[honte]

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.

My pleasure.

It's been in a sorry state for quite a long while now. I called on it back about 1998 and the owners wanted, to my recollection, over $1M for it even then.

There is nothing in Chicago that prevents the owner of a landmark from letting it decay - at least, nothing more than a normal structure. Sometimes various parties step in, but many times, there is nothing possible to prevent this. Preservationists call it "demolition by neglect." The best hope is to put on some pressure and hope that a buyer with some funds comes to the rescue. The City also helps with TIF money and other incentives sometimes.

Most of our landmarks are in good shape (it's a kind of black eye if your landmarks are falling apart, which unfortunately leads to some very worthy structures being passed over). There are a few, however, that really need some help. Since you appear to be on the South Side, check out the Raber House if you are ever around 55th / State. That thing needs some TLC before it literally rots away.

[Nowhereman1280]

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.

This is wrong. If you knew your Chicago history you would know that the AIC building was built before (1893 world's fair) the Montgomery Ward Ruling. Therefore it has been grandfathered in. If you bring issue with the expansions, the arguement is that the existing structure is just being modified, therefore its not a new obstruction. In fact the AIC is specifically mentioned in the Montgomery Ward ruling which is probably where they get the license to expand.

Lollapalooza and Taste, just as the Bandshell, are temporary, therefore they are not deemed as an obstruction since festivals and the likes are a recreational use, much like playing a game of baseball, not a land use, like the AIC.

They pass off Pritzker Pavillion as a sculpture that happens to perform as a bandshell, thus sneaks in with the likes of Buckingham Fountain, the bean, and the agora. Harris Theater is underneath the Bandshell, therefore its no more of an obstruction than the parking garage. Not to mention that Pritzker and Harris are built above the railroad tracks which were also included as an exception to the ruling, so technically neither of these structures is in the original legal borders of the park.

Now compare these all of which fall under specific legal exceptions of the MW ruling, with a gigantic 3 story deep glass pit. How can you even argue that they are in the same league?

Pritzker Park is the best location, I would rather have a parking ramp there than what is there right now...

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ Well done. :tup:

[Jibba]

Speaking of Grant Park...

Bridge from Art Institute
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/420/dsc04784bq6.jpg

The whole shebang
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6656/dsc04785vz7.jpg

[Taft]

...all of which fall under specific legal exceptions of the MW ruling...

Bravo on enumerating the legal reasons why existing structures are allowed in Grant park.

I hope you realize, however, that legality is really a minor point in the discussion for most people here. There are plenty of laws and precedents that people on these boards disagree with, not because of legal reasons, but because of ethical, aesthetic, and civic-oriented reasons. For example:

1) Off street parking requirements.
2) The process through which buildings get approved (aldermanic prerogative).
3) The landmarking process.
4) TIFs
5) etc.

There are laws and legal precedents establishing each of these. However, most objections to these items are made on more subjective grounds: do these practices make sense? are they fair? do they benefit the city?

Similarly, when people refer to "forever free and clear," most could give two hoots about the obscure legal wrangling which was the context of the original quote. They are focused on what that phrase means to them, how they interpret it and whether, subjectively, it seems "right."

Thus, to me, "forever free and clear" means just that: the park remains a park, with no exceptions. I care not that there is legal justification for the expansion of the AIC or the building of the Pritzker pavillion. To me, they are violations even more egregious than any plan forwarded for Daley-Bi plaza.

Why should it matter to me that a judge and a civic leader from the turn of the last century thought these structures were A-OK? They are massive structures which violate the spirit of "forever free and clear," IMO, and have done much more damage to the future of the park than a tennis court-sized glass pit could ever do.

Let's be clear that I (and I suspect others) are talking about the spirit of the law and our interpretations of it. Let's also try to accurately assess the realized benefit or detriment that existing structures in Grant park have on the park from a aesthetic and land-use perspective. Forget the legal reasons, they move no soul.

Taft

[pilsenarch]

:previous: Exactly

[ethereal_reality]

Jibba...thanks for posting the update on the Art Institute addition.

[Nowhereman1280]

Taft, I agree about the numerous other arguments that come into play in a discussion such as this, however, I think that some things are blatantly in disregard not only to the law, but to a Supreme Court ruling. I would say that a 3 story deep by few hundred feet wide, hole is in utter disregard to the ruling. One can always make the sculpture arguement on something like Pritzker, but one cannot make this arguement for something like a giant pit.

Don't get me wrong, I love the design, I just think its the wrong place and flat out illegal to build it there.

[VivaLFuego]

This is wrong. If you knew your Chicago history you would know that the AIC building was built before (1893 world's fair) the Montgomery Ward Ruling. Therefore it has been grandfathered in. If you bring issue with the expansions, the arguement is that the existing structure is just being modified, therefore its not a new obstruction. In fact the AIC is specifically mentioned in the Montgomery Ward ruling which is probably where they get the license to expand.

Ok, it's grandfathered in, but it's still violating "forever free, open, and clear so if we wanted a Grant Park that's forever free, open, and clear we should demolish it.


Lollapalooza and Taste, just as the Bandshell, are temporary, therefore they are not deemed as an obstruction since festivals and the likes are a recreational use, much like playing a game of baseball, not a land use, like the AIC.

OK. So what if the Children's Museum had some free days, so it wouldn't be a permanent obstruction?

They pass off Pritzker Pavillion as a sculpture that happens to perform as a bandshell, thus sneaks in with the likes of Buckingham Fountain, the bean, and the agora. Harris Theater is underneath the Bandshell, therefore its no more of an obstruction than the parking garage. Not to mention that Pritzker and Harris are built above the railroad tracks which were also included as an exception to the ruling, so technically neither of these structures is in the original legal borders of the park.

I was under the impression the ruling governed all the way to Michigan Avenue. And how is an underground museum any different than an underground theater or underground parking deck with entrance ramps etc?

[/quote]
Pritzker Park is the best location[/QUOTE]

I agree. I'm just playing devil's advocate because I don't think the CCM opponents are making the right arguments against placing it Grant Park. Hiding behind a legal ruling begs the question of why the ruling is in place, if it's the right ruling, etc. which I think are important questions. IMO, the CCM Grant Park location can be consistently attacked on the following grounds that involve actual reasoning and subject for debate, rather than just shutting down such discussion with a haphazardly applied legal ruling:

1. It blurs the distinction between public space and private entity, particularly insofar as it is entitled to various forms of public subsidy in its proposed move.

2. The CCM is not of cultural significance, unlike AIC or the Pritzker Pavilion, to warrant a Grant Park location.

3. The current site (Daley Bi) can and should be put to better use ______.

[schwerve]

This is wrong. If you knew your Chicago history you would know that the AIC building was built before (1893 world's fair) the Montgomery Ward Ruling. Therefore it has been grandfathered in. If you bring issue with the expansions, the arguement is that the existing structure is just being modified, therefore its not a new obstruction. In fact the AIC is specifically mentioned in the Montgomery Ward ruling which is probably where they get the license to expand.

Lollapalooza and Taste, just as the Bandshell, are temporary, therefore they are not deemed as an obstruction since festivals and the likes are a recreational use, much like playing a game of baseball, not a land use, like the AIC.

They pass off Pritzker Pavillion as a sculpture that happens to perform as a bandshell, thus sneaks in with the likes of Buckingham Fountain, the bean, and the agora. Harris Theater is underneath the Bandshell, therefore its no more of an obstruction than the parking garage. Not to mention that Pritzker and Harris are built above the railroad tracks which were also included as an exception to the ruling, so technically neither of these structures is in the original legal borders of the park.

Now compare these all of which fall under specific legal exceptions of the MW ruling, with a gigantic 3 story deep glass pit. How can you even argue that they are in the same league?

Pritzker Park is the best location, I would rather have a parking ramp there than what is there right now...

this post just shows the absolute stupidity of the "forever free and clear" argument. basically you can turn it into what ever you see fit, redraw the lines of grant park where you want, define a building how you want, apply it for your own purposes. I mean, somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but if pritzker and harris are okay because they technically aren't in the original borders of the park how is daley bi? monroe street garage and the plaza were constructed in the 60's right? there are plenty of reasons to argue against placing CCM in the park, "forever free and clear" isn't one of them.

[Via Chicago]

This is exactly what I've been trying to get at, glad others are seeing it too...

There's also a subtext here of Mayoral power v. Aldermanic power, and I think the interests of most people on this board would be better served if the Mayor established more power and the Aldermen were weakened....

speak for yourself. Daley is already a borderline dictator as far as im concerned, and last I checked we live in a Democracy where the decision making process should be left to many, not a few. The last thing we need to do is give that nutjob more power...

[Mojava]

What specifically goes on, if anything, in this section of the park. Everytime I'm over there it is dead.

[aic4ever]

speak for yourself. Daley is already a borderline dictator as far as im concerned, and last I checked we live in a Democracy where the decision making process should be left to many, not a few. The last thing we need to do is give that nutjob more power...

Really? Last I checked the United States of America was a Republic, where there are a few that are elected to represent the interests of the many. The decision making process is purposely left to the few in order to avoid the anarchy and complete indecision that results from the arguing of the masses in an actual democracy (see ancient Greece).

You don't have to like Daley, or some of the ways he's circumvented the legal process, but this town was on a much closer level to being Detroit before he took office. He's done wonders in his tenure here, and barring him chopping off someone's head on live television, or getting hit by a bus, he's always going to be the mayor, because when the many go to cast their vote for the few, in our Republic, Daley keeps winning with something on the line of 70-80% of the vote.

[VivaLFuego]

You don't have to like Daley, or some of the ways he's circumvented the legal process, but this town was on a much closer level to being Detroit before he took office.

Right. I'm taking the long view here. I remember what the city was like back when the mayors played their part in office, which is very weak. I'm not sure Via appreciates how little power a Chicago mayor is supposed to have, in part because from 1955-present so much of the time it has had a Daley running things. The period 1976-1989 were a (relatively) terrible time for Chicago, a time of decay, stagnation, and losing its Second City status. Think that's got nothing to do with the perennial and racially-charged Council Wars when all the Aldermen squabbled and basically brought the city to a standstill while white flight to the suburbs continued unabated?

My point is from a governmental structure perspective, Chicago has benefitted by having a few mayors who could turn their weak position into one with some measure of clout and power, because without that we descend into parochial gridlock.

[Steely Dan]

There's also a subtext here of Mayoral power v. Aldermanic power, and I think the interests of most people on this board would be better served if the Mayor established more power and the Aldermen were weakened....

AMEN!

i'm not really a supporter of this CCM in grant park plan, but i do despise this city's aldermen, and any day that the alderman lose is a good day for chicago, even when they're fighting for something that i might support.

[Abner]

One could also make the argument that Chicago failed to learn the lesson of the first Daley that a mayor who rules by personal fiat leaves behind withered institutions that are incapable of operating without the charismatic ruler. There are many cities with a weak mayor/strong legislature that operate quite well because they have largely avoided this problem. The argument that cities need all-powerful rulers doesn't hold much comparative water, in my view. Also keep in mind that the current mayor-aldermanic power-sharing system is well within Daley's interest.

Honte, I'm not familiar with that house, but the pictures of it I've just looked up are pretty scary. It's probably in worse shape than the Schoenhofen administration building. Speaking of that area, I sure wouldn't mind if the Schulze Baking Company building were landmarked. It's too bad there is no mechanism for the city to take over neglected landmarks and make them structurally secure until someone expresses interest in them.

[VivaLFuego]

One could also make the argument that Chicago failed to learn the lesson of the first Daley that a mayor who rules by personal fiat leaves behind withered institutions that are incapable of operating without the charismatic ruler. There are many cities with a weak mayor/strong legislature that operate quite well because they have largely avoided this problem. The argument that cities need all-powerful rulers doesn't hold much comparative water, in my view. Also keep in mind that the current mayor-aldermanic power-sharing system is well within Daley's interest.
It's a really interesting subject, and it'd be interesting to hear from an actual political scientist who has studied this. But my gut, like with Steely, says that the aldermanic power system in Chicago spells bad news. I can't offer much other than my anecdotal experience and general take on history.

Speaking of that area, I sure wouldn't mind if the Schulze Baking Company building were landmarked. It's too bad there is no mechanism for the city to take over neglected landmarks and make them structurally secure until someone expresses interest in them.

It's a really cool building, and I used to love smelling that bread all over the south side. But at the same time, I have trouble imagining a plausible re-use of it. The scale and construction doesn't lend itself to residential lofts, it's not a great manufacturing/warehouse site without substantial subsidy, and offices? What southside loft office market?

[Nowhereman1280]

Ok, it's grandfathered in, but it's still violating "forever free, open, and clear so if we wanted a Grant Park that's forever free, open, and clear we should demolish it.

That makes no sense seeing as how it is specifically mentioned as an exception in the court ruling. That's like saying since the law says you can park anywhere on the street except fire zones that we should just park in the zones anyhow... Completely illogical statement.

OK. So what if the Children's Museum had some free days, so it wouldn't be a permanent obstruction?

I don't why its so hard to see the difference between a 3-day festival that temporarily fences off part of the park and a GIGANTIC GLASS PIT that is there year round? Do you know what the word permanent means? A fence that is there for 4 days then removed does not count as permanent, a giant pit with a museum in it is permanent.

I was under the impression the ruling governed all the way to Michigan Avenue. And how is an underground museum any different than an underground theater or underground parking deck with entrance ramps etc?

It does indeed govern all the way to Michigan, however, like I said before, specific objects within the boundaries were mentioned as exceptions to the law, those being the AIC and the railroad tracks. Since it is above the railroad tracks, its technically an exception as well since the tracks were originally mentioned as not part of the area governed by the law.


this post just shows the absolute stupidity of the "forever free and clear" argument. basically you can turn it into what ever you see fit, redraw the lines of grant park where you want, define a building how you want, apply it for your own purposes. I mean, somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but if pritzker and harris are okay because they technically aren't in the original borders of the park how is daley bi? monroe street garage and the plaza were constructed in the 60's right? there are plenty of reasons to argue against placing CCM in the park, "forever free and clear" isn't one of them.

You do realize that is how all laws are? You have to take a set of words and interpret them, in fact, that is the genius of the constitution, it is a set of words that you can take and apply however you like, but that doesn't stop people from arguing over it. So do you think the constitutionality is a dumb arguement? They both are essentially the same process, you take a statement and you interpret it on a case by case basis.

BTW, the reason Daley Bi, the garages and all other underground implements in the park get away with it is because THEY ARE UNDERGROUND. A giant glass walled pit does not count as "underground".

[schwerve]

You do realize that is how all laws are? You have to take a set of words and interpret them, in fact, that is the genius of the constitution, it is a set of words that you can take and apply however you like, but that doesn't stop people from arguing over it. So do you think the constitutionality is a dumb arguement? They both are essentially the same process, you take a statement and you interpret it on a case by case basis.

you don't really get it so I'll say this and let it go, the problem with forever free and clear is that there is no firm definition of terminology, "grant park", "building", "sculpture", "obstruction" these are all ill-defined terms which basically renders the law meaningless. It exists without firm context and thus makes it impossible to implement except for the most egregious of circumstances. my point, is that free and clear is poorly constructed law and turns into a BS end-around of any real argument about the merits or failings of a proposal.

I'm not necessarily a CCM advocate, I don't mind the design, I could definitely see better spots, but the constant invocation of this absolutist interpretation of a badly constructed law makes want it constructed there just out of spite.

[wrabbit]

The "Forever Free and Clear" language comes from the original Grant Park charter (dedication), which stipulates that the park remain forever free of buildings; the court battles haven't been about terminology so much as what is or isn't a "building" for purposes of the original charter.

[Nowhereman1280]

I'm not necessarily a CCM advocate, I don't mind the design, I could definitely see better spots, but the constant invocation of this absolutist interpretation of a badly constructed law makes want it constructed there just out of spite.

You obviously haven't read the actual court case and charter. Its not ill defined at all, just because you have only heard the Forever Free and Clear part doesn't mean its vague. The word sculpture is pretty obvious, its architecture without purpose other than expression of emotion or ideas. The Ghery doesn't even have to have this arguement in its favor since its over the tracks which were declared and exception.

I will try and dig up some links to the case and charter, I've never seen them online, but I've never looked. The place I read them was in the Harold Washington Library. I also heard that the historical society has the original paper work, but whether or not they'll let you see it I'm not sure of.

[aic4ever]

*

[Abner]

It's a really interesting subject, and it'd be interesting to hear from an actual political scientist who has studied this. But my gut, like with Steely, says that the aldermanic power system in Chicago spells bad news. I can't offer much other than my anecdotal experience and general take on history.

Aldermanic power in this city no doubt has lots of bad effects, but we shouldn't see it as a dichotomous choice between a strong mayor and strong aldermen. For example, one could imagine some powers (such as zoning) being controlled by stronger, more independent, and non-localized bureaucracies, and neither the mayor nor the aldermen would have any say over zoning variances. Or one could imagine a system in which there are no aldermen, only at-large elected representatives, or a middle ground where multiple representatives are elected from larger geographic units. I'm not claiming either of these would be a better system, I'm just saying they are theoretically possible. I realize that changes that drastic are basically an intellectual exercise.

It's a really cool building, and I used to love smelling that bread all over the south side. But at the same time, I have trouble imagining a plausible re-use of it. The scale and construction doesn't lend itself to residential lofts, it's not a great manufacturing/warehouse site without substantial subsidy, and offices? What southside loft office market?

Yes, with every landmarking comes an opportunity cost: the building could be torn down and replaced with something else. But don't you think that at 55th and Wabash, the opportunity cost is extremely low? That is, there are tons of vacant lots available, and demolition of the Schulze building would be very unlikely to result in something "better" going up anytime very soon. I think the main problem is in securing the building against structural collapse, vandalism, and squatting, but if there were a government office tasked with securing landmarks and other historically significant buildings, it could be realistic to do so. Then the building could basically be mothballed until the neighborhood turns around.

[honte]

It's a really cool building, and I used to love smelling that bread all over the south side. But at the same time, I have trouble imagining a plausible re-use of it. The scale and construction doesn't lend itself to residential lofts, it's not a great manufacturing/warehouse site without substantial subsidy, and offices? What southside loft office market?

Disagreed on the residential aspect. I strongly believe that this building could rapidly be converted to residential. In fact, I think that is what will happen. The skyline views and height above the surrounding neighborhood make it very desirable, especially if good fortunes come to Washington Park. (Err, better fortunes - I disagree with the press that it's such a bad place.) It has incredible access to transportation and nice proximity to Hyde Park and downtown, not to mention Washington Park just down the street: In other words, strong appreciation potential.

Abner, you are not alone in thinking about this building for preservation. In fact, many people share your ideas on the matter, myself included. I guarantee you that the City is also aware of it.

The building is Orange-rated - to my knowledge, no one has been active about it yet, and this is probably the cause. Too many fires to fight.

[Mr Downtown]

I will try and dig up some links to the case and charter

The Montgomery Ward cases are online. (http://www.neweastside.org/DECISIONS.html)

[honte]

The third and definitive render of 2800 Lincoln was posted today, if anyone cares. http://wibiti.com/images/hpmain/803/224803.jpg It's rather large, so be prepared for a slower download.

Looks like I won the bet about columns coming later on the balconies. Since no one bet against me, I don't know what I won. :shrug:

[VivaLFuego]

Disagreed on the residential aspect. I strongly believe that this building could rapidly be converted to residential. In fact, I think that is what will happen. The skyline views and height above the surrounding neighborhood make it very desirable, especially if good fortunes come to Washington Park. (Err, better fortunes - I disagree with the press that it's such a bad place.) It has incredible access to transportation and nice proximity to Hyde Park and downtown, not to mention Washington Park just down the street: In other words, strong appreciation potential.


I hope you're right about the residential uses. It is a cool building and I'd love to see it saved if there is a plausible re-use for it. I've been on that stretch of Garfield countless times, and it would feel eerily empty (moreso) without the Schultz bakery.

I remember some time back, there used to a pretty cool big old theatre/mixed use building just down the street at Garfield/Michigan..... then it burned down in a spectacular fire. This fire must have been circa the early 90s. Do you by chance have any information on that building?

[honte]

^ Is this it? Photo says Calumet at 55th, so I guess not.

President Theatre: http://cinematreasures.org/theater/5144/

http://chsmedia.org/media/dn/06/0660/DN-0066035.jpg

[Busy Bee]

Was it the Metropolitan?

[Taft]

The third and definitive render of 2800 Lincoln was posted today, if anyone cares. http://wibiti.com/images/hpmain/803/224803.jpg It's rather large, so be prepared for a slower download.

Looks like I won the bet about columns coming later on the balconies. Since no one bet against me, I don't know what I won. :shrug:

I'm not sure this has been posted yet, but that development has a pretty informative website: http://2800lincoln.com

They have some neat diagrams on the eco-friendly aspects of the development. They have a diagram of the geothermal heat pump for the development along with an explanatory link:
http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/HVAC/geothermal-heat-pumps
http://www.2800lincoln.com/uploads/galerie/big/12_geo.jpg

Taft

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

The third and definitive render of 2800 Lincoln was posted today, if anyone cares. http://wibiti.com/images/hpmain/803/224803.jpg It's rather large, so be prepared for a slower download.

Looks like I won the bet about columns coming later on the balconies. Since no one bet against me, I don't know what I won. :shrug:

I liked it better when it was white and cantilevered. :[

[emathias]

The third and definitive render of 2800 Lincoln was posted today, if anyone cares. http://wibiti.com/images/hpmain/803/224803.jpg It's rather large, so be prepared for a slower download.

Looks like I won the bet about columns coming later on the balconies. Since no one bet against me, I don't know what I won. :shrug:

It would have been a difficult cantilever to sustain I think.

I still like the design a lot.

[honte]

^ Yeah, it was pretty obvious that the cantilever was not happening. I disfavor certain uses of artistic license in renders, such as eliminating "unsavory" structure that might be in the way of someone's view, so I am glad that they have introduced them.

I think the design remains equally boring. ;)

[VivaLFuego]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=46&SubSectionID=139&ArticleID=4598&TM=76470.59


Germania Club gets preliminary landmark status
Tenants not concerned by new landlord

Reilly said he's been approached by a several developers "to take my temperature on how I feel for the corner." Some of the ideas have called for high-rise residential complexes in place of Germania Club and Village Theater, which Reilly said he strictly opposes.

It's incomprehensible to me that the Village Theater and Michael's North restaurant site aren't considered some of the primest of prime high-intensity redevelopment sites. By all means, I support landmarking the Germania, which is in excellent shape and currently contributing to neighborhood vitality. But why on earth no development other than to appease the parking gods and anti-progress progressive smog-belching communists of Sandburg Village?

Guess I answered my own question. Thanks, Reilly.

[spyguy]

1615 North Wolcott
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3893/1615nwolcottnf6.jpg

[Busy Bee]

That's part of the Urban Sandbox project being built by Ranquist Development. Very bold, very modern. I like pretty much everything Ranquist has built in the city.

[VivaLFuego]

That's part of the Urban Sandbox project being built by Ranquist Development. Very bold, very modern. I like pretty much everything Ranquist has built in the city.

Stuff they build = :tup:
Stuff getting torn down to build it = :hell:

...like that house on Paulina dating to 1858, for example.

[EarlyBuyer]

Photo's taken by EarlyBuyer 4/19/08


http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/8333/dsc0003he7.jpg


http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/3485/dsc0004ng2.jpg


http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/40/dsc0027qn1.jpg


http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/2976/dsc0032rr2.jpg

[AdrianXSands]

1615 North Wolcott
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3893/1615nwolcottnf6.jpg

very nice :)

[aic4ever]

New Retail in Bucktown

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=29058&seenIt=1

[nomarandlee]

I put the Tribune's #2 proposal idea (Northerly Island) in the new museum subsection which could help avoid another five pages worth of discussion in this thread.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=3498972#post3498972
Chicago Children's Museum thread

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0420edit1apr20,0,7667668.story
Option 2: 'Children's Island'

[BVictor1]

For anyone interested:

OUR FEATURED GUESTS:

JOEL M. CARLINS AND JAMES R. LOEWENBERG, co-chief executive officers of Magellan Development Group LLC
Joel Carlins, upper left, and Jim Loewenberg, lower left, are the developers of Lakeshore East, a $4 billion mixed-used project underway between Grant Park and the Chicago River. After teaming up on many deals, in 2006 they merged their separate businesses into Magellan.
Mr. Carlins, an attorney, once represented professional athletes and entertainers. He began focusing on real estate development in 1987, with the founding of Magellan. In the late 1990s, he became one of the leading condominium developers in River North.
Mr. Loewenberg, an architect, has designed more than 30,000 high-rise residential units, beginning in the 1960s with a series of towers along North Lake Shore Drive. An experienced developer, he is also the founder of the property management firm NNP Residential LLC.
May 21, 2008 | 7:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.
The Chicago Club, 81 East Van Buren Street
Tickets: $60 in advance

[wrabbit]

More critical reaction on the Chicago Children's Museum.

Kamin:
Children's Museum releases aerial view of plan, says more drawings could be made public
Apparently stung by criticism that it has been withholding information about its plans for a controversial, mostly underground museum in Grant Park, the Chicago Children's Museum made public an aerial view of the plan today and a member of the public relations firm representing the museum said he hoped more drawings would be released.....
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2008/04/childrens-mus-4.html

Becker:
Kamin Joins the Chorus: CCM - Stop Hiding Your Museum!
Blair gets it. Months after we began talking about how the Chicago Children's Museum is deliberately withholding all but the most deceptive images of the large structure they want to muscle into Grant Park, the Chicago Tribune's Pulitzer-Prize winning architecture critic Blair Kamin blasted the museum and its architects, Krueck and Sexton, for withholding all but the most abstracted images on the proposed structure from the public.....
http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/

[wrabbit]

Just a general plug, apropos of nothing, for Lee Bey's super awesome The Urban Observer blog. His pics of Chicagoland architecture make me drool.

http://leebey.com/

[the urban politician]

Just to continue as the counterpoint, gridlocked traffic also impedes buses (perhaps worse than it impedes cars), unless buses are given some sort of bus-only lanes, queue-jumping/signal-priority, etc. I would argue that traffic isn't what scares people out of their cars; rather, only parking does that. Traffic in LA is awful, but there is free parking everywhere so everyone drives. Because of expensive and scarce parking in the Loop, it gets a good transit mode share even on weekends. Once free parking is impossible and people gotta pay, they'll seriously consider transit. Thus I really dislike that off-street parking is mandated in areas with such high land value warranting high-intensity uses (North/Clybourn being a great example); even if the parking is fee-based and not free (I have a suspicion this development's parking will be free with validation), that fee will be subsidized because more parking than the market warranted is being provided.

This is why I'm less enthused about this project, especially now that the residential density (which should at least contribute a few hundred transit trips a day for work commuters) is being slashed. I just don't see the retail portion making great use of its transit-friendly location when that much off-street parking is provided.

^ Viva, I wholeheartedly agree with your gripes here. My only counterpoints are 1) Chicago has bigger fish to fry, 2) The development is still a mixed one, and even with a reduction of residential units there are still going to be a couple hundred of them, minimum, 3) It still ends up being very ped-friendly by putting retail up to the sidewalk or facing an inner plaza, thus making it quite accessible to transit riders and thus 10 times better still than the earlier generation of North/Clybourn development.

My final point, 4) is related to personal experience. I live near a huge shopping mall in Queens that has a huge parking garage. The garage is near full with cars, and there is a fairly small fee to use it (not sure if it's validated by the shops). Nevertheless, I still choose to take the subway there and so do a lot of other people, apparently.

I'm not saying that transit will ever obtain a majority mode to get there (New City), but the city of Chicago is making excellent strides towards TOD by locating major retail/commercial notes within close distance to transit stops. Outside of downtown, I also am hopeful that something will also get developed at 35th/state (IIT's expanding UTP, some retail), Pershing/State, 63rd/Halsted (okay, that's a long shot), Wilson Yards, etc even if parking must be a part of the picture.

[honte]

^ Leasing at 35th / State seems to be going very well, with amenities that are mundane but haven't been a presence in this neighborhood for probably at least 40 years. Kinko's, Jimmy John's, Starbucks, etc.

[the urban politician]

^ Oh, plus I forgot to mention Loyola's new mixed-use development, also near a transit node.

Quick question: do any of you see the New City parking garage moonlighting as some sort of park n' ride on weekdays? I ask because the Queens shopping mall's garage that I mentioned above also serves that function and offers deals for commuters

[emathias]

...
Quick question: do any of you see the New City parking garage moonlighting as some sort of park n' ride on weekdays? I ask because the Queens shopping mall's garage that I mentioned above also serves that function and offers deals for commuters

There's no way it will be used as a park-n-ride lot, at least not for regular commuters and irregular commuters would have even less reason to use it. Parking there won't be free (I'd guess $10/day, and there's no way a monthly pass will be less than $175), and taking the train to and from anywhere would be $4/day, so there'd be no money savings and there'd be significant additional inconvenience.

[the urban politician]

^ Right, but parking garage operators who view their facilities as an opportunity for commuters usually have special deals (Early bird special, etc). Esp considering that most large shopping centers are usually kind of dead during weekday work hours (8am to 5pm) and the garage will largely be emptly, thus it seems as if taking advantage of the opportunity as a commuter garage could generate some revenue..

[andydie]

Hiya guys,

as I got to my 50th vid on YouTube i decided to make a shoutout and thank you vid for you guys.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=ykXXhTNVTjo

There you´ll see that i am a real Chicago Fan:)

[BVictor1]

Hiya guys,

as I got to my 50th vid on YouTube i decided to make a shoutout and thank you vid for you guys.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=ykXXhTNVTjo

There you´ll see that i am a real Chicago Fan:)

Thanks for loving our city.

[Loopy]

Great news! The Hellenic Museum and their new partner Dolce International have chosen RTKL Architects to design their joint project at Halsted and Van Buren.

Goodbye to that Pappageorge/Haymes PoMo trainwreck design that they were proposing previously.

The new design is very modern and glassy. It is basically three volumes; A five story museum on the NE corner of Halsted and Van Buren. A seven story parking structure on the North end of the site with the museum stretched North along the Halsted street level. And a 32 story hotel tower on the East part of the site, over the Kennedy.

The hotel design isn't finished yet, but the preliminary design looks very good. Both the Hellenic Museum and Dolce International are well funded and they are ready to build this thing as soon as it get's approved.

http://www.rtkl.com/

http://www.dolce.com/

[the urban politician]

^ Cool. I wonder what that pompous ass Eric Hitl-oops, I meant Sedler & his WLCO bitchin' machine will have to say about it

[spyguy]

Goodbye to that Pappageorge/Haymes PoMo trainwreck design that they were proposing previously.


It was actually Hirsch, but yeah, it was pretty clunky.

[Loopy]

Your right. The most recent one was Hirsch:

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/1931/hellenic2pw6.jpg

But Pappageorge designed an early one:

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/7649/hellenic1kn8.png

The new design will be a clear break from these concepts.

[Jibba]

Some more Art Institute - Modern Wing photos:

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7977/dsc04911eo5.jpg
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/6678/dsc04917bk1.jpg
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2780/dsc04916jt5.jpg

[emathias]

^ Right, but parking garage operators who view their facilities as an opportunity for commuters usually have special deals (Early bird special, etc). Esp considering that most large shopping centers are usually kind of dead during weekday work hours (8am to 5pm) and the garage will largely be emptly, thus it seems as if taking advantage of the opportunity as a commuter garage could generate some revenue..

I still don't see what's in it for the commuter - they stil have $4 is transit costs on top of even a discounted garage rate it would save them only a few dollars and add 20 minutes and countless aggravations to their commute.

I could see it used for special-events parking (the Taste, etc), but not for commuters.

[emathias]

...over the Kennedy.
...

I assume you mean "over" as in "overlooking," and not as in literally built over the highway?

[Loopy]

^Yes. I was trying to make the point that the hotel tower is more on the highway side of the site.

[cbotnyse]

^Yes. I was trying to make the point that the hotel tower is more on the highway side of the site.that might be the only way a tower of this height gets approved for that area. :shrug:

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/917058,CST-NWS-BRIDGE26.article

Bridging riverwalk gaps
WACKER DRIVE |
City to spend $10 mil. on walkways beneath Michigan and Wabash, connect path for 'second lakefront'

April 26, 2008

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter fspielman@suntimes.com

Mayor Daley's ambitious but stalled plan to create a San Antonio-style riverwalk along Wacker Drive will take two giant steps forward this summer.

The city plans to build walkways beneath bridges at Michigan and Wabash avenues that will connect paths already built along the Chicago River. The new connections will allow pedestrians to stroll along Chicago's "second lakefront" -- as Daley calls it -- without running up a set of stairs, crossing the street and going back downstairs.........................


More info in link

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-gettingaround-28-apr28,0,4558993.column

GETTING AROUND WITH JON HILKEVITCH

Chicago Riverwalk extension to begin in July

Path involving 'under-bridges' will eventually extend to Lake Street
Jon Hilkevitch | Getting Around
7:29 PM CDT, April 27, 2008

Chicagoans have a vital connection to the waterfront, whether it is the shoreline of Lake Michigan or the banks of the Chicago River.

That link will become stronger—and longer—by the end of the year when the riverwalk trail downtown is extended.

Construction is scheduled to begin in July to literally bridge the riverwalk beyond the Wabash Avenue bridge to State Street.

It's an intermediary step toward eventually extending the riverwalk promenade west to Lake Street along the south bank of the river, according to the Chicago Department of Transportation.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/alternatethumbnails/storylink/2008-04/38244379-27173513.jpg

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2008-04/38244719.png

[aaron38]

There's some sweet news. It'll be great to be able to walk the entire river canyon down at water level. Let's just hope it doesn't take 10 years to do all the bridges.

[StatenIslander237]

There's some sweet news. It'll be great to be able to walk the entire river canyon down at water level. Let's just hope it doesn't take 10 years to do all the bridges.

Word. Man, this is amazing for me. In the year that I've lived in Chicago, I've found the riverwalks to be one of my favorite places in the city. :)

[woodrow]

FINALLY -
When they announced the Wacker Drive redo back in the 1990's a big part was going to be the river walk. Never happened. No money, Dept. of Trans. hadn't signed off, etc etc. I wish they were doing all of the sections now, but at least this is something. I hope they focus next year on the section between Lake and Wells. It is supposed to be a very nice, very large, tiered, riverfront walk and landing.

[Via Chicago]

I'm not sure where else to post this. If theres a better place feel free to move it:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-080427wrigley-deal,0,4619744.story


Wrigley to be sold to Mars for $23 billion
By James P. Miller | Tribune reporter
9:44 AM CDT, April 28, 2008

Wm. Wrigley Jr., in a move it said will provide "enhanced prospects for growth," confirmed this morning that it has agreed to be acquired by privately held candy-industry giant Mars Inc. for a hefty $80 a share, or nearly $23 billion.

The Chicago chewing-gum company said its board has already approved the all-cash offer, although the transaction still will require clearance from regulators and Wrigley stockholders.

Thats a whole lot of billions. And another Chicago company bites the dust.

[simcityaustin]

It really depends on whether jobs are taken from the area or not. To bad though, that's quite a well known Chicago company. Hopefully things will operate as normal, which I think is a good chance seeing as Wrigley wasn't in any deep financial problems or anything.

[cbotnyse]

It really depends on whether jobs are taken from the area or not. To bad though, that's quite a well known Chicago company. Hopefully things will operate as normal, which I think is a good chance seeing as Wrigley wasn't in any deep financial problems or anything.I agree. I think this makes the company stronger. The only difference I see is the headquarters isnt technically here anymore. I dont see major layoffs or anything. Buffett isnt known for doing that to companies, I hope I'm right.

EDIT: actually just heard the news conference. The Wrigley headquarters will stay in Chicago, and they might actually add jobs. So this looks like a good thing for the city.

[aic4ever]

New Retail in Bucktown

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=29058&seenIt=1

Intermix Bucktown

Interiors done in Five Weeks as the core & shell construction was finished, which itself was a total of 18 weeks for three retail spaces, pending still one tenant's finalization of their storefront design. Very cool space.

Intermix Signage & Awning should go up tomorrow. Store to open on Wednesday. Check it out for yourselves at 1627-1633 N. Damen.

**Photos deleted to avoid you having to hit cancel a million times**

Photos by Jim Newberry (www.newberryphotography.com)

[mcfinley]

It really depends on whether jobs are taken from the area or not. To bad though, that's quite a well known Chicago company. Hopefully things will operate as normal, which I think is a good chance seeing as Wrigley wasn't in any deep financial problems or anything.

Of all the possible scenarios for Wrigley to get bought out, this seems pretty optimal from the standpoint of maintaining the company's economic presence in Chicago. Mars is a well run, privately owned company, so there's no reward in consolidating the brands or moving operations to bring a short-term surge in shareholder value.

From what I've read this morning, it seems like the operations of Wrigley will functionally stay the same as an independent subsidiary, and the CEO will continue to run the division as he always has.

Wrigley's presence may actually grow after this, as I believe Mars is considering moving Starburst and Skittles under Wrigley.

As an aside, there was an amusing moment in a CNBC conference call this morning when one of the Chicago native anchors was pressing Buffett on whether he'd consider buying Wrigley Field's naming rights from Sam Zell. Buffett pretty much dismissed the idea from a business standpoint, but I doubt that he'd really have any influence in the decision anyway.

[killaviews]

Intermix Bucktown

Interiors done in Five Weeks as the core & shell construction was finished, which itself was a total of 18 weeks for three retail spaces, pending still one tenant's finalization of their storefront design. Very cool space.

Intermix Signage & Awning should go up tomorrow. Store to open on Wednesday. Check it out for yourselves at 1627-1633 N. Damen.


We can't see the pics, they are private. That is pretty quick delivery. Any word on other retail tenants?

[aic4ever]

We can't see the pics, they are private. That is pretty quick delivery. Any word on other retail tenants?

Ah sorry about the pics not working...they showed up on my comp on the preview so I figured they would work. Will see about getting them posted as they are sweet, or else will see about posting my own.

Delivery for Intermix was indeed very aggressive. Very good subs and very well managed. Hit the developer's needed goal of the store opening by 4/30 when we only got permit for the building itself in December. Fantastic teamwork across the board.

The other tenants are slated to be Bebe and LuLuLemon Athletica. Bebe is under construction by a different contractor while their storefont is being finished, and LuLuLemon is still working out their storefront as well as awarding their buildout contract.

We also did the core & shell with storefronts for 1727 N. Damen up the street, which has Club Monaco and LeSportSac in the process of buildout, also by other interiors contractors. Not quite as aggressive a schedule but still quick.

[killaviews]

Bucktown/Wicker Park retail market has been explosive, I guess you have to thank Mr. Jacobs for that. I'm hoping we get some more names that are completely new to the city - Paul Smith, A.P.C.

[VivaLFuego]

I wonder if the Bucktown retail explosion is sustainable, there really isn't a great deal of pedestrian traffic on Damen, nor significant walk-in density potential from the surrounding neighborhood. Some boutiques, of course, are to be expected, but it's getting insane up there on Damen from about 1600-2100 north.

[ardecila]

Sustainable? What do you mean? Wicker/Bucktown is a destination because it has those boutiques, so it draws from all over the city and suburbs. It has Blue Line access, fairly good bus coverage, and several nearby interchanges on the Kennedy.

No, the surrounding neighborhood can't support it by itself at this point - but I don't see the Chicago retail scene shifting significantly in the next decade or so. What's gonna be the next hot area? Logan Square maybe, but that's only a slight shift. Pilsen is another possibility, but there are some strong anti-gentrification attitudes down there, from what I hear, that would seem to prevent the neighborhood from changing too fast.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I actually think the next area that has a chance to make it big is the andersonville/lakeview to rogers park area. It just seems to be ripe for renewal. I think the trigger for that will be a combination of the coming Red Line rebuilding and the continued expansion of Loyola into some of the less desirable areas. Gentrifying them as it goes. Roger's park from the standpoint of existing housing stock has so much potential. Combine that with its proximity to Evanston as well as the city of Chicago and I can see it becoming a future Lincoln Park.

I know people have been saying that for years now, but I think the rebuilding of the northern Redline stations will trigger it.

[Marcu]

^ From what I understand the areas you're referring to are Edgewater and Rogers Park. I don't see it changing in the same way you might. It's just too far from the loop time wise. Even with reconstruction it'll take a good 40 minutes to get to the loop from Granville/Morse/Bryn Mawr compared to 20 minutes from Evanston via Metra. Plus there are problems with the Alderman (Joe Moore) who seems to be an anti-business union hack that will go out of his way to stop any kind of large scale high density development. Not to say the neighborhood can't become more gentrified, but I just don't see it becoming like Lincoln Park or East Lakeview. Not sure that's a bad thing either. The working class immigrant character of Rogers Park is one of its best features.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ From what I understand the areas you're referring to are Edgewater and Rogers Park. I don't see it changing in the same way you might. It's just too far from the loop time wise. Even with reconstruction it'll take a good 40 minutes to get to the loop from Granville/Morse/Bryn Mawr compared to 20 minutes from Evanston via Metra. Plus there are problems with the Alderman (Joe Moore) who seems to be an anti-business union hack that will go out of his way to stop any kind of large scale high density development. Not to say the neighborhood can't become more gentrified, but I just don't see it becoming like Lincoln Park or East Lakeview. Not sure that's a bad thing either. The working class immigrant character of Rogers Park is one of its best features.

I'm not so sure. Andersonville is becoming the new gay epicenter as the Boystown/Wrigleyville area prices out the younger generation who hadn't secured real estate in East Lakeview that area exploded, and, as everyone probably knows, a rising gay population is a good harbinger for general development success. I imagine the northward trend will continue. Coupled with pressure from the opposite direction as Evanston continues to clean up its Chicago frontier, it's really only a matter of time. I just hope the area isn't totally sanitized; the grittiness, more than tolerable, is, you know, kind of charming.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Mars to buy Wrigley Co.
Chicago icon being sold for $23 billion

By Mike Hughlett | Tribune reporter
April 29, 2008

There will still be candymakers occupying the fabled Wrigley Building on Michigan Avenue, and the name on the chewing gum will remain Wrigley, but one of America's most famous business families is selling control of its empire in a stunning $23 billion deal that reshapes the world's confectionary industry.

The Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., a Chicago institution, will be acquired by candy giant Mars Inc. with financial help from legendary investor Warren Buffett, Wrigley announced Monday. And for the first time since Wrigley started selling gum in 1892, the Wrigley family will no longer have an ownership stake in the company.

Wrigley hadn't put itself up for sale when Mars, one of the world's largest candymakers, came courting earlier this month. But in a global confectionary business there is little room for medium-size players, and publicly traded Wrigley is hooking up with a company that analysts say is a great fit.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tue-wrigley-marsapr29,0,2990644.story

[VivaLFuego]

Sustainable? What do you mean? Wicker/Bucktown is a destination because it has those boutiques, so it draws from all over the city and suburbs. It has Blue Line access, fairly good bus coverage, and several nearby interchanges on the Kennedy.

No, the surrounding neighborhood can't support it by itself at this point - but I don't see the Chicago retail scene shifting significantly in the next decade or so. What's gonna be the next hot area? Logan Square maybe, but that's only a slight shift. Pilsen is another possibility, but there are some strong anti-gentrification attitudes down there, from what I hear, that would seem to prevent the neighborhood from changing too fast.

I mean in a few years, whether or not all these boutiques can actually move enough product to pay the rent. Honestly the area just doesn't have high pedestrian activity the way Lincoln Park or Lakeview do, so I'm just skeptical of the economics is all. Clearly right now agglomeration is in play, as each incremental boutique is trying to co-locate to get the same shoppers as the others, I'm just unconvinced that the volume is there in that location.

[aic4ever]

I mean in a few years, whether or not all these boutiques can actually move enough product to pay the rent. Honestly the area just doesn't have high pedestrian activity the way Lincoln Park or Lakeview do, so I'm just skeptical of the economics is all. Clearly right now agglomeration is in play, as each incremental boutique is trying to co-locate to get the same shoppers as the others, I'm just unconvinced that the volume is there in that location.

I would suggest you head over to the North/Milwaukee/Damen area some Saturday. The foot traffic in Bucktown for that general area is absolutely obscene. It's got a lot of restaurants and bars like Absinth, Feast, Northside and Silver Cloud that are reasonably priced and great hangouts, so the draw is always there. And the retail market there is as good as it gets. Hoteliers on Michigan are sending guests who are looking to shop over to Bucktown specifically for the boutiques, so it is a destination area. I've been told that the Marc by Marc Jacobs store on Damen in Bucktown is the second highest grossing location for that retailer behind only their 5th Avenue location in New York. So I don't particularly think the Bucktown retail market is going anywhere.

[dboggie]

Not sure if this is the correct thread, but I got an email from Northwestern University this past weekend that demolition has begun on the old Veteran's Hospital at Fairbanks and Huron (X shaped building). I guess this makes 'sense' as the Children's Hospital broke ground last week, and NU needs to have at least 1 vacant lot at any time.

[Jibba]

^I don't know how I didn't hear about that one. Well, on second thought, I guess I didn't actively pursue any information on it. I am over right near that building all the time, and I always enjoy the little areas of greenery that the shape and layout of the building created (even though they aren't really all that accessible and welcoming). It's not really as though that is a particularly nice area for walking around in anyway; NMH pretty much dominates two, maybe three blocks (maybe more?) of that area. Any details in the email about future development plans for that plot?

[cbotnyse]

not sure where to put this, but here is a trailer for "Make No Little Plans", The first feature length documentary film about noted architect and urban planner Daniel Hudson Burnham, produced by the Archimedia Workshop.

National distribution in 2009 will coincide with the centennial celebration of Daniel Burnham and Edward Bennett’s 1909 Plan of Chicago.

The movie is slated to premiere next year in Millennium Park, part of a summer-long centennial salute to Burnham's 1909 Plan of Chicago.

http://thearchimediaworkshop.org/node/24

[dboggie]

^I don't know how I didn't hear about that one. Well, on second thought, I guess I didn't actively pursue any information on it. I am over right near that building all the time, and I always enjoy the little areas of greenery that the shape and layout of the building created (even though they aren't really all that accessible and welcoming). It's not really as though that is a particularly nice area for walking around in anyway; NMH pretty much dominates two, maybe three blocks (maybe more?) of that area. Any details in the email about future development plans for that plot?

Here is the actual email. No info about future plans, but with a 10 month demolition schedule, we might not see anything for a while.


April 25, 2008

We would like to inform you that the demolition of the vacated Veterans Administration Hospital building will commence beginning next week and last through March, 2009. The building is bordered by Erie and Huron streets and Fairbanks and McClurg Cts.

Erection of barricades and partial structures around the site and above some of the sidewalks has started and will occur over the next two weeks. The north parking lane of Erie Street will be closed for most of the eastern dimension of the block between Fairbanks and McClurg.

Most truck access and outlets to the site will be located on Erie Street. As in the past, we will make sure the trucks are covered and wheels cleaned in order to minimize impact on area streets. Additionally, the building will be watered during the demolition to reduce dust.

We are committed to communicating the status of this development to our neighbors throughout the project and will send out e-mail notifications to keep you informed about this project ahead of time. During the building demolition we will make significant efforts to minimize disruption to the community and the campus related to this project.

[honte]

^ While I've known about this for years, I still think that's a real shame. :( There should have been a way to reuse the structure, but of course it doesn't provide enough square footage for them.

[VivaLFuego]

I would suggest you head over to the North/Milwaukee/Damen area some Saturday. The foot traffic in Bucktown for that general area is absolutely obscene. It's got a lot of restaurants and bars like Absinth, Feast, Northside and Silver Cloud that are reasonably priced and great hangouts, so the draw is always there. And the retail market there is as good as it gets. Hoteliers on Michigan are sending guests who are looking to shop over to Bucktown specifically for the boutiques, so it is a destination area. I've been told that the Marc by Marc Jacobs store on Damen in Bucktown is the second highest grossing location for that retailer behind only their 5th Avenue location in New York. So I don't particularly think the Bucktown retail market is going anywhere.

Granted that intersection is a total zoo on weekends; it's one of the biggest entertainment draws regionally. Traffic backs up for blocks in each direction heading towards it. It's also quite desolate during the week (heading north on Damen at least, the 6 corners still gets traffic just by virtue of being a transport hub). Again, given that there isn't a critical mass of residents, employment, or hotel rooms nearby, I don't see how it's sustainable long term unless at leat one of those changes. Is 1.5 crazy days a week (on good weather days, natch) enough to really sustain such a large boutique district? I suppose the low-volume, high-margin model is best for the area if you can swing it.

And aren't there only like 3 Marc Jacobs stores in the world?

I'm just skeptical, is all. Sure, Bucktown is the new Lincoln Park, but at least Lincoln Park has residential density from denser housing stock, and employment density from hospitals and DePaul, meaning there is some traffic and economic activity happening all week long.

[aic4ever]

Granted that intersection is a total zoo on weekends; it's one of the biggest entertainment draws regionally. Traffic backs up for blocks in each direction heading towards it. It's also quite desolate during the week (heading north on Damen at least, the 6 corners still gets traffic just by virtue of being a transport hub). Again, given that there isn't a critical mass of residents, employment, or hotel rooms nearby, I don't see how it's sustainable long term unless at leat one of those changes. Is 1.5 crazy days a week (on good weather days, natch) enough to really sustain such a large boutique district? I suppose the low-volume, high-margin model is best for the area if you can swing it.

And aren't there only like 3 Marc Jacobs stores in the world?

I'm just skeptical, is all. Sure, Bucktown is the new Lincoln Park, but at least Lincoln Park has residential density from denser housing stock, and employment density from hospitals and DePaul, meaning there is some traffic and economic activity happening all week long.

I don't know man, it seems like a pretty dense residential area to me. Check out Winchester and Wolcott (the two streets east of Damen) north of North Avenue sometime. Some very expensive SFR's and condos have been going in there recently. The area is getting pretty well up there as far as the local residents go. Also, while it's not really the zoo that it is on weekends, the bar/restaurant draw makes it a very high foot traffic area throughout the week as well; at least from my recent observations in our push to finish the Intermix store over the past few weeks. Also from driving over there frequently, the street traffic you speak of is like that all day every day, not just weekends. If I'm taking North Ave. west, it could be 20 minutes from the highway, or if I'm taking Milwaukee north, it could be 20 minutes from Chicago. Just nuts all the time.

[VivaLFuego]

^Hey, hope you're right.... I'm all for having as many bustling, jam-packed, economically active Chicago neighborhoods as possible.

[Nowhereman1280]

^ While I've known about this for years, I still think that's a real shame. :( There should have been a way to reuse the structure, but of course it doesn't provide enough square footage for them.

Its a shame, but I wouldn't be so pissed about it if I didn't know that they would surely build something really shitty and ugly in its place. NW sucks at not building ugly things.

At first I thought you were referencing the marina city looking thing by some notable architect Wesse or Goldberg or somebody like that. Thank God its not that, that is the only part of NW DT that is worth saving except for the few really old buildings by the lake.

[honte]

^ Keep your eyes open... Goldberg's Hospital is still in danger too. We probably won't get much notice on that when / if they decide to try it, since they know so many people are against it.

You are right - NW has ruined most of that area with ugly structures. It used to be very beautiful.

[VivaLFuego]

^Surely, Veterans Administration will be replaced by the Brendan Reilly Parking Garage, set to rescue Streeterville from all traffic woes, making streets traffic-free and providing ample off-street parking for people from all walks of life, or at least all Reilly constituents, or at least all constituents Reilly bothers to listen to, from Mercedes owners all the way down to slovenly Acura drivers. Or was the site of the mega-garage already specified somewhere else? This site is large enough to build an epic garage worthy of Chicago's reputation of stirring men's souls through architecture and grand plans, surely large enough to end Chicago's oppressive parking shortage once and for all.

[honte]

^ I thought the garage was to be behind the new Prentice. Last I heard, NW wanted this VA site for unspecified future hospital space. Maybe I am wrong.

They also recently tore down that beautiful SOM building on Ontario (former VA space too) for who-knows-what. And they tore down that D. H. Burnham building on Ohio. Boy are they doing a number on that neighborhood.

[Jibba]

Honte, that Goldberg structure currently houses a psych ward, no? My sister works at the dental center of NMH and has to go to a "weird, ugly concrete thing" to see psych patients that need dental work, and I am assuming that her description is referring to the Goldberg creation (albeit a decidedly SHITTY description at that, but to each their own). It would be a real shame to lose that one. The logistics solutions for patient care he was able to design with the shell structure for this particular hospital as well as all of his other hospital designs is nothing short of groundbreaking.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/922444,CST-FIN-roeder30.article

26th Street to get taste of Beverly Hills
REAL ESTATE |
California-based developer partners with local firm to bring movie theater, housing, grocer to Little Village

April 30, 2008Recommend

DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com

A little bit of Beverly Hills is coming to 26th Street, an important commercial corridor to Little Village.

But this isn't gentrification gone crazy. It's a developer based in Beverly Hills, Calif., taking the wraps off a project proposed for 4400 W. 26th St. Primestor Development Inc. wants to build about 100 housing units, and approximately 190,000 square feet of commercial space, including a movie theater.

The property covers about 15 acres near the city's boundary with Cicero. Primestor and a local partner, the Little Village Community Development Corp., have worked through the planning process for a couple years and has now introduced an ordinance to rezone the site with the support of Ald. Ricardo Munoz (22nd)..........

[jpIllInoIs]

The LaQuinta Inn and Suites conversion is moving along at a good pace. Steel structure is up to the 9th floor. Not the most exciting project, but it will add 240 moderate priced rooms to the central Loop.

[Taft]

little village development

That is an awesome sounding development for that neighborhood. Even if it is architecturally crap, the density and destinations will likely make up for it.

Taft

[Abner]

That is an awesome sounding development for that neighborhood. Even if it is architecturally crap, the density and destinations will likely make up for it.

Taft

Little Village doesn't really have a shortage of density or destinations (26th St. is one of the busiest commercial corridors in the city), so it is a little bit more a matter of whether the development provides something the neighbors desire.

[emathias]

I don't know man, it seems like a pretty dense residential area to me. Check out Winchester and Wolcott (the two streets east of Damen) north of North Avenue sometime. Some very expensive SFR's and condos have been going in there recently. ...

I had to chuckle that you talk about SFR's as supporting evidence of density ...

[wrabbit]

^ Keep your eyes open... Goldberg's Hospital is still in danger too. We probably won't get much notice on that when / if they decide to try it, since they know so many people are against it.

You are right - NW has ruined most of that area with ugly structures. It used to be very beautiful.

NW's stewardship of its Streeterville properties is very sad - deplorable, really. Their track record doesn't bode well for Prentice.

From Kamin's Skyline blog:

Date: April 15, 2008
A Goldberg variation: The condition of Prentice Women's Hospital
In response to yesterday's post about threats to the architecture of Bertrand Goldberg, my friend Edward Lifson wondered aloud on his blog, The New Modernist (see link at right), about the future of Goldberg's Prentice Women's Hospital in Chicago. I emailed him this story, which appeared last fall as a sidebar to a review of New Prentice Women's Hospital. I'm posting it here as well:

Even if Bertrand Goldberg's old Prentice Women's Hospital (left) lacks the postcard-ready silhouette of his Marina City corncobs, it remains a startlingly good piece of architecture: a 7-story bed tower with four bulbous concrete shells that soar above a boxy base. It would be a shame to lose this exuberant, adventurous building, especially because it is such a powerfully sculptural antidote to the bland residential high-rises east of Michigan Avenue.

But now that new Prentice has opened, the door is open to such an outcome.....

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/historic_preservation/index.html