to have a wide diversity of offerings for all tastes, ESPECIALLY in the downtown area. if you don't like DLR, then don't go there, it's just that simple.

[honte]

i absolutely agree that landmarking would be a good thing for MC in general, and i would support that process as a condo owner in the complex.

however, i do not support pushing through a landmark designation for the sole attempt of trying to stop a certain commercial establishment from setting up shop in the building. the grumpy old snobs who want to block DLR have now confusingly intertwined the two issues and have probably hurt the cause to get MC landmarked more than they have helped.



You are right that NIMBYs can cheapen landmarking by latching on to it for their own uses. However, unfortunately, sometimes you need a straw to break the camel's back to get the ball rolling.

[cbotnyse]

What constitutes Block 37 becoming a world class development? The point of the building is that it will become a transportation and commercial hub for the city. How are you going to populate the offices of that building with a vast majority of lower middle class people; secretaries, interns, young new hires right out of school and the like, who are making less than $40,000, as well as use it as a hub for shuffling the masses who take the train to work, and not furnish the building with food they can afford? Dairy Queen has better food, and far better ice cream to be sure, than McDonald's or Burger King or Arby's, which, save for BK, are all nearby the general area. I personally prefer the Mr. Sub on Jackson, just west of State, and would love to see one of those in Block 37, though I doubt it will happen.

Either way, from an economical standpoint, anybody who thinks Block 37 can be a "world class" development, and NOT contain food service like Dairy Queen or McDonald's or BK or Arby's or Subway or Jimmy Johns or Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts is fooling themself.economical standpoint? bullshit. who said this building will be populated with lower middle class? This will house condos, a hotel and offices for CBS, all of which will not be "lower middle class." And the CTA hub will be express to the airports, meaning it will be full of tourists and business travelers. Forgive me for thinking we can do better than throwing low end fast food joints in the place.

[ginsan2]

Would it really be so bad even if it was for "lower middle class"? It's good to have those people in the city instead of the surrounding metropolitan area: they can get what they need and in many cases don't have to rely on city taxes to fund other necessities. It's easier for people not making a ton of money but putting something very important back into the economy.

Frankly Chicago's done a great job of keeping middle class and those unsightly "lower middle class folk" in the city, and it's only beneficial.

[Steely Dan]

However, unfortunately, sometimes you need a straw to break the camel's back to get the ball rolling.
you also can make a lot of enemies in that process when the selfish motivations are as transparent as they are in this case. i'm all for making DLR's move into MC as sensitive as possible while still working with their desire for outdoor dining, but that's not what the people behind this landmark petition seek, they only wish to put up any and every road block they can think of to keep the DLR riff-raff away from "their" precious marina city complex. i simply cannot ally myself with such grumpy old snobs, even if some of our goals may overlap.

[budman]

^re dick's: A city is not a museum. Complaining about a few loud drunk suburbanites (who coincidently are paying the 11.25% business district sales tax and funding city services) is really no different than nimbys complaining about having their views blocked or having retail and residential mixed in with their residential neighborhood. And in any case, the riverwalk area can definetly use some excitement. Right now most of it is ghost town after 9 pm. Especially on the Loop side. At least the drunks listening to Jimmy Buffett will be heard from blocks away and make the area seem less dead. It's not my type of establishment, but so long as they don't butcher the building, I'm all for it.
^That is why I said it is "acceptable under the circumstances". DLR is better than nothing in that space (as steely points out), but not as good as other alternatives. I can get drunk with the best of them, but turning the river into disneyland for suburbanites is not my personal view of what we can or should do in that location. It's really the cartoonish signage, and ridiculous schtick, not the pricing or menu, that gets me. The nimby analogy is ludicrous by the way. I just dont like DLR, anywhere, period...doesnt matter if it is in your backyard or mine. If pricing and menu are what we are looking for, there are plenty of good old irish bars or italian joints based in Chicago that could be developed in that location...the Chicago River should be an international attraction, and further Chicago's place in the global mindset. Dicks Last Resort simply doesnt do that, and in fact does the opposite. I doubt that Daley will be putting it in his Olympic video in order to woo the IOC to bring the Olympics here, and I just think it is embarrasing to have DLR on the River. But, once again, DLR is better than empty space, and I have no doubt that I will have a few beers there in the summertime, since my buddy docks his boat in the marina directly underneath it:haha:

[Steely Dan]

^ i'm sure mayor daley will soon be setting up a special commission headed by budman to determine which dining/drinking establishments are acceptable for chicago, and which ones shouldn't be allowed here.

it's a city, full of millions of citizens and thousands of tourists. places like DLR serve a niche and i don't see how anyone could be upset about the fact that a tourist bar & grill wants to exist in this city, but i suppose the grumpy malcontents of our society can find a reason to get upset about anything.

[intrepidDesign]

... I can get drunk with the best of them, but turning the river into disneyland for suburbanites is not my personal view of what we can or should do in that location...

This is the second time you have mentioned suburbanites as a problem. What's the deal? Seems like you like to throw everyone who doesn't live downtown into a specific category of people that you would rather have stay out of "your" city. I can tell you for certain that those suburbanites that you seem to despise are a vital source of revenue to downtown and no doubt take just as much pride in Chicago as you do. Get off the high horse and have a pint. :cheers:

[Steely Dan]

^ yes, i find the elitism to be more than a little off-putting as well............. and i'm a downtown resident!

[cbotnyse]

^ yes, i find the elitism to be more than a little off-putting as well............. and i'm a downtown resident!I agree with budman, but I dont think he is being an elitist. I think special locations, specifically like B37 and MC, deserve better establishments. Like he said, there are plenty of mid priced places that can go there that arent as gimikey, or Disneyland-like as DLR.

Its along the lines of Planet Hollywood or Hard Rock Cafe. Those are fine clustered over on Ontario, but the river walk and B37 should be a step up.

[Taft]

I *hate* the word elitist. Because someone has a subjective opinion about a type of establishment, they are elitist? Well, you can pretty much lump every member of the board into that group, I guess, as almost everyone here posit opinions on just about every design, retail opening, etc. that comes past these forums.

And is it really a stretch to think that the average customer of a DLR, Rainforest Cafe or Hard Rock Cafe is a tourist or suburbanite? Call me an elitist, I guess, cause every time I walk past one of these joints it is hopping with 'em. Meh.

Anyway, for me--and I suspect a lot of people here--the issue breaks down like this:

1) I am a generally a supporter of free-market principles regarding which businesses open where.
2) Faced with the choice between empty retail and DLR, I'd choose DLR.
3) I really want to see the integrity of Marina City left intact (whatever integrity is left after S & W was tacked on, that is).
4) DLR is loud, drunken, tacky and garish...none of which scream "Marina City" to me.
5) Isn't there a surface lot somewhere in River North which would fit DLR's clientelle more suitably?
5) I really don't like DLR. (surprise, surprise)

So count me with budman: it could be much worse than DLR, but it could be much, much better, too. Given such a high profile location, I would hope for better, thought I acknowledge my rightful inability to do anything about it.

Taft

[Steely Dan]

I agree with budman, but I dont think he is being an elitist.
oh, so railing against all those pesky suburbanites who wish to utilize "his" downtown isn't elitist? you and i must own two entirely different dictionaries.




I think special locations, specifically like B37 and MC, deserve better establishments.
why would marina city deserve better establishments? marina city is low-rent, perhaps one of the lowest rent condo developments in all of downtown, after all, how do you think a low-rent schmuck like me can afford to live here? ;)





Like he said, there are plenty of mid priced places that can go there that arent as gimikey, or Disneyland-like as DLR.

and yet none of those other fine establishments were interested in ponying up the rent money to lease the retail space overlooking the river. DLR was, and being that we live in a free-market, they are the ones who get the privilege to operate a bar and restaurant overlooking the river at that location.

[cbotnyse]

oh, so railing against all those pesky suburbanites who wish to utilize "his" downtown isn't elitist? you and i must own two entirely different dictionaries.well I have no problem with suburbanites, so I dont agree with that, but his point was not having something so gimikey right on the river.
and yet none of those other fine establishments were interested in ponying up the rent money to lease the retail space overlooking the river. DLR was, and being that we live in a free-market, they are the ones who get the privilege to operate a bar and restaurant overlooking the river at that location.free market indeed. I still think a Portillios would be the best fit. There is no better low priced food on the planet.

[honte]

I *hate* the word elitist. ...


Well said, Taft!

you also can make a lot of enemies in that process when the selfish motivations are as transparent as they are in this case. i'm all for making DLR's move into MC as sensitive as possible while still working with their desire for outdoor dining, but that's not what the people behind this landmark petition seek, they only wish to put up any and every road block they can think of to keep the DLR riff-raff away from "their" precious marina city complex. i simply cannot ally myself with such grumpy old snobs, even if some of our goals may overlap.

Sure, I understand your point. The "camel" I was referring to is the city - Alderman and the Commission. With a substantial number of people voicing concerns about landmarking, whatever their reason, it might be enough to convince the Alderman to pursue it. It also might be enough to convince the Commission that there is enough support to make for smooth sailing.

At this point, the City would approach you, and it of course would not be a DLR issue at that point. Your choice would be landmark or not. Hopefully a majority would go for it, for all of the different reasons this makes sense (greedy people who just want the tax break, NIMBY types, old fuddy duddies, concerned citizens like yourself, and so on).

So, my interest is perked on this issue for these reasons. People have been suggesting Marina City as a landmark for decades, and I have good reason to believe the Commission would consider it very rapidly if it were clear that it would have suitable owner consent.

[Steely Dan]

and I have good reason to believe the Commission would consider it very rapidly if it were clear that it would have suitable owner consent.
there will never be owner consent for landmarking of MC, because there are too many different "owners" of MC. the condo association strictly owns just the residential floors in the two towers. the parking levels, the hotel, the theater, the other commercial spaces are all owned by other entities that are entirely independent of the marina towers condo association. with the often competing interests between these entities, you will never build a consensus amongst the "owners" of the marina city complex to apply for landmark status of the complex. add to that a written agreement that MTCA made with the commercial property owner back in the financially-strapped 90s about never supporting a landmarking of MC, and you have a situation where owner endorsement of landmarking the property is simply not going to happen.

if marina city is to ever be landmarked (as i feel it should), the designation will have to be imposed from the outside by the government.







free market indeed. I still think a Portillios would be the best fit. There is no better low priced food on the planet.
i won't argue with that. i LOVE portillo's, though it's probably a good thing that i have to walk 6 blocks to get some of their beef when the craving strikes ;)

[aic4ever]

economical standpoint? bullshit. who said this building will be populated with lower middle class? This will house condos, a hotel and offices for CBS, all of which will not be "lower middle class." And the CTA hub will be express to the airports, meaning it will be full of tourists and business travelers. Forgive me for thinking we can do better than throwing low end fast food joints in the place.

You're digging your own grave here. Who do you think the vast majority of that hotel's workers will be made up of? Maids, bellhops, desk people, maintenance workers. I don't care if they dump the most expensive hotel on the planet in there, those people will be paid no more than their position warrants.

Offices for CBS? So all of the secretaries and (possibly unpaid) interns and mid level accounting people are going to be carrying the fine dining establishments you would somehow prefer to see in this place? The money flows both ways. A high end restaurant going in there needs to know it's going into a place where it can draw the money crowd it needs all the time. If I'm a money guy, I'm sorry but I'm going to Italian Village or the Grillroom or Rhapsody or Russian Tea Time or Lloyds, specifically because it's NOT in a big megaplex like Block 37. I'm trying to get away from a hord of people. Can a higher end restaurant work in there? Of course. But you're not going to be carrying the day with all high end stuff in a place where you're moving that many people through there on a daily basis. Aside from the majority of people not affording it monetarily, the people who can afford the cost, your business travelers for instance, more than likely won't be able to afford the time. When I've had to travel for work, I've barely stopped moving from the time I leave to the time I get home, let alone sit down for a meal that takes over an hour.

From a developer's standpoint, there is no better to be done than putting a McDonald's or a Subway or a Burger King or one of the Yum brands in there, because those are the tenants that are going to carry the strongest national credit possible, meaning they are all but guaranteed to be in their 15 year lease for every one of those 15 years. Similarly, those chains are going to be attracted to the spot because of the sheer mass of people moving through therem, so they're going to be willing to pay the per square foot premium the developer needs/wants out of the food service areas.

To take it a step further, higher end restaurants are typically Dinner destinations. Save for weekends, the Loop basically shuts down completely after 6:00. The aforementioned higher end restaurants are the exception, along with Berghoff and the places up and down Wabash that have bars in them, and really don't draw great business for dinner time save for the weekend anyway.

So yes, it is economics, every step of the way.

[budman]

I may be a hypocrite, but I am certainly neither elitist nor anti-suburbanite:). But like it or not, it is usually (USUALLY) suburbanites who frequent places with the cartoonish signage like DLR, Planet Hollywood, Rain Forest Cafe, etc., so I was merely describing the likely patrons at DLR. Once again, it is better than nothing. And, once again, I will probably go there myself (there is the hypocrite). And, once again one more time, I think we would be better served with a more traditional type of Chicago style venue, and I wouldnt even object if a few suburbanites stopped by to drop some cash and maybe even their pants after a few too many beers. If Daley asked me to advise him on what should go in the video, you are right, I would steer the camera away from DLR. And if you want the olympics here, so would you.
Let's not take this too seriously folks, it is no sin to find Dicks Last Resort to be tacky, or to believe that there are better spots for it than along the river. If I hurt anyone's feelings with my opinion, I apologize.

[honte]

there will never be owner consent for landmarking of MC, because there are too many different "owners" of MC. the condo association strictly owns just the residential floors in the two towers. the parking levels, the hotel, the theater, the other commercial spaces are all owned by other entities that are entirely independent of the marina towers condo association. with the often competing interests between these entities, you will never build a consensus amongst the "owners" of the marina city complex to apply for landmark status of the complex. add to that a written agreement that MTCA made with the commercial property owner back in the financially-strapped 90s about never supporting a landmarking of MC, and you have a situation where owner endorsement of landmarking the property is simply not going to happen.

if marina city is to ever be landmarked (as i feel it should), the designation will have to be imposed from the outside by the government.


Thanks for that info, very interesting. I was not aware of the agreement, which is a shame.

In any case, you are right, in Chicago we do not need owner consent to landmark buildings. It does make things more complex and cumbersome though to act without it.

I still do believe that if a substantial number of owners were supportive, even if the condo board did not endorse the plan in the form of a motion, it would help the cause.

[Steely Dan]

I still do believe that if a substantial number of owners were supportive, even if the condo board did not endorse the plan in the form of a motion, it would help the cause.
of course individual unit owners endorsing landmark designation would help the cause, but i'm not going to join up with the anti-fun, knocking-on-heaven's-door, elitist, snob, douche bags who seek landmarking only as a last ditch effort to block the dreaded DLR from setting up shop in "their" complex. those people don't give two rat shits about landmarking MC, they only care about keeping DLR out, and for that, i am diametrically opposed to them and everything they stand for. call me petty and small, but motivations matter to me.

[cbotnyse]

You're digging your own grave here. Who do you think the vast majority of that hotel's workers will be made up of? Maids, bellhops, desk people, maintenance workers. I don't care if they dump the most expensive hotel on the planet in there, those people will be paid no more than their position warrants.digging my own grave? what the hell are you talking about?

North Michigan Ave has the highest concentration of upscale condos and hotels, so why aren't there tons of fast food places surrounding them to feed all of their poor workers? your reasoning makes no sense.

To take it a step further, higher end restaurants are typically Dinner destinations. Save for weekends, the Loop basically shuts down completely after 6:00.so you want to encourage that by putting in fast food that close at 6pm? :haha: GMAFB

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Again, not sure if I should post or just link to it. This is my second reference to their blog and I don't want to come across as a YoChicago hack because I hate Joe Zekas; but, did anyone else catch this seven-unit building (http://yochicago.com/today/new-condos/new-to-the-market-946-950-w-cullerton-st_6929/) in Pilsen? It's impressive especially in light of the architect Studio D's typical modus operandi (http://www.studiodllc.net/gallery.htm).

[honte]

Again, not sure if I should post or just link to it. This is my second reference to their blog and I don't want to come across as a YoChicago hack because I hate Joe Zekas; but, did anyone else catch this seven-unit building (http://yochicago.com/today/new-condos/new-to-the-market-946-950-w-cullerton-st_6929/) in Pilsen? It's impressive especially in light of the architect Studio D's typical modus operandi (http://www.studiodllc.net/gallery.htm).

Thanks for the link. I am 100% ok with developments like this. :tup: The architecture fails in some places, but it's interesting enough to make up for that.

those people don't give two rat shits about landmarking MC, they only care about keeping DLR out, and for that, i am diametrically opposed to them and everything they stand for. call me petty and small, but motivations matter to me.

No, I don't think you are petty. I understand and I also take the underlying motives into account before I support something. Hopefully in the future you will have an option of supporting something that you can endorse. Or, do an end run around the idiots and start a real preservation campaign.

[aic4ever]

digging my own grave? what the hell are you talking about?

North Michigan Ave has the highest concentration of upscale condos and hotels, so why aren't there tons of fast food places surrounding them to feed all of their poor workers? your reasoning makes no sense.

North Michigan Avenue is not the Loop. North Michigan Avenue, and the Gold Coast is where the big money in this city has been forever. While there might not be major fast food directly on Michigan, there is really NO food directly on Michigan. Everywhere to eat is just west of Michigan, or in the case of the ever upscale TGI Fridays, just east, and to put it in perspective for you, the busy Red Line stop at Chicago is immediately fronted by a McDonalds, a Seattle's Best coffee, and a Jimmy Johns, among other hole in the wall hot dog and mexican joints.

I worked two blocks away from where Block 37 is being built for five years. The Loop is a ghost town after six on weekdays, and on weekends. You are hard pressed to find anything open at all on a Sunday.

so you want to encourage that by putting in fast food that closes at 6pm? :haha: GMAFB

I'm not telling you that I'm encouraging more fast food, or the continuing desertion of the Loop after six. I'm telling you what the facts are, that you seem disinclined to care about. Would I welcome a new, more upscale spot in the building? Of course. I'm telling you that from an economic standpoint, the market is not there to support a gathering of ONLY upscale spots, and it doesn't make sense that the developer would try to force something like that to happen, when it's flat out not going to. You're going to see fast food in there, whether you like it or not, and it's going to be a hell of a lot more prevalent than any higher end places.

[cbotnyse]

^^aic, you're missing my point. I never said upscale or fine dining. Anything above fast food is what I'd rather see.

Dont try and convince me that location cant support mid priced dining options. That is a joke. If there was something along the lines of a TGI Friday's, a Goose Island, maybe a sushi place, more Loop and River North residents would go there during the week. A DQ and McDonalds certainly wouldn't encourage that.

[Steely Dan]

^ ooooooooh, goose island at B37 would be fantastic, and with their clyborn brew-pub closing..........

[BWChicago]

North Michigan Avenue is not the Loop. North Michigan Avenue, and the Gold Coast is where the big money in this city has been forever.

This isn't really true. Money only started flowing that way in the 1920s after the Wrigley building (remember it used to be Pine Street north of the river), and North Michigan didn't get going as an elite shopping district until Arthur Rubloff started aggressively promoting it. Before Wrigley and the Michigan Avenue bridge and decking the streets, it was industrial and working-class. When you start getting up by Oak Street and LSD that's more of a historically upscale district, but not really 'forever', it was the South Side that was the earlier big money area, until Potter Palmer built his castle.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

...probably old news, but featured in the last issue of Dwell.

Solid Gold
Story by Geoff Manaugh / Photos by Doug Fogelson/DRFP

When it comes to material originality,this former tavern in Chicago’s trendy Bucktown neighborhood pulls out all the stops. Case in point? Colorful pieces of broken LPs are visible in the glass aggregate flooring of the upstairs master bathroom—-which the architects made from the pulverized remains of old vinyl records...

http://www.dwell.com/homes/green/15374186.html

[Mojava]

While there might not be major fast food directly on Michigan, there is really NO food directly on Michigan.

Bandera, Grand Luxe, and Cheese Cake Factory just to name a few

[ardecila]

Rosa Mexicano has signed a lease at B37 (3rd floor, I think, if anybody's looked at the leasing diagrams). It's a small chain of upscale restaurants with 6 locations in urban neighborhoods in major East Coast cities. I visited one in Atlanta a few weeks ago, it was pretty good. They should take quite a bit of square footage, and they will draw people upstairs. Lettuce Entertain You has also signed a lease for a space, but I they haven't released the restaurant concept yet.

It's these kinds of establishments that I would like to see in B37, but by no means can all the square footage in the building be filled with such upscale tenants. Mills was the original developer, and what did we get? Surprise, surprise - a suburban mall, only it's not surrounded by parking and it's a bit more compact. But the retail spaces are still set up the same way, which means that stores which thrive in suburban enclosed malls will also be looking at B37 spaces.

[wrabbit]

Grant Park museum foes criticize liquor request
Supporters say item in zoning application is routine

Tribune staff report
7:30 PM CDT, April 16, 2008
Critics of the proposed move of the Children's Museum to Grant Park called attention Wednesday to a provision in the museum's zoning application that would allow liquor to be sold on the premises.

The provision refers to a specific area in the structure where the Children's Museum would be able to operate restaurants.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-childrens-museum-liquor_17apr17,0,5599686.story

[sammyg]

a suburban mall, only it's not surrounded by parking and it's a bit more compact. But the retail spaces are still set up the same way, which means that stores which thrive in suburban enclosed malls will also be looking at B37 spaces.

Well, there's already an Old Navy and Loehmanns right there, how much worse could it get?

Though if Hot Topic and Spencers are the first thing people see getting off the O'hare express, that won't be a great intro to the loop.

[the urban politician]

I've got a very very very easy solution to everybody's concern about Chicago's demand for cheap eats downtown.

STREET FRIGGIN VENDORS. I know you're sick of it, but it's THE answer.

If Chicago had more street vendors, less retail space would need to be wasted on crap like Burger King, Wendy's, and (now) Dairy Queen.

I stand by this position more than ever given my experiences over the years, and when I move to Chicago, I'll pitch it personally before City Council.

[Via Chicago]

...probably old news, but featured in the last issue of Dwell.

i think it was featured on Chicago Tonight yesterday. cool pad

[VivaLFuego]

I've got a very very very easy solution to everybody's concern about Chicago's demand for cheap eats downtown.

STREET FRIGGIN VENDORS. I know you're sick of it, but it's THE answer.

If Chicago had more street vendors, less retail space would need to be wasted on crap like Burger King, Wendy's, and (now) Dairy Queen.

I stand by this position more than ever given my experiences over the years, and when I move to Chicago, I'll pitch it personally before City Council.

A-friggin'-men, but you better believe there will be some powerful interests lined up against allowing it.

[ardecila]

Well, there's already an Old Navy and Loehmanns right there, how much worse could it get?

Though if Hot Topic and Spencers are the first thing people see getting off the O'hare express, that won't be a great intro to the loop.

They're already the first things people see when getting off any of the 3 Union Pacific Metra lines (in Ogilvie).

[dagobert]

I just can't comprehend why they would oppose this, after all a soccer field is mostly grass. I guess they must be crazy NIMBYs and would like to see at least a forest preserve in the Loop and rest of CBD if not an unspoiled wild & virgin forest.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-lincoln-park-suitapr17,0,5598490.story

Residents file suit over Latin School soccer field under construction in Lincoln Park
Restraining order sought to halt construction

By Robert Mitchum and Noreen Ahmed-Ullah | Tribune reporters
10:11 PM CDT, April 16, 2008

Latin School has begun construction of a $2 million soccer field that runs next to softball fields north of La Salle Drive and just west of Lake Shore Drive. The Committee to Keep Lincoln Park Public, made up of some 20 residents opposed to the project, have filed a complaint in Cook County Circuit Court.

"This soccer field is an insult to the park, an insult to the community, and we will not stand idly by and let it happen," said Greta Lear, a spokeswoman for the group, while standing outside the construction site Wednesday afternoon.

[AdrianXSands]

I just can't comprehend why they would oppose this, after all a soccer field is mostly grass. I guess they must be crazy NIMBYs and would like to see at least a forest preserve in the Loop and rest of CBD if not an unspoiled wild & virgin forest.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-lincoln-park-suitapr17,0,5598490.story

Residents file suit over Latin School soccer field under construction in Lincoln Park
Restraining order sought to halt construction

By Robert Mitchum and Noreen Ahmed-Ullah | Tribune reporters
10:11 PM CDT, April 16, 2008

Latin School has begun construction of a $2 million soccer field that runs next to softball fields north of La Salle Drive and just west of Lake Shore Drive. The Committee to Keep Lincoln Park Public, made up of some 20 residents opposed to the project, have filed a complaint in Cook County Circuit Court.

"This soccer field is an insult to the park, an insult to the community, and we will not stand idly by and let it happen," said Greta Lear, a spokeswoman for the group, while standing outside the construction site Wednesday afternoon.

GOOD. i support this. our parks are being destroyed way too much in this town...

[Jibba]

^Same here. I was walking around Lincoln Park not too long ago and noticed a HUGE portion of the park sectioned off with fencing for some athletic field-type development (I can't recall the exact description per the signage at this point). I hope this is the construction that is mentioned in that article, because I wouldn't want even more damn soccer fields popping up every which way. One of my biggest complaints about Chicago's parks is the sheer amount of land dedicated to athletic uses and endless fields of grass. Now I am uncertain as to what is/was there that is being overtaken by the soccer field ("public meadow" sounds like it could be a euphemism for miscellaneous grasses), but the artificial turf being put in its place certainly doesn't sound like a good thing.

[honte]

GOOD. i support this. our parks are being destroyed way too much in this town...

Yes indeed. This is not NIMBYism. This is about a private institution taking over public land for its own, dedicated use. Yet another abuse of the public realm.

[aic4ever]

^^aic, you're missing my point. I never said upscale or fine dining. Anything above fast food is what I'd rather see.

Dont try and convince me that location cant support mid priced dining options. That is a joke. If there was something along the lines of a TGI Friday's, a Goose Island, maybe a sushi place, more Loop and River North residents would go there during the week. A DQ and McDonalds certainly wouldn't encourage that.

Thank you for finally defining what you were talking about. The attitude seemed to me to be "we can't have any of that low class chain crap in this development." Your argument was vague, so I kept mine vague as well, intentionally as to what defined upscale. Goose Island would be perfect in there from a restaurant standpoint (except they'd need to have their brewery in a different place), though I would think they'd still put something like a Friday's or an Chili's in there, or maybe an Olive Garden (closest one are Cicero and Skokie) or a Red Lobster (Skokie now that they're gone from the Chicago/Dearborn vicinity); something with heavy national credit, and that can still run a bigtime lunch service to keep itself alive, before you'd see Goose Island in there. But you never know.

Like I said, though, I don't doubt the location can support such restaurants, and I'd like them there too, because god knows I don't like driving 45 minutes to eat when I get the urge to go to Olive Garden, which happens sometimes, but it's a matter of which restaurants make the most sense for the space, and which ones get the developer the best return on his space.

Plus I also don't agree with you that fast food necessarily detracts from the development in general. Fast food can work so long as it's not the typical grease pit brands. There's a Pot Belly's in 900 North, for instance. Also I guess, having lived a lot of my life in Wisconsin and been exposed to them, I would personally put Dairy Queen into more of the mid-level fast food similar to Pot Belly's. They've got good sandwiches, fish, soups, etc., that are all a cut above the typical McDonald's, BK, Wendy's, etc. And they've got the best ice cream of any of them. This is obviously a matter of difference of opinion, though.

[Taft]

A-friggin'-men, but you better believe there will be some powerful interests lined up against allowing it.

Who would that be, exactly? I have heard that Daley personally dislikes street food. I guess the local restaurant association might try to stop it. Anyone else?

TUP: add me to the list of backers of street vendors.

Taft

[Mr Downtown]

If Chicago had more street vendors, less retail space would need to be wasted on crap like Burger King, Wendy's, and (now) Dairy Queen.

How does it help fill vacant retail space to siphon off demand?

[cbotnyse]

Yes indeed. This is not NIMBYism. This is about a private institution taking over public land for its own, dedicated use. Yet another abuse of the public realm.I agree. It seems the school is taking a part of the public park and claiming it as their own. We need to keep park spaces open to all.

Thank you for finally defining what you were talking about.I just hate the thought of first time visitors to Chicago getting off the train from OHare and the first thing they see is a strip mall of fast food. That is my nightmare. It sounds like it wont be too bad with a nice Mexican and Lettuce Entertain You restaurants. A DQ is not the best choice, but not the worst either, of course thats just personal taste.

[the urban politician]

How does it help fill vacant retail space to siphon off demand?

^ Where did I say anything about filling vacant retail space?

[VivaLFuego]

I guess the local restaurant association might try to stop it.

This doesn't sound like an incredibly powerful interest group to you? Especially given all the mob/political connections in the restaurant biz?

And don't forget the NIMBY/Reilly/Fioretti trifecta of stupid; street vendors would violate their vision of a pristine vertical Naperville.

[Via Chicago]

I just can't comprehend why they would oppose this, after all a soccer field is mostly grass. I guess they must be crazy NIMBYs and would like to see at least a forest preserve in the Loop and rest of CBD if not an unspoiled wild & virgin forest.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-lincoln-park-suitapr17,0,5598490.story

Residents file suit over Latin School soccer field under construction in Lincoln Park
Restraining order sought to halt construction

By Robert Mitchum and Noreen Ahmed-Ullah | Tribune reporters
10:11 PM CDT, April 16, 2008

Latin School has begun construction of a $2 million soccer field that runs next to softball fields north of La Salle Drive and just west of Lake Shore Drive. The Committee to Keep Lincoln Park Public, made up of some 20 residents opposed to the project, have filed a complaint in Cook County Circuit Court.

"This soccer field is an insult to the park, an insult to the community, and we will not stand idly by and let it happen," said Greta Lear, a spokeswoman for the group, while standing outside the construction site Wednesday afternoon.

this has nothing to do with NIMBYism..why does everyone resort to that tired cliche whenever something is opposed? it has everything to do with a private institution grabbing a piece of public land for themselves. why is this so difficult to understand. it sets a dangerous precedent: that public land can be had for a price (or with the right connections). if the latin school wants a soccer field, great! then do what every single other person/institution has to do, and purchase land themselves. i opposed this for the same reason i oppose the childrens museum in grant park.

(also fyi, the field will be astroturf not grass, but thats beside the point)

[cbotnyse]

i opposed this for the same reason i oppose the childrens museum in grant park. I do not oppose the CCM for the same reasons because the CCM will be open to all children, this field will be open to only the children of that school.

[ethereal_reality]

^^^ well said cbotnyse. :)

[Via Chicago]

I do not oppose the CCM for the same reasons because the CCM will be open to all children, this field will be open to only the children of that school.

you mean all children who can afford to pay the admission fee...

i just cant get over there are people here actually supporting giving away our public realm. These are YOUR parks. OUR parks. WE own them. WE pay for them. and no one should be able to take that land away. and yet here we are, doing exactly that without batting an eyelash. future generations are not going to look back on this period favorably...we're selling our souls ladies and gentlemen.

[cbotnyse]

you mean all children who pay the admission fee...every museum charges a fee. :shrug:

[Via Chicago]

every museum charges a fee. :shrug:

No, all museums do not charge fees. And if it does, then it has no place in a public park. Christ.

[cbotnyse]

No, all museums do not charge fees. And if it does, then it has no place in a public park. Christ.which ones dont charge a fee? what is wrong with a cultural institution for children in a public park? should parks consist of only grass and trees?

[Via Chicago]

which ones dont charge a fee? what is wrong with a cultural institution for children in a public park? should parks consist of only grass and trees?

I have no problems with buildings in parks. I have a problem with PRIVATE institutions being located there. How much clearer can I be?

Parks should not consist of forced activities charging admission fees like its Disneyworld...because eventually thats what we're going to be left with.

[cbotnyse]

I have no problems with buildings in parks. I have a problem with PRIVATE institutions being located there. How much clearer can I be?I do too, but I dont have a problem with a non-profit museum for kids, built mainly underground.

[cbotnyse]

Parks should not consist of forced activities charging admission fees like its Disneyworld...because eventually thats what we're going to be left with.comparing a museum to Disneyland is quite the strech.

[Via Chicago]

I do too, but I dont have a problem with a non-profit museum for kids, built mainly underground.

If you say so...

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/chicagochildrensmusuem/ccmatrium.jpg

And why would you want a childrens museum underground in the first place? I dont understand why people are acting like this is the only available plot of land left on the planet to relocate a museum and totally unwilling to explore alternatives which make way more sense (and will meet zero opposition to boot)

[honte]

i just cant get over there are people here actually supporting giving away our public realm. These are YOUR parks. OUR parks. WE own them. WE pay for them. and no one should be able to take that land away. and yet here we are, doing exactly that without batting an eyelash. future generations are not going to look back on this period favorably...we're selling our souls ladies and gentlemen.

*Applause*

[wrabbit]

Kamin weighs in on the proposed Chicago Children's Museum move to Grant Park:

Relocating Chicago Children’s Museum to Grant Park would wreak havoc
By Blair Kamin
April 17
As the Chicago Plan Commission gears up for a vote next month that almost surely will give the Chicago Children’s Museum a crucial endorsement in its controversial drive to relocate to Grant Park, this much is clear: The plan remains a bad marriage in the making — as bad for the museum as it would be for Grant Park.....
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2008/04/as-the-chicago.html

[VivaLFuego]

And why would you want a childrens museum underground in the first place?

Finally, a really good argument against this location. Seriously. Why should the Children's Museum be a cave? Would the new environment be that much better from a facility standpoint than the Navy Pier spot?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

every museum charges a fee. :shrug:

Then it actively discriminates against those who cannot afford it and is no longer public. An institution can be both private and not-for-profit.

[Segun]

which ones dont charge a fee?


All the Smithsonian Museums are free in DC.

[cbotnyse]

Then it actively discriminates against those who cannot afford it and is no longer public. An institution can be both private and not-for-profit.I understand that, but but I dont think museums like Field, Shed, MS&I "actively discirminates" against people because they charge a fee. Who knows what the fee will be, but I suspect every child in this city will be able to attend if they wanted to one way or another.

I am not all for the CCM being there, but I think the pros outweigh the cons.

[cbotnyse]

All the Smithsonian Museums are free in DC.I was talking about in Chicago. Should museums everywhere be free and government funded? thats another issue.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I understand that, but but I dont think museums like Field, Shed, MS&I "actively discirminates" against people because they charge a fee. Who knows what the fee will be, but I suspect every child in this city will be able to attend if they wanted to one way or another.

I am not all for the CCM being there, but I think the pros outweigh the cons.

I don't mean "discriminate" in a pejorative way but literally: people in certain economic situations are essentially barred access. While this is okay for the institutions on Museum Campus it most certainly is not for those in Grant Park for which "forever open, clear and free" couldn't be any, well, clearer; how do you legally reconcile that mandate with the cordoning off of area in a park (in its two dimensional capacity) for those who are able or wanting to pay an entrance fee? Quite obviously, you can't -- not without tacking on some kind of proviso.

If that's what you are for, then just say so: "Grant Park should remain forever open, clear and free of any buildings except in this case and this case, etc." We can debate the merits of that argument at that point, but, as it stands now, and in the context of this discussion, the law is unambiguous.

[Nowhereman1280]

North Michigan Ave has the highest concentration of upscale condos and hotels, so why aren't there tons of fast food places surrounding them to feed all of their poor workers? your reasoning makes no sense.


Again you seem to miss the difference between N. Michigan and the Loop. N. Michigan is nearly all residential, little to no office. Office and Hotel generates lots of low income jobs and people who do not have a lot of time on their hands and will probably only eat lunch during a 30-45 min break. This is not conducive to sit down restaurants. Also, Michigan Ave. is plastered with cheep dining, There are hundreds of resturants like McDonalds, Mister J's Dawg and Burger, Mike's Grill, Johnny's Grill, Jimmy Johns, (those are just the ones within a block of my front door) within a block of Michigan Ave.

When you start getting up by Oak Street and LSD that's more of a historically upscale district, but not really 'forever', it was the South Side that was the earlier big money area, until Potter Palmer built his castle.

Either way the point is that it has been a mecca for Chicago's big money for at least 100 years.

I do too, but I dont have a problem with a non-profit museum for kids, built mainly underground.

If you really think that a 150x200 yard pit lined with glass is unobtrusive in a park setting then just go right on believing that. There are such better places to put that thing, this location just sucks.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Residents file suit over Latin School soccer field under construction in Lincoln Park
Restraining order sought to halt construction

By Robert Mitchum and Noreen Ahmed-Ullah | Tribune reporters
10:11 PM CDT, April 16, 2008

The fight over a soccer field under construction in Lincoln Park moved to the courts Wednesday, as a residents group filed a lawsuit hoping to put a stop to construction.

The $2 million field, which is being funded in part by the private Latin School in exchange for priority use of the property, has become a source of rancorous debate in the North Side neighborhood. Some residents said the project was approved without proper public hearings. They also are upset that a public meadow will be replaced with an artificial-turf field.

Protect Our Parks, a non-profit group of about 20 residents who oppose the project, filed the complaint Wednesday morning in Cook County Circuit Court. The group also will seek a temporary restraining order to put an immediate stop to the construction in a Friday morning hearing, said Thomas Ramsdell, the group's attorney.

"This soccer field is an insult to the park, an insult to the community, and we will not stand idly by and let it happen," said Greta Lear, a spokeswoman for the group, while standing outside the construction site Wednesday afternoon.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-lincoln-park-suitapr17,1,4173969.story?track=rss

[ethereal_reality]

Every major museum in Chicago has a free day.
Also, you can pay want you want at the Art Institute.
They have the signs and price of admission...
but in reality, it's pay what you can.
Not that many people know that.

Kamen calls Grant Park an "Edenic swath of green".
Well, what about all the streets that criss cross it?
He also acts like CM is simply going to set up folding tables
in the actual garage.. ."with whirring of exhaust fans and screeching of tires."

His propaganda is over the top and disgusting.

Keep in mind..we're talking about a CHILDREN'S museum.
Heaven forbid something like that would show up in a park. (!??)

[ethereal_reality]

......lay off cbotnyse.

now you can use me as a target. ;)

[cbotnyse]

If that's what you are for, then just say so: "Grant Park should remain forever open, clear and free of any buildings except in this case and this case, etc." We can debate the merits of that argument at that point, but, as it stands now, and in the context of this discussion, the law is unambiguous.right, I believe GP should remain forever open, clear and free of any buildings except in the case of cultural institutions that will enhance the city, and especially ones that at the very least try to respect the park. The opposition here is treating the CCM as if it were some exclusive 1000 foot condo tower. I just dont see it that way.

Again you seem to miss the difference between N. Michigan and the Loop. N. Michigan is nearly all residential, little to no office. Office and Hotel generates lots of low income jobs and people who do not have a lot of time on their hands and will probably only eat lunch during a 30-45 min break. This is not conducive to sit down restaurants. Also, Michigan Ave. is plastered with cheep dining, There are hundreds of resturants like McDonalds, Mister J's Dawg and Burger, Mike's Grill, Johnny's Grill, Jimmy Johns, (those are just the ones within a block of my front door) within a block of Michigan Ave.first of all, dont tell me I am missing the difference. I litterally live on the spot between NMA and the Loop. Michigan Ave is majority hotel and office, are you serious? I'm not talking about the surrounding area, I'm talking about Michigan Ave itself. From the Mich Ave bridge to Oak street there are zero fast food places on the street. The Loop has endless amounts of fast food places that low income workers at B37 can go to for a lunch break, this development does not need to add more.

This specific location should be built to attract people to the loop; people outside of the 9-5 office worker. fast food that closes at 6pm does not do that. Mid priced, sit down restaurants, with a bar, are what I want to see in there. sue me.

[Via Chicago]

His propaganda is over the top and disgusting.


You want to talk about propoganda? Lets remember which side is the one hiring PR firms...

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

......lay off cbotnyse.

This is a forum. Ideas are exchanged here. Sometimes they are in conflict. Your instruction is unnecessary.

right, I believe GP should remain forever open, clear and free of any buildings except in the case of cultural institutions that will enhance the city, and especially ones that at the very least try to respect the park.

In that case, it is necessary for the courts or some legislatorial body representative of all tax-paying Chicago citizens to determine whether or not the 1836 mandate should be changed.

The opposition here is treating the CCM as if it were some exclusive 1000 foot condo tower. I just dont see it that way.

No need to descend into hyperbole; a fee denotes a measure (I'd say a significant measure) of exclusivity. You may not see it that way, but a low-earning household might.

[cbotnyse]

This is a forum. Ideas are exchanged here. Sometimes they are in conflict. Your instruction is unnecessary.I'm sure he said that tounge-in-cheek. I dont mind the discussion at all. I understand my position is probably the minority one. Like I said, I'm not all for it, but the pros ever-so-slightly outweigh the cons.

In that case, it is necessary for the courts or some legislatorial body representative of all tax-paying Chicago citizens to determine whether or not the 1836 mandate should be changed.That's fine with me. If this project somehow gets blocked, I'd be fine with that too.

No need to descend into hyperbole; a fee denotes a measure (I'd say a significant measure) of exclusivity. You may not see it that way, but a low-earning household might.well we dont know that yet. I suspect there will be a free day and or some kind of school program that will allow kids to get in free on select days.

Its the same as all other activites in Grant Park. Some times they're free (Taste of Chicago) sometmes they're not (Lollapalooza).

[VivaLFuego]

except[/I] in this case and this case, etc."

Like the Art Institute, Harris Dance Theatre, Lollapalooza, some concerts at Pritzker Pavilion...

[cbotnyse]

Like the Art Institute, Harris Dance Theatre, Lollapalooza, some concerts at Pritzker Pavilion...and the only problem you have with all of these is they are not 100% free? I understand your argument, but firmly believe that cultural attractions like this can co-exist in Grant Park.

[Via Chicago]

Its the same as all other activites in Grant Park. Some times they're free (Taste of Chicago) sometmes they're not (Lollapalooza).

Those are festivals, not buildings. And no, I'm not a huge fan of allowing corporations to take over parks for a day either (as has happened at Millennium Park a number of times). But theres a difference between being inconvenienced for a weeked and entirely losing a portion of the park to a private enterprise..forever.

[Abner]

I was talking about in Chicago. Should museums everywhere be free and government funded? thats another issue.

For the record, several museums in Chicago are free, such as the National Museum of Mexican Art, which is located in Harrison Park. But that shouldn't be the issue.

[cbotnyse]

For the record, several museums in Chicago are free, such as the National Museum of Mexican Art, which is located in Harrison Park. But that shouldn't be the issue.I just looked up some free museums and you're right. I was even surprised to learn the CCM currently charges children the same fee as an adult! ($9). anyway, not the issue, you're right.

Has anyone read this book? Forever Open, Clear, and Free: The Struggle for Chicago's Lakefront (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226898725)

I just rememebred I bought it awhile back but havent started it yet. I will be sure to do that soon.

[VivaLFuego]

and the only problem you have with all of these is they are not 100% free? I understand your argument, but firmly believe that cultural attractions like this can co-exist in Grant Park.

I'm on your side, dude... I'm just pointing out the silliness of the "Forever free open and clear" argument, because it's obviously already applied selectively (i.e. meaninglessly). If the Children's Museum is to be criticized in this location, it should be along the lines of:
1. It is not of cultural significance to justify this location, as opposed to AIC, Pritzker Pavilion, etc.
2. An underground Children's Museum?
3. It's ugly
4. No public subsidy to a private organization (but it sure wouldn't be the first time...see above "meaninglessness of selectively applied rules")

Traffic/accessibility concerns are NIMBY fodder. The "Forever free" people are begging the question of why the AIC shouldn't be demolished, Lollapalooza disbanded, Harris Dance Theatre demo'd, etc for consistencies sake, since those are obviously an impediment to Grant Park being forever free open and clear. The proposal needs to be attacked on different grounds than these.

[schwerve]

4. No public subsidy to a private organization (but it sure wouldn't be the first time...see above "meaninglessness of selectively applied rules")

is there a public subsidy for this? my understanding is that its being financed by the CM and they're spending $15 mil for use of the land and a new field house.

[Loopy]

is there a public subsidy for this? my understanding is that its being financed by the CM and they're spending $15 mil for use of the land and a new field house.

They are not currently subsidized by the taxpayers, but the primary reason for their move is to hook up to the gravy train.

By moving to the Grant Park location the Chicago Children's Museum will be eligible for funding under the "Museums in the Park" program. This a fund that is generated by a special annual tax on Chicagoans. It currently supports: The Art Institute of Chicago, the Field Museum of Natural History, the Adler Planetarium, the John G. Shedd Aquarium, the Chicago Historical Society, the Chicago Academy of Sciences, the Museum of Science and Industry, the DuSable Museum of African American History, and the Mexican Fine Arts Center Museum.

The fund is pretty much a zero sum game. Adding a new museum to the list just diminishes funding to the other institutions.

[Mr Downtown]

When CCM first discussed the idea of moving to Grant Park in 2003, they said it was not with the intent of tapping the Museums in the Park fund (I specifically asked). Of course, this could be done at Navy Pier, by just extending the definition of Lincoln Park to include their space at Navy Pier.

I was delighted to see Kamin mention Pritzker Park this morning, as I've come to think that's the best location of all, offering easy access to parking, unparalleled transit access, and a highly visible location for a new work of architecture.

[honte]

^ Plus, it is the most miserable "park" in the central area - really hardly qualifies as such, and it is not helping State Street in any fashion in its present state.

[the urban politician]

Museum plans to put the oohs and aahs back in science (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-museum-science-industry-webapr17,1,7939500.story?track=rss)
After makeover, visitors can walk through a tornado or make their own rainbows

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-04/37928994.jpg
A Museum of Science and Industry model illustrates how the planned "You! The Experience" health exhibit would look. The new exhibit would benefit from the museum's fundraising campaign. (Tribune photo by Scott Strazzante / April 16, 2008)

By William Mullen | Tribune reporter
10:56 PM CDT, April 16, 2008
Article tools
The Museum of Science and Industry announced plans Wednesday to revamp some of its largest, most familiar exhibit spaces as a part of a major effort to spur children's interest in science and improve science education in schools.

By 2011, 90 percent of the museum will be new or substantially changed from what it was in 2000, officials said in announcing a hefty $205 million fundraising drive.

[BVictor1]

If you say so...

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/chicagochildrensmusuem/ccmatrium.jpg

And why would you want a childrens museum underground in the first place? I dont understand why people are acting like this is the only available plot of land left on the planet to relocate a museum and totally unwilling to explore alternatives which make way more sense (and will meet zero opposition to boot)

I didn't realize that people went to museums to look out the window:shrug:

[jjk1103]

For the record, several museums in Chicago are free, such as the National Museum of Mexican Art, which is located in Harrison Park. But that shouldn't be the issue.

......ole' !!! :D

[Abner]

I don't mean to take it off topic, but there is scaffolding up around the building on the north side of 18th at Canalport, just west of the Schoenhofen Brewery. (It was used as the location of the orphanage in The Blues Brothers.) Please somebody tell me it's not coming down!

[jjk1103]

^ Plus, it is the most miserable "park" in the central area - really hardly qualifies as such, and it is not helping State Street in any fashion in its present state.

yes, it's just a have for the homeless......but they should re-develope it as a park ...not a museum !

[jjk1103]

All the Smithsonian Museums are free in DC.

....they have unlimited money (pork) !!!

[Abner]

yes, it's just a have for the homeless......but they should re-develope it as a park ...not a museum !

It's barely big enough to toss a frisbee, it's in shadows all the time, and it's under an el station. Combined with the parking garage, though, it would be a great place to put any number of things, including a children's museum--which would then be across the street from the Harold Washington Library.

[honte]

I don't mean to take it off topic, but there is scaffolding up around the building on the north side of 18th at Canalport, just west of the Schoenhofen Brewery. (It was used as the location of the orphanage in The Blues Brothers.) Please somebody tell me it's not coming down!

To be honest, I think this is more the topic of what this thread used to be. ;)

The building you are talking about is a three-story, red-brick commercial building with a Star of David on it, right? This is also a part of the Schoenhofen complex. It was the administration building, 1886, and is also a landmark. :tup: Thanks for your concern.

[Abner]

To be honest, I think this is more the topic of what this thread used to be. ;)

The building you are talking about is a three-story, red-brick commercial building with a Star of David on it, right? This is also a part of the Schoenhofen complex. It was the administration building, 1886, and is also a landmark. :tup: Thanks for your concern.

Holy crap, the owner can let a landmark get to that condition? The Schoenhofen powerhouse looks great, but that poor administration building looks like it's ready to collapse. Probably nothing some maintenance (like maybe putting glass in the windows and heating the thing) couldn't fix, but the building is just a shell now. I certainly hope the scaffolding is up in preparation for some restorative work. Thanks for the info, I'm relieved and surprised that it's landmarked.

[VivaLFuego]

1. "Pritzker Park" (I use scare quotes because it's not a park, more of a bum hotel) would be a great place for the Children's Museum, especially since the blight that is "Pritzker Park" is only as such because of the whims of the Pritzkers to begin with (as part of the Library deal, right? Mr. D maybe could chime in with some more details on that?).

2. The Schoenhofen brewery complex is amazing, it will one day make a great loft district if the surrounding "manufacturing" land is allowed to redevelop to some decent residential use... but that will take city government getting over it's wasteful fetish of subsidizing low-density "manufacturing" jobs as if there is some net benefit to the city.