CHICAGO | General Developments

[i_am_hydrogen]

Gourmet grocer coming to former Carson Pirie Scott & Co. building on State Street

by Blair Kamin
May 20, 2008

This could be great for State Street. It could also mar Louis Sullivan's landmark Carson Pirie Scott & Co. building if design issues are not sensitively handled.

'm referring to the announcement today by developer Joseph Freed and Associates that it's signed up three tenants, including gourmet grocer Fox & Obel, for the building, now called the Sullivan Center, at 1 S. State Street. The other tenants are the Flat Top Grill and an Australian retailer.

For State Street, this sounds like fabulous news.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2008/05/gourmet-grocer.html

[VivaLFuego]

On the bullitin board next to the Marina Tower Condo Assosiation office is a notice that explains the "River Walk" platforms under the Michigan and Wabash street bridges are going to be built "this summer." It also explains they will extend 17 feet into the river.:)
In addition, today I noticed a banner for a sushi place on the river across for Marina City. I hope the raw fish wont be coming straight from the river!:haha:
mmmmm fresh kill. That'd be a good gimmick. Fresh Trout, Carp and Alewife sushi. Viva Chicago.

[VivaLFuego]

It has been my observation that today's generation of college students quite frequently shop at high-end grocery stores. Once they've graduated college and no longer receiving money from mom and dad, that's when F&O becomes too rich for their budgets.

Wait...must resist the "when I was their age" rant before it's too late. ;)

Ahh yes, the days of Valu-Time bulk hot dogs wrapped in bulk tortillas...

[Eventually...Chicago]

^^^^ Yeah, i think college age students actually tend to be quite sophisticated and can often afford to be since they're spending mom and dad's money.

Even if this isn't the case, there is a jewel and a target and a dominicks all within about a mile of this spot (not to mention other higher end grocers like treasure island and whole foods) so i think something like this brings a lot of cache to the loop and is very appropriate.

[budman]

Where across from Marina City are they going to put a sushi place? Is it going to be out of a trailer like the others on the river walk? Anything at all would be a good start. And I hope that the ordinance allowing for sidewalk booze sales passes. I have always been bummed that I can just go to a bar and sit outside and have a beer without a food menu being pushed in my face. When would it go into effect? Hopfully this summer.

[Tom Servo]

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/174/dsc0063el1.jpg



wait... what's the significance of this pos?

[emathias]

...
IMO, it is an okay fit. I think F&O is bit high end for this location. College kids will never be able to regularly shop there for grocery basics.
...

So? I know the article mentioned the proximity of college kids, but seriously, you've got the Heritage and the Legacy and Momo and a good number of loft spaces scattered around State Street and Wabash, and I'd guess you'd even get foot traffic from 200 W Washington coming over, and that rental tower on Dearborn. Even Marina City isn't really that far. I think even in 2000, there were close to 5,000 people residing in the Loop, which is more than enough to support a 20,000 square foot grocery store. Not to mention office workers will buy some groceries there and I'm sure the population is higher now than it was in 2000. :-)

[ih8spires]

Where across from Marina City are they going to put a sushi place? Is it going to be out of a trailer like the others on the river walk? Anything at all would be a good start. And I hope that the ordinance allowing for sidewalk booze sales passes. I have always been bummed that I can just go to a bar and sit outside and have a beer without a food menu being pushed in my face. When would it go into effect? Hopfully this summer.

I think the name of the place is "Diosa", and yes on the south side of the rivew walk out of a trailer.
It looks though as if some work has happened as a wall has been built between lower Wacker and the river walk. Hopefully, the river walk will develop into a nice way to transition from Michigan Ave to State Street. I guess I just got to exited a few years ago when I first heard of the plan. I thought it would just take a month or two and boom, we would have a San Antonio style river walk.

[OhioGuy]

Gourmet grocer coming to former Carson Pirie Scott & Co. building on State Street

by Blair Kamin
May 20, 2008

This could be great for State Street. It could also mar Louis Sullivan's landmark Carson Pirie Scott & Co. building if design issues are not sensitively handled.

'm referring to the announcement today by developer Joseph Freed and Associates that it's signed up three tenants, including gourmet grocer Fox & Obel, for the building, now called the Sullivan Center, at 1 S. State Street. The other tenants are the Flat Top Grill and an Australian retailer.

For State Street, this sounds like fabulous news.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2008/05/gourmet-grocer.html

Strange timing on this because I was just wondering this afternoon what the plans were for that building. I'd never really thought about it before, but something made me think of it today. Now I know. :)

I don't really know much about Fox & Obel, but I very much enjoy eating at Flat Top Grill. :banana:

[Abner]

Demolition on the Pacific Garden Mission is well underway. The "For the WAGES of SIN is DEATH" thing is still mostly up but will probably be gone very soon. Can anybody tell me if there are any plans for the land or will it just revert to parking? I haven't seen any discussion of it so I assume it's common knowledge what's happening to it, except for me.

[VivaLFuego]

Demolition on the Pacific Garden Mission is well underway. The "For the WAGES of SIN is DEATH" thing is still mostly up but will probably be gone very soon. Can anybody tell me if there are any plans for the land or will it just revert to parking? I haven't seen any discussion of it so I assume it's common knowledge what's happening to it, except for me.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Jones High School will be expanding into the space and also into the adjacent parking lot.

[Eventually...Chicago]

The high school to the north of it is expanding, i think.

[ardecila]

Yeah, Jones is adding a gym and an auditorium. Thankfully, the proposal only includes 35 parking spaces. Some people at Jones have started a petition to add more, but I don't think they'll be taken seriously; land is too valuable to squander like that.

[honte]

Is it possible? The render looks OK - beats my expectations by a wide margin. In fact, the garage looks better than the hotels Friedman is building, and more progressive environmentally too.

I'd still far prefer they integrate it into a tower, of course. Friedman is running out of vacant land, which means the wrecking ball can't be far behind.
_______________________________________

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=29523

Friedman building ‘green’ parking structure
By Shia Kapos, May 21, 2008

(Crain’s) — Chicago developer Al Friedman plans to spend $50 million building a 900-stall environmentally friendly parking garage to accommodate his 30 tenants and customers in the River North area.

...

"Usually a garage is a staid, ordinary structure. We didn't want that. We didn't want a garage that looked like a garage," Mr. Friedman said. "At the same time we’re trying to acknowledge that the car is a central part of society. A garage is the antithesis of 'green' so we asked 'How can we make it as green as possible?' We wanted to blend aesthetics and still let people know it's a public parking garage."

[Mr Downtown]

Jones HS expansion was the excuse used to force the mission out.

[the urban politician]

Is it possible? The render looks OK - beats my expectations by a wide margin. In fact, the garage looks better than the hotels Friedman is building, and more progressive environmentally too.

I'd still far prefer they integrate it into a tower, of course. Friedman is running out of vacant land, which means the wrecking ball can't be far behind.
_______________________________________

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=29523

Friedman building ‘green’ parking structure
By Shia Kapos, May 21, 2008

(Crain’s) — Chicago developer Al Friedman plans to spend $50 million building a 900-stall environmentally friendly parking garage to accommodate his 30 tenants and customers in the River North area.

...

"Usually a garage is a staid, ordinary structure. We didn't want that. We didn't want a garage that looked like a garage," Mr. Friedman said. "At the same time we’re trying to acknowledge that the car is a central part of society. A garage is the antithesis of 'green' so we asked 'How can we make it as green as possible?' We wanted to blend aesthetics and still let people know it's a public parking garage."

^ Yeah, I actually can look at that pic and not wince. I like how the developer is fully aware of the oxymoron of building a "green garage". Either way, that whole area of town was a sea of parking surrounding Harey Carey's 5 years ago when I lived in Chicago, and now with the development of that garage the whole area will be fully enclosed.

[the urban politician]

Hey Aldermen Fioretti and Reilly (and others--yeah that means you too fat fuck Levar), if you're reading this then maybe you can learn a thing or two from Ald Stone about how to deal with shameless NIMBYism the proper & reasonable way besides simply catering to their every selfish whim:

From David Roeder's column in the Sun Times (http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/961180,CST-FIN-roeder21.article):

50TH WARD FIGHT: Over the last two weeks, Ald. Bernard Stone (50th) twice has had angry crowds at his ward office for a meeting about a zoning deal. There were many things about the proposal for senior housing at 6917 N. Western that enraged the neighbors. It was height, number of units, parking, design. The battle had overtones from the hard-fought aldermanic election Stone survived last year.

Stone is moving the project through the City Council, starting the process Tuesday with an endorsement of the deal by the Council's Zoning Committee. He said concessions by the developer addressed the main objections. Stone conceded people still don't like the deal, but ascribed that to stubbornness. "The meetings were very contentious because the people just don't want it. If that lot remains empty as it has been, they'd be happy," he said.

Because of the outcry, the developer, Dr. Muhammad Ghani, cut the size of the building from 96 units to 90 and doubled its parking slots to 67. He also improved access to the parking and for emergency vehicles and drop-offs. As for height, Stone's letting Ghani go with 72 feet, or seven stories. "The current zoning allows 65 feet, so we're arguing here about seven feet," Stone said.

He said he's willing to accept the additional density because he likes that the housing is for seniors, a use he feels better suits the area than just another condo deal.

Neighbors, however, remain livid. Zachary Schiffman of the West Rogers Park Community Organization said many would like a building of no more than 50 units. He said Stone has tried to discredit opponents with the "not in my backyard," or NIMBY, tag that Schiffman finds deeply unfair. He said the most important issue is that Stone makes zoning decisions in secret.

"If there were any central planning for the ward, this project wouldn't even be considered," Schiffman said. Stone denies the secrecy charge, but he operates without a zoning advisory panel that other aldermen use on the development-intensive North Side.

[the urban politician]

"If there were any central planning for the ward, this project wouldn't even be considered," Schiffman said. Stone denies the secrecy charge, but he operates without a zoning advisory panel that other aldermen use on the development-intensive North Side.

^ I'd also like to point out that this is exactly why central community planning boards are moronic and need to die miserably. Fioretti's little "planning board" will be nothing more than a NIMBY sound machine that blocks everything everywhere and force-feeds extra PARKING down everybody's throats. I imagine it being akin to force feeding ducks to create Foie gras..

Fioretti, DON'T DO IT! It's stupid. Don't let mindless mob-rule take over the role of Chicago's planning agency!

[Abner]

Bernie Stone is hardly a paradigm of good government. Just because his undemocratic methods sometimes have results that you favor doesn't make him a good guy.

[VivaLFuego]

Is it possible? The render looks OK - beats my expectations by a wide margin. In fact, the garage looks better than the hotels Friedman is building, and more progressive environmentally too.

I'd still far prefer they integrate it into a tower, of course. Friedman is running out of vacant land, which means the wrecking ball can't be far behind.
_______________________________________

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=29523

Friedman building ‘green’ parking structure
By Shia Kapos, May 21, 2008

(Crain’s) — Chicago developer Al Friedman plans to spend $50 million building a 900-stall environmentally friendly parking garage to accommodate his 30 tenants and customers in the River North area.

...

"Usually a garage is a staid, ordinary structure. We didn't want that. We didn't want a garage that looked like a garage," Mr. Friedman said. "At the same time we’re trying to acknowledge that the car is a central part of society. A garage is the antithesis of 'green' so we asked 'How can we make it as green as possible?' We wanted to blend aesthetics and still let people know it's a public parking garage."

Very mixed feelings on this. I like the garage itself; alot. I hate the location. This will likely decimate transit mode share for commute-to-work trips in River North, especially since the language of Friedman providing parking to accomodate his tenants/customers suggests that the parking will either be heavily subsidized (e.g. underpriced at the time of consumption) or bundled (worse yet: free!) with lease agreements, etc. If this garage weren't literally across the street from the "downtown core" (everything south of Kinzie being zoned DC-12 or higher), I could be a little more enthusiastic about it. The plethora of garages built in the 80s when the city opened up the Loop to garage development slaughtered the transit mode share by reducing the cost and difficulty of parking, and I don't see why this will be much different. The inclusion of bike facilities (parking, showers, etc) is a nice touch, though.

What ever happened to the movement some years ago to landmark the various Italianate structures along Clark St in that area? Obviously the landmarking never happened; who killed it?

[aaron38]

Well it looks like an unstoppable force hit an unmoveable object... and nothing happened.

Apparently 100 people showed up at the Mt. Prospect meeting last night and the NIMBYs and anti-NIMBYs argued for 4 1/2 hours! to a deadlock, and in the end the village council decided they couldn't make a decision, need more time and did nothing.

I'm betting they cave and lop off a couple floors and add more parking.

[VivaLFuego]

Well it looks like an unstoppable force hit an unmoveable object... and nothing happened.

Apparently 100 people showed up at the Mt. Prospect meeting last night and the NIMBYs and anti-NIMBYs argued for 4 1/2 hours! to a deadlock, and in the end the village council decided they couldn't make a decision, need more time and did nothing.

I'm betting they cave and lop off a couple floors and add more parking.

Really, the Daily Herald ran a story saying the project was approved 5-1.

[honte]

What ever happened to the movement some years ago to landmark the various Italianate structures along Clark St in that area? Obviously the landmarking never happened; who killed it?

It wasn't killed per se, thankfully, as that would be the end of that. Rather, to my knowledge it just kind of fizzled away - too many fires to fight, I'd guess, and the city rarely moves on landmarking anything unless one of the following is met (in my supposed order of priority):

1) it serves the political agenda,
2) it is an unrecognized "landmark" that is in need of repair and the owner requests some TIF money (and it serves the political agenda),
3) neighbors band together and scramble for a district or protection of a building (and it serves the political agenda),
4) strong possibility it might serve the political agenda,
5) the preservation community makes a huge stink (and it serves the political agenda)
6) there is personal interest in the building from within the Commission.

;)


None of these happened with the Friedman area, probably because the Mercantile Exchange thing flared up around that time. There weren't too many "neighbors" at that time either. I think the idea was that Friedman had rehabbed so many buildings, and had gotten boatloads of City money to rehab buildings, so how could he ever dare to tear anything down? Obviously, that wasn't the case - there has been the threat at Clark and also he refaced one of them about three years ago with suburban-style brick (on Clark north of Kinzie).

But, since I've run around your question a bit, the obvious answer is that Natarus was not interested in landmarking as a rule, and certainly was not interested in landmarking areas of the city that could trigger any kind of debate. That's my take on it.

[VivaLFuego]

Another question for the group:

What's the story behind the 9-story red brick building on the SW corner of Hollywood and Kenmore?

It looks to generally be in good shape, but is boarded up and unoccupied. Condo conversion gone south?

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=qzxtrb7pvqp0&style=b&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=11370714&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&sp=Point.qzxsz07pvqn6_Untitled%20item____&encType=1

[aaron38]

Really, the Daily Herald ran a story saying the project was approved 5-1.

Excellent! I should have checked the website. This morning's paper said the meeting went to 11:30pm without a decison. It sounded like the meeting ended without a decision, but apparently that was the print edition deadline.

The website says the vote came at 1am. So the Nimby's lost in extra innings! Good.
At 7 stories, this will be the tallest project under construction in the NW burbs that I know of. A proposed 8 story in Arlington Heights hasn't moved much yet.

[the urban politician]

Bernie Stone is hardly a paradigm of good government. Just because his undemocratic methods sometimes have results that you favor doesn't make him a good guy.

^ I never said he's a good guy. In fact, I would argue that Fioretti-types are more likely to be viewed as "good guys" than somebody who isn't a NIMBY panderer.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=46&SubSectionID=139&ArticleID=4919&TM=85505.77

New theater for an old bank
Fullerton State Bank building, set for landmark status, will become Lincoln Park Theater

By Felicia Dechter

In an art imitating life move, Lake View resident Walter Stearns is about to realize one of his dreams.

Stearns is the driving force behind the upcoming Lincoln Park Theater, which will open in fall 2009 in a historic location at 1425 W. Fullerton Ave. The venue, formerly the Fullerton State Bank building, will undergo an approximately $4 million renovation, with groundbreaking expected this fall.
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3765/4919anr4.jpg

[honte]

^ That's good. Still, with all the endangered / abandoned / discarded theatres all over the city, one has to lament that one of those structures was not used instead. The bank could have become anything, while the old theatres are often gutted or demolished because their interiors don't lend themselves to much else. Oh well, it should be a really interesting venue.

[VivaLFuego]

^ Great news about the bank -> theatre, though I have to wonder about the interior. What good details are left, and what good details will be saved? It does sound like they intend to really use the space to its full potential, so I'd be surprised if they demo'd and trashed any finer detailing.

[Abner]

^ I never said he's a good guy. In fact, I would argue that Fioretti-types are more likely to be viewed as "good guys" than somebody who isn't a NIMBY panderer.

...I meant that there is more to being an alderman than giving thumbs up or down to tall buildings, and in all of those other duties, Stone is pretty bad news. I can guarantee he didn't make this decision out of any kind of regard for the good of the 50th ward or the city. Anyway this is not a forum about individual aldermen so I'll just remind you that an alderman can approve a tall building and still be a total dick.

[honte]

^ Great news about the bank -> theatre, though I have to wonder about the interior. What good details are left, and what good details will be saved? It does sound like they intend to really use the space to its full potential, so I'd be surprised if they demo'd and trashed any finer detailing.

One of the impressive things about the newest designations is their scope: The designation of the banks included much more of the interiors than we've become used to, for instance. I don't know what on this particular one was protected, but chances are that a good percentage of the interior details here will be saved if there are interior details worth saving.

[emathias]

Very mixed feelings on this. I like the garage itself; alot. I hate the location. This will likely decimate transit mode share for commute-to-work trips in River North, especially since the language of Friedman providing parking to accomodate his tenants/customers suggests that the parking will either be heavily subsidized (e.g. underpriced at the time of consumption) or bundled (worse yet: free!) with lease agreements, etc. If this garage weren't literally across the street from the "downtown core" (everything south of Kinzie being zoned DC-12 or higher), I could be a little more enthusiastic about it. The plethora of garages built in the 80s when the city opened up the Loop to garage development slaughtered the transit mode share by reducing the cost and difficulty of parking, and I don't see why this will be much different. The inclusion of bike facilities (parking, showers, etc) is a nice touch, though. ...

I live in River North and while I understand his business rationale, I'm still pretty disappointed that Friedman is building this garage. It seems like he's building a permanent structure - I'd almost be happier if it was a quick, crappy thing because then it could be viewed as temporary until he could get parking built into a larger mixed-use development. There's already a lot of new parking in the area with the two residential towers at Lasalle and Kinzie and it seems he could have found a way to integrate and hide it with the construction of the hotel on the Dearborn side of that block. If the City would act a little faster on the Carroll Street transitway, they'd then have standing to quash this as unneeded and against the final area vision - unfortunately, since they're not acting on Carroll Street in any sort of open, planned manner they are more or less forced to let developers take things into their own hands.

To me, it doesn't matter how "prettied-up" he makes it - it's still a parking garage, with limited commercial value to an area that is one of the most walkable, best transit areas in the nation. I mean, after Manhattan south of Central Park, the Loop and Near North really have no peer in that regard.

[the urban politician]

^ But that garage is replacing what was already a sea of parking lots. Sure, those lots didn't contain 900 stalls, but the large amount of commercial & residential construction nearby is going to increase demand anyhow.

Funny how this is happening right after the Daley mandates that people need to use transit & supports an increase in the parking tax. More supply = lower prices, so perhaps the effect of the higher parking tax gets nullified?

[Eventually...Chicago]

That parking garage is the very definition of

GREENWASHING!!!!

(dramatic background music)

[honte]

^ Yeah, it's true.

[VivaLFuego]

^ But that garage is replacing what was already a sea of parking lots. Sure, those lots didn't contain 900 stalls, but the large amount of commercial & residential construction nearby is going to increase demand anyhow.

Funny how this is happening right after the Daley mandates that people need to use transit & supports an increase in the parking tax. More supply = lower prices, so perhaps the effect of the higher parking tax gets nullified?

On the margin, it makes River North that much more attractive as a driving destination for people that would have made the trip anyway. Not only for journey-to-work trips, but also in the off-peak when parking structures arent at capacity and compete on price (with more supply only pushing rates downward).

Win some and lose some, I guess.

[Mr Downtown]

Another point of view is that it makes River North competitive with the West Loop for small sales and professional offices. Some of those folks may have perfectly legitimate reasons to have a car handy or may be willing to pay the cost of commuting by car. So long as they're paying the direct costs of off-street parking either at the cashier's booth or in their rent checks to Friedman, and so long as the garage's urban design impacts are regulated, it should be none of our business. I find it hard to believe that the mere construction of one market-rate garage will really change someone's decision about whether to drive to work or not.

[the urban politician]

On the margin, it makes River North that much more attractive as a driving destination for people that would have made the trip anyway. Not only for journey-to-work trips, but also in the off-peak when parking structures arent at capacity and compete on price (with more supply only pushing rates downward).

Win some and lose some, I guess.

^ Never fear. They can all the parking they want--but nobody can stop this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ad/Oil_Prices_Medium_Term.jpg/800px-Oil_Prices_Medium_Term.jpg

BUAHAHAHAHA!!! :haha: :jester:

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^

:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:

SRSLY

Part of me hates paying 50 bucks to fill up my tank but a much bigger part of me secretly loves it.

[VivaLFuego]

^ Transit ridership is up like gangbusters on almost every route and line that isnt under construction...

^ Mr D,
-Generally- agree, though 900 spaces is enough to alter the supply/demand equation and have an impact on the market price for parking in the River North district. That said, I agree with you that I'm fine with 1) drivers paying their fare share, and 2) development, including parking garage, respecting the streetscape. But I disagree with the notion that parking availability (and ergo pricing) don't have an impact on the decision to drive or not. If anything, high parking prices are one of the largest determinants of downtown mode split.

Further, I have my doubts that this "downtown core" parcel, which theoretically could host a major highrise with some serious FAR, is at highest-and-best (most profitable) use as a 900-space parking garage. If the PD were altered to allow a major highrise with a parking component, would a developer really pass that up in lieu of a mere garage? As it is, the PD more or less dictates Friedman build a garage here because the FAR, unit, etc allowances will all be taken up by the hotel, residential, and office towers. So I don't think the free-market-drivers-paying-their-fare-share-to-park argument really applies.

Are the nearby garages (Sterling, 400 N LaSalle, etc.) all at full capacity during the week?

[sammyg]

That parking garage is the very definition of
GREENWASHING!!!!

That's exactly what it is. There wouldn't be any debate at all on this forum about a new parking garage on Kinzie without the vaguely enviro bells and whistles. And once it's approved, who knows how much of all of that will remain. Not much, I'd guess.

[HowardL]

When I left work on Friday, there was a billboard announcing a new 2-storey retail component to be added to The Montgomery. It is going to be on the western side of the building at the southeast corner of Chicago and Larrabee. Seemed nice enough. It sort of mirrors the curved elements and general massing of the parking ramp on the other side of the tower. It's a brilliant idea. Replace the worthless grass lawn with something that people can use.

[honte]

^ "Worthless grass lawn." Right, entirely worthless.

[HowardL]

Fine ... unused ... neglected lawn.

[Taft]

^ "Worthless grass lawn." Right, entirely worthless.

He does kind of have a point. With all of the density over there, cabrini coming down and retail going in, that corner is set to be hopping in the coming years. A tiny grassy area on the corner there wouldn't serve the ubran environment all that well, IMO. Especially since there's a nice park just down Kingsbury...

Taft

[VivaLFuego]

^ "Worthless grass lawn." Right, entirely worthless.

Open green space = good....usually. Unused open space of almost any variety is a black hole of urbanity and vibrancy... = bad, usually. It's not like we're talking about building an astroturf soccer field in a quiet park or something crazy like that, where lacking "urbanity" is a virtue, even a stated goal... we're talking about Chicago Avenue, steps from River North.

[Abner]

One thing I've noticed about a lot of modernist developments is that they incorporate poorly shaped, awkwardly placed, and very small areas of "green space," usually a lawn and shrubbery. There's no relaxing to be had right up against Chicago Ave. It's like there's a belief that there is a simple linear relationship between square footage of open space and the space's value to residents, as if open space is beneficial to people for no other reason than there are no buildings there. Judging by the use they make of open spaces, people seem to prefer interior courtyards and backyards to front lawns.

[aaron38]

The LSE parkhomes
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r86/aaron38/Chicago%205-23-08/IMG_1149.jpg

The eagerly anticipated western LSE park stairs
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r86/aaron38/Chicago%205-23-08/IMG_1153.jpg

[honte]

One thing I've noticed about a lot of modernist developments is that they incorporate poorly shaped, awkwardly placed, and very small areas of "green space," usually a lawn and shrubbery. There's no relaxing to be had right up against Chicago Ave. It's like there's a belief that there is a simple linear relationship between square footage of open space and the space's value to residents, as if open space is beneficial to people for no other reason than there are no buildings there. Judging by the use they make of open spaces, people seem to prefer interior courtyards and backyards to front lawns.

I think you are maybe forgetting that this building was constructed as a posh corporate headquarters, not residences.

In any case, I really don't want to get into all of this again; I seem to always get myself into these endless arguments. It's been painfully demonstrated that I am in the minority on this board, and that is fine. But the question I will leave with, one which I have asked many times before (and you all know my personal answer): Does every square inch of land have to be packed with people at all times to be useful?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ No, not every square inch, but the vast majority of them do need to be packed to be useful. That just how cities are, in the CBD/dense core all land should be at a reasonable if not full utilization or else weaknesses will arise in the core since businesses don't like to be near open or abandoned lots.

However, in more residential areas like the Gold Coast and Lincoln Park, small pockets of relatively unused land are good for the environment since they provide a spacier feel for the residents, generally raising moral, whether they are used or not.

[Taft]

I think you are maybe forgetting that this building was constructed as a posh corporate headquarters, not residences.

In any case, I really don't want to get into all of this again; I seem to always get myself into these endless arguments. It's been painfully demonstrated that I am in the minority on this board, and that is fine. But the question I will leave with, one which I have asked many times before (and you all know my personal answer): Does every square inch of land have to be packed with people at all times to be useful?

To answer your question: of course not. But I think that "useful" is a word that means different things to different people. One thing I have a hard time finding useful are the "grass museums" that pop up around the city. Wether they be oversized lawns of the variety we are currently discussing or unused parks like Pritzker park on State and Van B, these spaces suck the vitality out of the streetscape without offering anything meaningful in return.

Split Pritzker park in two, the half closer to the el becoming greenspace with a fountain and benches in the middle (ok, a bit cliche) and the other half becoming a dog park for loop residents. Turn the grassy space in front of M Wards into an open sculpture gallery. IMO, those would be much more "useful" spaces that would keep their greenspace qualities while inviting use and offering visual respite from the city. Heck, just add some decent landscaping to either space and you'd have *something*.

I have no problem with greenspace, so long as it serves the urban environment. I just don't think large lawns abutting some of the busiest streets in Chicago serve the urban environment well: they are not used (in the literal sense) and they aren't visually appealing or otherwise worthwhile.

Taft

[Abner]

I think you are maybe forgetting that this building was constructed as a posh corporate headquarters, not residences.

In any case, I really don't want to get into all of this again; I seem to always get myself into these endless arguments. It's been painfully demonstrated that I am in the minority on this board, and that is fine. But the question I will leave with, one which I have asked many times before (and you all know my personal answer): Does every square inch of land have to be packed with people at all times to be useful?

Just to clarify, I definitely think that green space is valuable--even (or especially) when it's not crowded with people--but I think many developments haven't considered what kind of green space makes people happiest. I think the exact same amount of open space as exists at Chicago and Larrabee could be sited to give people a lot more pleasure. It's not about increasing the number of people who use space but increasing the satisfaction of those who do use it, and I mean "use" very broadly. And I do think that lawns are detrimental when they're up against fast thoroughfares like Chicago Ave. because drivers tend to speed up when they get that feeling of openness. (Yeah, this particular one has shrubbery and trees facing the street.) I wish open space would more often face side streets, where residents always crave it, rather than major streets where it just becomes a void.

[honte]

^ I agree that the Chicago green space is not ideally sited. I also agree with Taft in a general dislike for big, boring patches of lawn. But, we have to make the best of what we have. The old Wards lawn could be improved in a number of ways, I agree.

My opinion is that, 1) the old Ward's building itself is being further degraded, which is a loss; and 2) that patch of green space will become more valued as River North continues to densify. I doubt either of those come as any surprise. Anyway...

[VivaLFuego]

A 30 page presentation on the redevelopment process for Harper Court:

http://www.vision53.org/resources/HarperCourt_Redevelopment0verview508.pdf

This includes redeveloping the Harper Court mall and that large hideous surface parking lot.

The presentation says the overall FAR is targeted to be between 2.5 and 3.5, with maximum building heights to be no taller than the adjacent 11-story Hyde Park Bank building. Everyone here should write to the consultant leading the public input portion of the development (ccs@ccstudioinc.com) and Alderman Preckwinkle to lend support to approval at the high end of that range, with maximum plausible number of residential units :) This is supposed to be the new "downtown" Hyde Park, which will require major new population density and some serious density of the built environment.

And just because I'm feeling cruel, here's a picture of what used to be on the site of that huge ugly parking lot, along Lake Park north of 53rd St, in 1956 just before urban renewal:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_7vNdIdheK3w/R_pvdT0OBpI/AAAAAAAABJM/k_fGhgtPUKA/s1600-h/Harper+Court+Parking+Lot+ca.+1956.jpg

Sorry for ruining your day with that pic.

EDIT: I should credit the Hyde Park Progress blog for digging up that photograph I linked to.

[EarlyBuyer]

YouTube video: The Parkhomes at Lakeshore East

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zBIYPSrOyQ8&feature=user

[EarlyBuyer]

Two YouTube video's: Solstice on the Park

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IVyfFQgHTCk&feature=user


This one may have been previously posted:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=85gtcWmV-8Q&feature=user

[emathias]

Just to clarify, I definitely think that green space is valuable--even (or especially) when it's not crowded with people--but I think many developments haven't considered what kind of green space makes people happiest. I think the exact same amount of open space as exists at Chicago and Larrabee could be sited to give people a lot more pleasure. It's not about increasing the number of people who use space but increasing the satisfaction of those who do use it, and I mean "use" very broadly. And I do think that lawns are detrimental when they're up against fast thoroughfares like Chicago Ave. because drivers tend to speed up when they get that feeling of openness. (Yeah, this particular one has shrubbery and trees facing the street.) I wish open space would more often face side streets, where residents always crave it, rather than major streets where it just becomes a void.

I believe that with 757 N Orleans, there is supposed to be a small "pocket park" created by the developers after it's constructed. That's great, except the "pocket park" they're going to make is on the NE corner of Superior and Orleans, and very high traffic area next to a brick wall that, if it's anything like my brick wall, will be radiating roasting-hot heat in the summertime and conducting ice-cold air in the winter. I hope I've heard wrong, because a pocket park at that site is beyond moronic.

[emathias]

...
And just because I'm feeling cruel, here's a picture of what used to be on the site of that huge ugly parking lot, along Lake Park north of 53rd St, in 1956 just before urban renewal:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_7vNdIdheK3w/R_pvdT0OBpI/AAAAAAAABJM/k_fGhgtPUKA/s1600-h/Harper+Court+Parking+Lot+ca.+1956.jpg

Sorry for ruining your day with that pic.

Man, you ARE cruel ;-)

Too bad they can't just reconstruct that.

[the urban politician]

In light of all the development in the area (SoNo, New City, British School, ongoing development & North/Clybourn, etc etc) what will come of that neat little nightlife district on Weed St? I'm talking about the Zentras, the Circuses, the Wildhorse Saloon (is that what it was called? Can't remember), the Crobar, etc etc. I remember buying a hot dog from a Mexican street vendor there at midnight once (YES! There are street vendors in Chicago).

I realize that there are much more of those days behind me than ahead of me, but every great city needs a nightlife district. What do you guys think will happen to that area, and where will the big-time nightlife migrate to?

[BVictor1]

In light of all the development in the area (SoNo, New City, British School, ongoing development & North/Clybourn, etc etc) what will come of that neat little nightlife district on Weed St? I'm talking about the Zentras, the Circuses, the Wildhorse Saloon (is that what it was called? Can't remember), the Crobar, etc etc. I remember buying a hot dog from a Mexican street vendor there at midnight once (YES! There are street vendors in Chicago).

I realize that there are much more of those days behind me than ahead of me, but every great city needs a nightlife district. What do you guys think will happen to that area, and where will the big-time nightlife migrate to?

I'm sure that people will have to learn to co-exist with these established businesses as the residents did who moved into new condos on Halsted in Boystown. Yes, some residents did complain, but they were basically told to shut the hell up.

[honte]

^ River North still has a very solid late-night scene. Not that there are any establishments there that I would frequent, but it's there and seems to be getting stronger (despite some efforts to quench it that I have heard about).

West Loop's scene seems stable, with evidence that it is growing further west toward Ashland. And I have seen a few music joints open now in the South Loop too.

I'd be curious to hear about this from anyone who is more of an expert in the "scene" than boring old I.

I know it would never happen, but I wish the city would take some of the land being cleared from the housing projects and designate it as a permanent late-night, mixed-use, mixed-income district. This would include live-work spaces for artists, and commercial space for the entertainment and evening-hours businesses that always seem to get chased out. The people who chose to move to this area would have an idea of what they were getting into, and business owners would have a sense of security. This could be a very successful business model for city rejuvenation of less desirable areas, a way to create "character districts" that attract people and businesses that otherwise might not have looked there. If you use your imagination, you can imagine an entertainment hub around Pershing and the Dan Ryan where Robert Taylor was. It's served by two elevated trains and a major highway, and is only a few minutes South of downtown. I would love for The Stroll to somehow return to the South Side.

[the urban politician]

^ Sounds dandy and all, but what major entertainment/late night club district can you think of that was planned in such a manner?

The whole appeal is that they develop organically and are totally unplanned. Plus, they tend to work better in older, industrial spaces. I realize that there isn't a science behind this, but that has at least been my observation

[budman]

^ River North still has a very solid late-night scene. Not that there are any establishments there that I would frequent, but it's there and seems to be getting stronger (despite some efforts to quench it that I have heard about).

West Loop's scene seems stable, with evidence that it is growing further west toward Ashland. And I have seen a few music joints open now in the South Loop too.

I'd be curious to hear about this from anyone who is more of an expert in the "scene" than boring old I.


You are right about River North being a late night scene, and there are many others as well - Rush Street/Gold Coast, Damen/Milwaukee/North Ave, Wrigleyville, parts of Clark and Halsted and Lincoln Ave (in Lincoln Park the stretch of Lincoln from Webster to Childrens Memorial is lined with bars),
restaurant row on Randolph west of Canal, and the list goes on...

[VivaLFuego]

In light of all the development in the area (SoNo, New City, British School, ongoing development & North/Clybourn, etc etc) what will come of that neat little nightlife district on Weed St? I'm talking about the Zentras, the Circuses, the Wildhorse Saloon (is that what it was called? Can't remember), the Crobar, etc etc. I remember buying a hot dog from a Mexican street vendor there at midnight once (YES! There are street vendors in Chicago).

I realize that there are much more of those days behind me than ahead of me, but every great city needs a nightlife district. What do you guys think will happen to that area, and where will the big-time nightlife migrate to?

Luckily, Chicago has tons of nightlife districts. Since you've left down, the hottest and most happening spot, jammed with cars and cabs and valet loading zones and all the coolest, richest kids is now...... Damen/North/Milwaukee. But as earlier pointed out, River North, Weed St., Wrigleyville, Boystown, Lincoln Park, Gold Coast (Viagra Triangle) are all doing just fine in the nightlife regard. In Wrigleyville (Clark), Lincoln Park (Lincoln) and Gold Coast (Division) there are occasionally police street closures from about 11am-2am on summer weekends because the large crowds spill into the streets, and I wouldn't be surprised if there is increased police presence in Wicker Park imminently because it is now officially a zoo as of the last year or so.

[a chicago bearcat]

This could be a very successful business model for city rejuvenation of less desirable areas, a way to create "character districts" that attract people and businesses that otherwise might not have looked there. If you use your imagination, you can imagine an entertainment hub around Pershing and the Dan Ryan where Robert Taylor was. It's served by two elevated trains and a major highway, and is only a few minutes South of downtown. I would love for The Stroll to somehow return to the South Side.

The only problem is that character districts cannot be planned, they can be encouraged, but if they are planned and seen as being encouraged by the establishment, then you'll never really get the great type of night life stuff that exists north of lincoln park in chicago, or at that border of the near west side along ashland

I would love for the area along that strip between the green and red lines on the south side to get some good entrepreneurial infill development. Some truly cutting edge sustainable off the grid housing and retail projects along the "green" line. The city could set up a district to encourage innovation and the kind of free thinking that creates these new character neighborhoods, without giving the money to big developers with the "promise" that they will build green, mixed use, and with a conscious.

That would bring a sense of stability and a younger post graduate clientele that frequents the kind of hole in the wall evening pre club establishments that I think you were referring to earlier.

It would be kind of like what Portland has fostered, but we'd have to be careful to not try and control how it grew, but why it grew.

[ardecila]

Hmm... has there ever been any sort of planned club district in an older American city? The ones here and in NY have sort of "sprung up" organically in neighborhoods with an unusual/unique atmosphere. In other cities, like LA, Miami, or Phoenix, club districts don't really have those interesting, decrepit places to inject life into, so they take on a completely different kind of form with parking lots and large 1-story buildings - basically like industrial parks with glitter and DJs.

It would be very interesting if Chicago planners somehow found a way to accommodate/anticipate the unpredictable needs of the entertainment industry and incorporate them into a new mixed-use district.

One thing I do worry about, though, is transit - convenient transit is nice to help cut down on drunk driving problems, although I suppose taxis in sufficient numbers could do the job as well.

[the urban politician]

^ yeah that was never an issue for me when I was in Chicago. I always took a cab around when I had a couple too many drinks. Luckily, Chicago has plenty of cabs at your disposal for that sort of thing..

BTW one club zone that none of you mentioned so far is Lake St under the L in the west loop. That was one of my favorite ones simply because of the grit

[Chicagoguy]

I was wondering if there had been any plans or proposals for any new theatres in the downtown area? I read that there are more and more Broadway shows wanting to come here but we just dont have the theatres to handle multiple open run shows. I was just curious to find out more.

[the urban politician]

NU grads say Daley too small for big day (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/content/education/chi-daley-northwesternmay29,0,1022702.story)
As commencement speaker, mayor a letdown, some say
By Jodi S. Cohen and Brian Cox | Chicago Tribune
May 29, 2008
Mayor Richard Daley may be a political powerhouse in Chicago, but just over the city line in Evanston, some seniors at Northwestern University think he's too, well, parochial to be their commencement speaker.

Students say they feel let down because the choice, announced this week, doesn't carry the cachet of recent speakers, Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, or even last year's speaker, Julia Louis-Dreyfus of "Seinfeld."

[VivaLFuego]

Sheltered, entitled.....their degrees should be revoked because they obviously learned very little in the course of receiving their "education." Which isn't to say anything about Daley's quality as a commencement speaker, just the attitude of those pricks who indeed need to "grow up."

Not that I'm grumpy or anything, and it's not really relevant to Chicago real estate development...

[honte]

^ Sounds dandy and all, but what major entertainment/late night club district can you think of that was planned in such a manner?

The whole appeal is that they develop organically and are totally unplanned. Plus, they tend to work better in older, industrial spaces. I realize that there isn't a science behind this, but that has at least been my observation

Well, there was significant legislation (even, yes, aesthetic) and collective effort that went into the rebirth of Times Square. Sure, it was already there, and sure, it's ended up too Disney for my taste, but it worked.

I was not suggesting that the City legislate any uses or provide any particular funds for this effort. All I suggest is that they do this through creative zoning. Make an area, and allow 1) Mixed-use, live/work arrangements, and other "noncomforming" establishments; 2) remove the barriers to night commerce; 3) introduce ordinances that clearly explain and protect the area as a "24/7 district."

If there were some real vision (and rigorous thought, much more than what I'm doing now), possibly other design features could be encouraged, such as exterior commercial arcades, or commercial / living spaces that are arranged more creatively than the typical "ground floor commercial / residential above" scenario. But the place would still develop organically on its own terms.

Daley could put his damn casino there too, I guess.

Ardecila, I agree that it would be ideal to do this in a place with existing structures.

TUP, by the way, I did allude to West Loop's Lake Street scene. This is the one that is moving west toward Ashland. There are a few pretty low-key joints now over that way, and one major club whose name I don't know.

[BWChicago]

I was wondering if there had been any plans or proposals for any new theatres in the downtown area? I read that there are more and more Broadway shows wanting to come here but we just dont have the theatres to handle multiple open run shows. I was just curious to find out more.

This is the most recent news I know of on that front:
http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/the_theater_loop/2007/05/new_downtown_th.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/mmx-0316_theatermar16,0,632338.story

[Eventually...Chicago]

Those kind of planned nightlife areas i think are popular in second tier cities because that is their only way to convice people to stay downtown after dark. With cities like chicago, ny,... i don't think it is really necessary. More often they feel a bit contrived and watered down. Like who wants to go drink at the Vienna Beef Bar Promenade with the beer garden brought to you by Playboy. Actually, wait a second here...

General policies, like allowing bars to now serve people outside or not charging event coordinator permit fees to have live music events i think are more important than actually designating an area for clubs and bars. This is chicago, we like to drink (especially during baseball season), if a bar is needed somewhere, a bar will appear!

[Chicagoguy]

This is the most recent news I know of on that front:
http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/the_theater_loop/2007/05/new_downtown_th.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/mmx-0316_theatermar16,0,632338.story

It is such a shame that they ended up not putting a large theatre in the new Block 37 building, it was a perfect location for it. I wish that with all of this new contruction going on that someone would be willing to incorporate a new theatre into the design. They are in such high demand right now especially in Chicago. With the set up we have now it is hard to have multiple open run shows...which I believe is the long term goal...since we only have a small handfull of theatres to use. Most shows that come only come for a week or so on tour. Hopefully something that is proposed or will be proposed in the future can incorporate one into their design!

[cbotnyse]

I realize that there are much more of those days behind me than ahead of me, but every great city needs a nightlife district. What do you guys think will happen to that area, and where will the big-time nightlife migrate to?there are already big nightlife districts on Rush St and Hubbard St. Hell you could call all of River North a night life district.

edit: I'm late to this party, good responses all around here.

[pip]

some random thoughts about Chicago though not about development. No other place to put it.

I was working my dreaded pay off my credit card weekly shift in a pizza place and was having a cigarette just about outside the Tokyo Hotel on Ohio street. Some people on business from Korea were looking for the Tokyo Hotel. I and another random person said you don't want to stay there. We chatted for a while and then they went to check in after we suggested other hotels in the area.

After work I went to the Starbucks on the corner of State/Ohio and there they were looking at a map. I went over and said 'hi,' they had just got a refund and were not going to stay there. They showed me pictures of their room. Its a digusting place, worse than I thought. I helped them out finding a hotel. Well, there is a major convention in town and they were on a limited budget so really nothing was available. They were going to stay at a hotel in Lakeview is what it came down to.

They contaced the Korean Business Association or something like that, got checked into a hotel room in Arlington Heights and a special cab was going to pick them up when they called for it to take them there. They had business in some suburb and Arlington Heights was convenient even though they wanted to stay in downtown and Metra it out but downtown was booked and Lakeview was pushing it considering they have no idea where the hell they were.

Soooo, for the first time I showed complete strangers around Chicago. While showing them around I wasn't in a gruff fast pace walk trying to avoid the crowds.

I must say Chicago from a tourist perspective puts on a great show. The city really did look good and while they were snapping pictures people, Chicagoans, were just so nice and helpful as they assumed I was a tourist too, got random advice, pictures taken of us as a group. We walked to the Museum Campus and cabbed it to the John Hancock to have a few beers. So the cab driver thought I was a tourist too and I didn't say anything to see if he took us the right route. Well christ he did and even told us the highlights and sights during the ride.

All in all I was impressed with my own city as everyone thought I was a tourist too and looking around like I never do it did look great. I kept on hearing comments of how beautiful this city is and how clean it is from the guests I was showing around. One of the persons was a civil engineer and loved the architecture. Thought I would share that. This city looked good and Chicagoans themselves were just so pleasant and easy to deal with.

this forum is slowwwww tonite, 15 minutes to edit a spelling error.

[cbotnyse]

^^ speaking of, can we please get rid of that damn Tokyo Hotel?? it is a disgusting eyesore for the area. (and apparently just as disgusting on the inside)

[Mr Downtown]

^Of course. Everyone knows downtown should only be for rich people. Sorry to have upset you with the sight of those disgusting student travelers only paying $90 a night.

[pip]

^its worth more like $90.00/week not a night - no joke, which is what the longer term guests pay. Its not the hotel guests, its the building itself. So many overseas tourists are conned into staying there booking online/ or making reservations from overseas. The location is excellent. The building is roach/rat infested, smelly, moldy, dirty and dirty. I have the people's emails that I toured around, I'll ask for the inside pictures and will post them. You will be shocked.

What I never understood about these buildings is the rent. Amazing how an extra hundred dollars/month buys.

The building is basically for people that have problems, like drugs/alcohol, mental issues and its cheap. I seen all sorts walk out. Of course I don't mind the extistence of that building but the owner should realize that he is conning foreign tourists into staying there. They hate it.

Now you want to talk about a dump. The Club Wilson Mens Hotel across from Truman College in Uptown. It is thought to be the last chicken wire sperating the beds/rooms in Chicago. $200/month. People die in their regulary, especially in the summer. The City just went through the building with a fine tooth comb and it looks like its days are numbered. People are dying from years of alcolhol/drup use and just a plain old bad lifestyle. The heat in the summer takes a toll on their bodies.

[cbotnyse]

^Of course. Everyone knows downtown should only be for rich people. Sorry to have upset you with the sight of those disgusting student travelers only paying $90 a night.Bullshit. total bullshit. I don't even know how to respond to such an idiotic and ignorant post.

There are plenty of low budget hotels in River North, and the downtown area that dont look like they are roach infested shit holes, that are litterally falling apart from filth. Hotels like that don't belong anywhere in any city.

GMAFB.

[VivaLFuego]

^^ speaking of, can we please get rid of that damn Tokyo Hotel?? it is a disgusting eyesore for the area. (and apparently just as disgusting on the inside)

Personally, I love it and think it adds a ton of character to the area, not to mention provides an affordable lodging choice for budget-travelers. It's not a transient slum or drug den(Mark Twain Hotel, anyone?), nor are its first floor business crappy either. I always stay at places like that when visiting Manhattan, and I'm quite glad they exist.

But yeah, TERRIBLE place for a businessman to stay!

No worries, it will probably go the same way as the Hotel Wacker before long, and receive a boutique conversion.

EDIT: pip, maybe my frame of reference is just shifted because I compare it to my local crappy hotels like the Mark Twain and Marshall, which make the Tokyo look like a Peninsula. But I didn't perceive Tokyo as bad as you describe it.

[Chicagoguy]

I was wondering if anyone has any information on possible new theaters that are in the works to go up or be rebuilt somewhere downtown. There is a pressing need for more theaters in the downtown theater district and Mayor Daley had released statements stating that he was going to be working on getting a couple new theaters. Does anyone have any new info or know of a different website or discussion board that may have more info?

[Kevin J]

I was wondering if anyone has any information on possible new theaters that are in the works to go up or be rebuilt somewhere downtown. There is a pressing need for more theaters in the downtown theater district and Mayor Daley had released statements stating that he was going to be working on getting a couple new theaters. Does anyone have any new info or know of a different website or discussion board that may have more info?

This is a topic touched on occasionally by Chris Jones, the Tribune's theater critic. The article below is the last development I recall him reporting:

http://chicago.metromix.com/theater/article/theater-project-is-a/287571/content

[Chicagoguy]

This is a topic touched on occasionally by Chris Jones, the Tribune's theater critic. The article below is the last development I recall him reporting:

http://chicago.metromix.com/theater/article/theater-project-is-a/287571/content

Thanks for the link...too bad it wasnt more exciting news!

[EarlyBuyer]

LAKESHORE EAST CAPTURES INTERNATIONAL DESIGN ‘OSCAR’

"Lakeshore East, this year’s winner in the Master Plan Design category, joins Trump World Tower in New York (2003); Harbor Point Apartments in Boston (1996) and The Woodlands in Texas (1992) as other U.S. winners in residential categories. Lakeshore East spans 28 acres, believed to be the largest parcel of downtown land under development in a major U.S. city. This $4 billion mixed-use development that, along with Millennium Park, anchors the rapidly growing New East Side."

http://www.lakeshoreeast.com/media/pr/magellan-fiabci-prix-dexcellence.html

[ethereal_reality]

and this is just one of the reasons why....


http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/5466/todayisagooddayflickrwe2.jpg

'Today is a good day' on FLICKR

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/985982,CST-FIN-roeder04.article

Meadows plan not just for rich
REAL ESTATE |

June 4, 2008Recommend (4)

DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com

........DESIGNS ON BRONZVILLE: Sketching a plan that includes housing in a mix of styles and for a range of incomes, Draper and Kramer Inc. has gone public with its vision for the Lake Meadows complex on the South Side.

The lakefront property, some 93 acres from 31st to 35th streets and running west to King Drive, is a large feature of the Bronzeville community. Activists there are worried about whether development of its open land ultimately will make the area too expensive for all but the well-to-do.

Draper and Kramer, which has been involved with Lake Meadows since the 1950s, is trying to put those concerns to rest. Its zoning proposal submitted to the city seeks authority for 7,845 housing units, including 2,000 that are rentals, along with a new allotment of retail space that would be focused near 35th Street and King Drive. New parks also are planned along with a footbridge connection over the Metra electric tracks, giving residents access to Burnham Park.

The new construction gradually would replace the more than 1,800 apartments in the site's nine high-rises. They aren't blights but Draper acknowledges they have seen better days. Sometimes mistaken for public housing, the buildings have a unique history of mixing tenants of different incomes and even race until the federal government decided it could not support managed integration.

Donald Vitek, vice president for development at Draper, said it'll be at least five years before any of those buildings comes down. They are about 90 percent occupied and many tenants have been there for a long time.

Vitek said Draper is committed to having replacement housing done before demolition occurs. The earliest phase of the project will be about 500,000 square feet of retail space. Some of it will be in buildings with the old-neighborhood style of stores on the street level and homes one flight up.

"The ownership has a long-term commitment to the neighborhood," Vitek said. "They intend to be involved in this for as long as anyone can envision."

The plan will need 25 years to be fully realized, he estimated. The timetable will change and market trends will alter the final look.

Regardless, Vitek said the last phase would be high-rise construction close to the lake, with a couple buildings that could be in the 60-story range................

[VivaLFuego]

^ Sigh. Bring in Antonuvich, I'm sure they can build something more attractive and quaint than Lake Meadows! Everyone wants to see vague and poorly executed references to a mishmash of historical styles rather than nearly flawless, sterile and soulless modernism! I can't believe anyone lives there to begin with, with no ornamentation on those buildings, why they practically look like housing projects! And let's use government mandated affordable-housing set-asides to try to force a "mixed-income" flavor to a new construction neighborhood, since that's worked so well every other time it's been tried.

I hope they get the retail portion done (especially redeveloping the ugly suburban strip mall), and the bridge over the IC, and then have the project die and the existing highrises rehabbed. If they want to build new highrises on the current surface parking lots, then by all means. If they want to generally recreate the street grid, by all means. But to demolish highrises that are nearly fully leased with a mixed-socioeconomic tenant base that developed naturally over the years, in a very fine and fully salvageable example of mid-century modernism, just seems unconscionable to me, especially in a city that supposedly prides itself on environmental friendliness. Demolition and construction are two of the least environmentally-friendly activities possible. Construction waste is generally estimated to be in the 20% range of all waste, and that's not even getting into air pollution. This environmental expense of course is very often justifiable (redeveloping parking lots, drastically underutilized parcels, etc), but not when you're demolishing an otherwise healthy residential community. I like the notion of increasing density, but this can be achieved without demolishing all of the existing highrises.

[Mr Downtown]

Draper & Kramer looked long and hard at rehabbing the existing buildings before making the reluctant decision that it would be better to start over. Some of the problems are solvable--inadequate electrical (microwaves are currently forbidden), uninsulated curtain wall, end-of-life stacks and HVAC, kitchen and bathroom stack locations--but all of them together start to add up to huge money. Others, such as very low ceiling heights, are much harder to solve.

[VivaLFuego]

^ How low are the ceilings? Aren't they 8 feet? That's certainly not high by vintage or today's luxury standards, but it ain't oppressive either. From an affordable rental perspective, lower ceiling heights = less volume to climate control per unit, which seems like a feature, not a bug. Doesn't Lake Point Tower have 8 or 8.5 foot ceilings? Guess we should tear that down too...

Clearly the utlity work would need to be done. I still don't quite see how rehabilitating or otherwise replacing the curtain wall, electric circuits, and plumbing stacks would be more expensive even on a per-unit basis than demolition + all new construction, but ok, I'll try to take your word for it. I'd be fascinated (seriously) to see the analysis and cost estimates used. Living in a mid-century modern highrise myself, I know alot of these rehabilitation expenses can be very substantial (needed major work to improve the electrical and beef up the service, the original single-pane windows with aluminum mullions are rather inefficient, and we're in the middle of a pricy concrete facade restoration right now), but it's still nothing like new construction and total replacement.

Lake Meadows' towers just don't strike me as unsalvagably deteriorated slums like the CHA highrises.

[honte]

^ Perfect summary of every developer's justification for demolition, Mr. D. The fact is, it's almost never the whole story, and sometimes completely fabricated.

From the community meetings on this subject I've been to, the people I have spoken with who are familiar with the inner workings of the proposal, etc, I have no reason to believe that D+K has "looked long and hard" about anything. I'm sure they looked at it cursorily. But their intent, no question about it, is to replace the buildings, allowing them to develop as many units as they can with the lowest possible effort. I don't believe the existing buildings are a problem at all on a building-by-building basis, but they pose certain limitations in terms of the overall scheme ($$) D+K would like to achieve and introduce complexity that the developer probably doesn't want to bother with. They also might stand in the way of political ambition.

If D+K hired one of the leading preservation architects to come to Lake Meadows (there are many), changed him or her with the task of making these buildings wonderful again, and this genuine effort failed, I might be more apt to believe the rhetoric. But as it stands now, I see buildings that were built better than most of their contemporaries, and no good reason why lesser buildings are perfectly salvageable but these are not.

[VivaLFuego]

^I'll differentiate my stance from honte's a bit, and ask merely for strong evidence that the highrises stand in the way of D+K's quest to maximize the value of their portfolio. Unlike honte (I'm assuming, may be wrong), I'm totally fine with D+K seeking approval to significantly increase density by building new highrises, and reconfiguring the street grid and of course improving the retail situation. I just don't see how demolition of the towers can be construed as a necessary step, at least until D+K demonstrates it to be so.

I mean, why is hardly anyone concerned about the demolition of about 2,000 existing units of market-rate mixed income housing? This ain't blight by any stretch of the imagination, so why eliminate them when they aren't inherently preventing another project from taking place?

[Mr Downtown]

I don't remember the details, but I went into the meeting with Draper & Kramer thinking they should save the buildings, and left satisfied that it was impractical.

The curtain wall presents a real dilemma for preservation of the recent past, which older masonry buildings didn't have. If you have to replace everything on the inside and everything on the outside, what's left? You have slabs, exit stairs, and elevator shafts. At some point it's like great-grandfather's ax, on which the head has been replaced twice and the handle four times, but honest, it's the very same axe . . .

[emathias]

I don't remember the details, but I went into the meeting with Draper & Kramer thinking they should save the buildings, and left satisfied that it was impractical.

The curtain wall presents a real dilemma for preservation of the recent past, which older masonry buildings didn't have. If you have to replace everything on the inside and everything on the outside, what's left? You have slabs, exit stairs, and elevator shafts. At some point it's like great-grandfather's ax, on which the head has been replaced twice and the handle four times, but honest, it's the very same axe . . .

Yeah, I don't know how many of you have actually spent time in the buildings, but while they are reasonable examples of modernism they really aren't anything special and as a group they pose pretty big site challenges to creating a cohesive urban neighborhood. They also really don't have a lot internally to work with. I don't know about the condition of the bones of the buildings, but the skin and circulatory systems could really use some serious work. So, basically, what you're left with are a group of really expensive, unoriginal rehabs that will poorly integrate with the urban fabric and have to compete with much newer, (hopefully) better built buildings that do integrate well with the urban fabric and will also likely be more unique within the larger development.

Could it be done? Sure, it's not so far out of the range of possibilities that it's impossible. But I really don't fault the developer for not wanting to take on the risk and the challenge of selling a lipsticked-up pig.

[honte]

^I'll differentiate my stance from honte's a bit, and ask merely for strong evidence that the highrises stand in the way of D+K's quest to maximize the value of their portfolio. Unlike honte (I'm assuming, may be wrong), I'm totally fine with D+K seeking approval to significantly increase density by building new highrises, and reconfiguring the street grid and of course improving the retail situation. I just don't see how demolition of the towers can be construed as a necessary step, at least until D+K demonstrates it to be so.

I mean, why is hardly anyone concerned about the demolition of about 2,000 existing units of market-rate mixed income housing? This ain't blight by any stretch of the imagination, so why eliminate them when they aren't inherently preventing another project from taking place?


I never said I was against increasing the density or reconfiguring the streets.... I think our positions are about the same.

Mr. Downtown is correct: The preservation of modernist, curtain-walled buildings is a challenge. But it is not insurmountable by any means, and I don't think it's the right response to run from the challenge - we have far too many of these to consider in the future simply to ignore the problem. I would point to the recent restorations of Lever House and Crown Hall as perfect examples of how steel-and-glass buildings can be brought to modern standards without compromising their exteriors. These might be bad examples, because the effort was considerable in each case, but also being landmarks, these buildings required the utmost attention to detail. While I would like the Lake Meadows towers to remain visibly as close to the original design as possible, I don't know if we exactly have to fret about 1/4" or 3/8" thick glazing here, etc, like we did at Crown Hall.

I highly disagree with emathias that these would be "lipsticked-up pigs." Foremost, never judge the history of a site or architecture before knowing the whole story. These buildings are far from unoriginal or insignificant. Second, the developer has never had a problem in this community marketing these units. They claim they want to retain an equal (or near-equal) number of rental units on the site. So, where is the challenge in attracting tenants? The new buildings and retail could make the site more desirable, not less, if they are planned correctly.

[aaron38]

While playing around with Google maps, thinking on the "reconfigure the burbs" topic and how much room is actually available out here, I realized something quite sickening. The entire Loop, and Woodfield Mall are basically the same size.

It really makes me wonder if some day all those parkinglots will be redeveloped? I mean, they could raze woodfield and put 2 dozen towers in there. We can turn Busse Woods into a new Central Park.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r86/aaron38/misc/DaLoop.jpg

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r86/aaron38/misc/Woodfield.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

I highly disagree with emathias that these would be "lipsticked-up pigs." Foremost, never judge the history of a site or architecture before knowing the whole story. These buildings are far from unoriginal or insignificant. Second, the developer has never had a problem in this community marketing these units. They claim they want to retain an equal (or near-equal) number of rental units on the site. So, where is the challenge in attracting tenants? The new buildings and retail could make the site more desirable, not less, if they are planned correctly.

Amen, amen, amen. Firstly, if I'm not mistaken these were from about 1957; very early and trendsetting in their design. No inland steel, of course, but the only significant residential modernist predecessor that comes to mind is 860-880. I hear those are very expensive to maintain too, maybe they could use a little bulldozing and replacement...

Secondly, as you allude to, these are not blight. We're not talking about a rotting, decaying commercial building (soon to be my neighbor the Village Theater for example). This is a healthy vibrant community. No, not new and not luxurious, but not everything should be. By the logic presented by emathias and Mr D, nothing would be a landmark save perhaps for facadectomies of irreplaceable facades. Do I think Lake Meadows are landmark quality? *Probably* not, though within a few decades this will be debatable when people realize the scarcity of such quality examples of the style. But I'd better not here a request for a dime of TIF money by D+K if they think the most efficient use of resources to bulldoze 2000 viable units of middle income housing.

honte can probably express the thoughts more eloquently and level-headedly than I, but something about bulldozing these buildings just really grates me (and it's not like I have personal emotional attachment to these particular buildings....I'd say the same of bulldozing Prairie Shores, South Commons, etc. it just seems needlessly gratuitous).

[LaSalle.St.Station]

Lake meadows sucks..... it is a great goalie for residences preventing the rest of chi to the lake.... Be Gone.

[Busy Bee]

It really makes me wonder if some day all those parkinglots will be redeveloped? I mean, they could raze woodfield and put 2 dozen towers in there. We can turn Busse Woods into a new Central Park.

Think long term, like 40, 50+ years and that statement might be more realistic than you think.

[emathias]

...
Secondly, as you allude to, these are not blight. ...

You are correct. They're not blight. But you know why they're not? Low-density and a ton of parking. They have lots and lots of parking, and next to zero density neighbors (an about-abandoned hospital, a few storage warehouses and a convention center that has almost zero traffic impact south of the Stevenson/LSD connector).

I don't have a problem with the buildings per se, but I have a big problem with the SITE of the buildings. If you show me how those buildings can be integrated into a dense, zero-surface-lot, urban neighborhood with busy adjacent areas while also paying to reskin, rewire, reventilate and replumb them, and I'd love to see them saved. I just don't think it's economically feasible to do all that and more than ANY given building (or set of buildings) I value having an urban experience in the city - especially adjacent to the urban core and a short walk to the Lakefront.