[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chicago-esquire-theater-boutiques-jun06,0,7805020.story

Former Esquire Theater to house luxury retailers after hotel plans dashed
By Sandra M. Jones | Tribune staff reporter

M Development has withdrawn plans to build a boutique hotel on the site of the shuttered Esquire Theater on Oak Street and instead will scale down the project to about a half dozen luxury retailers.

Efforts to redevelop the historic Gold Coast movie house have been in flux since the theater shut down in September 2006.

M Development, the Chicago-based owner of the property, originally proposed a mixed use complex consisting of a 100-room hotel and retail. The hotel portion of the project, which would rise about 10 stories high, encountered resistance from residents worried about traffic congestion and losing the intimate European character of the tony street, home to Jimmy Choo, Prada, Barneys and Hermes.

The developer submitted a revised proposal to the city on May 30, according to Madeleine Doering, chief of staff for Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd). That proposal is under review.

The city and the developer discussed a compromise earlier this year that would have allowed M Development to donate money to help preserve a landmark building nearby under an adopt-a-landmark bonus. In exchange for a landmark donation, developers are allowed to increase the density, or square footage, of their project. In the end, a final agreement wasn't reached.

In a letter dated Feb. 29, 2008, Ald. Reilly said he had "serious concerns regarding the potential negative impact such an intense use could have on the broader Gold Coast neighborhood."

Putting a relatively tall building in the middle of the block of European graystones "violates basic urban planning principles," Reilly said in the letter. He also said the hotel would burden the neighborhood's infrastructure, in particular an alley already heavily used by a condo and hotel.

Jeffrey Shapack, a principal at M Development, said the firm decided to focus on retail in order to get the project to move forward.

"Based on numerous factors and considerations, we made the decision to move forward with a retail/commercial only development on Oak Street with plans to begin development in 2009," said Shapack. "This development has generated a lot of interest from luxury national and international retailers who like the prospect of having their own branded façade in a new building on Oak Street."

[honte]

^ Excellent! The worst possible outcome - lose the historic building and get similar scale and density in exchange. Awesome!!

[Busy Bee]

To me, modifications in the plan for what replaces the Esquire changes little how shortsighted and tragic permitting that cinema house to be demolished really is.

[honte]

^ Of course. But at least if we got a nice design and some kind of improvement, any kind of improvement, I might be able to find some silver lining. Now, there is none.

Are there going to be any Moderne or Modern Pereria buildings left in Chicagoland?

[Eventually...Chicago]

In a letter dated Feb. 29, 2008, Ald. Reilly said he had "serious concerns regarding the potential negative impact such an intense use could have on the broader Gold Coast neighborhood."

Putting a relatively tall building in the middle of the block of European graystones "violates basic urban planning principles," Reilly said in the letter. He also said the hotel would burden the neighborhood's infrastructure, in particular an alley already heavily used by a condo and hotel.


it's crap statements like this that really drive home the point that alderman must be absolutely stripped of all zoning control. What the heck does reilly know of "basic urban planning principles"? Do you think he could tell apart robert moses from jane jacobs? Basic urban planning principles, my butt.

On a similar note, one of my good friends who is a urban planner for a medium size city in illinois told me that there is not one chicago planner who is a member of the APA. I guess it just goes to show that politicians, not educated planners make land use decisions in the city.

[Loopy]

Are there going to be any Moderne or Modern Pereira buildings left in Chicagoland?

Good question. I can count on one hand the good Art Moderne buildings that that I know still exist in Chicago. And of Pereira buildings specifically, the Esquire is the only extant remnant of his work in Chicago that I can think of.

Honte, are there other Wm. Pereira buildings left in Chicago? How would you preserve the Esquire, if you could?

[VivaLFuego]

In a letter dated Feb. 29, 2008, Ald. Reilly said he had "serious concerns regarding the potential negative impact such an intense use could have on the broader Gold Coast neighborhood."

Putting a relatively tall building in the middle of the block of European graystones "violates basic urban planning principles," Reilly said in the letter. He also said the hotel would burden the neighborhood's infrastructure, in particular an alley already heavily used by a condo and hotel.

This is all almost incomprehensibly stupid, even moreso when taken in the context of 1) that block of Oak Street which has a ~10 story apartment building a couple doors down from the Esquire, in the 2) very dense Gold Coast, in 3) Chicago. It's a shame our culture is such that the developer can't say "Alderman Reilly, you're objectively wrong and here's why" and win the argument.

[VivaLFuego]

Are there going to be any Moderne or Modern Pereria buildings left in Chicagoland?

I think one can argue that the original subway stations follow a Moderne asthetic (the only street-level facility being North/Clybourn), but these are getting gradually cheesed up rather than restored.

[honte]

^ Yes, definitely. I think there is actually quite a lot of Art Moderne in Chicago, perhaps not universally great, but it's out there. I was referring specifically to the firm that did the Esquire: the younger of the two partners (William Pereira) went on to do such amazing structures as the LAX "Theme building" and the Transamerica Tower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pereira


Honte, are there other Wm. Pereira buildings left in Chicago? How would you preserve the Esquire, if you could?

Great questions from you too. The father Pereira's name comes up from time to time, pre-Modernism. Can't cite any specific examples off the top of my head.

I always dream that their amazing TB Sanitarium on the North Shore is going to surface some day, a noble wreck, something like the discovery of the Titanic. I've never seen any specific information that it was actually destroyed, although I've never looked for that information either. I'm sure it's long gone.

Concerning the Esquire, I suppose the ideal way to save it would be to renovate the interior for use as a movie theatre again. I realize this is difficult and that the mega-screens are taking business away, but I find it hard to believe that the GC couldn't support this theatre if it were a desirable place to go ... either as a live theatre or otherwise.

If retail is the only way to go and the developer absolutely must follow that route to turn a profit, then of course the issues of branding and glazing come into play. The Tattered Cover bookstore in Denver, CO has recently adapted a theatre of similar vintage into a large bookstore, and fairly successfully I think. It's pretty true to its original appearance. This is a link to a photo: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/139/337534265_eaf1a69fb9.jpg?v=0 It's actually a much lesser building than the Esquire; what's interesting is that on the interior, you can still feel that it was a theatre, similar to Medina Temple downtown.

For boutiques on Oak Street, it might be necessary to tastefully insert some windows into the facade. It sounds terrible, and it probably is, but it's better than losing the building entirely, in my opinion. The scallops actually seem perfect for lending themselves to the creation of individual identities within a cohesive, greater whole. Also worth considering is the fact that most of these retailers just use their windows for displays and advertisements anyway - not really for daylighting. Consider Barneys, which is building that stupid thing down the street, which hardly has any windows anyway - they could easily have fit within a renovated Esquire.

I wonder if there is a more radical option that would literally hang advertising and branding beyond the facade of the existing structure, so that both could be seen, say in LED panels controlled by computers within the building? The Chanel store in Tokyo could serve as inspiration: http://www.ledeffects.com/installations/ginzaskyscraper.htm

It seems there are many better options than simply erasing the place.

[BWChicago]

^ Of course. But at least if we got a nice design and some kind of improvement, any kind of improvement, I might be able to find some silver lining. Now, there is none.

Are there going to be any Moderne or Modern Pereria buildings left in Chicagoland?

They did a lot of remodelings. The Des Plaines Theater's marquee and a curved interior wall are from a Pereira remodel (don't know whether White Way designed the sign or built it to Pereira's spec). There's also the Pabst Manor in Glencoe, although not moderne. Don't know if the Waukegan Sanitarium is still standing, but that was the other major local work.

[Nowhereman1280]

Good question. I can count on one hand the good Art Moderne buildings that that I know still exist in Chicago.

There is a cluster of buildings that kinda land in the wierd limbo between Moderne and Deco up around Six Corners (intersection of Irving Park, Cicero, and Milwaukee, ugg its such a pain in the ass to navigate).

[ardecila]

They did a lot of remodelings. The Des Plaines Theater's marquee and a curved interior wall are from a Pereira remodel (don't know whether White Way designed the sign or built it to Pereira's spec). There's also the Pabst Manor in Glencoe, although not moderne. Don't know if the Waukegan Sanitarium is still standing, but that was the other major local work.

Okay... there's an extensive list of Pereira's work on Wikipedia, but I guess it's not complete, since it doesn't mention the Des Plaines Theater (great place for Bollywood movies, btw).

At any rate, the Tuberculosis Sanitarium is still standing, although you wouldn't be able to find it from a phone book very easily. It's been unceremoniously absorbed into the Lake County Medical System and converted to medical offices, with the boring name "Belvidere Medical Building". As far as I can tell from modern Birds'-Eye views compared to vintage postcards, it hasn't been modified much. Ironically, the Lake County Tuberculosis "Clinic" moved into a much smaller building on the landscaped campus.

Birds'-eye view, 2005 (http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=r1rrwn7pb8zz&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=11313302&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1)

The Wikipedia list also mentioned the 1972 Aurora Civic Center, but there's no building with that exact name that I could find. However, the "Aurora Civic Center Authority" purchased and renovated the Paramount Theater in 1974, and built the modernist "North Island Center" across the street. So, this last building may be a Pereira design, but it's god-awful-looking from Birds'-Eye views.

Finally, the list mentions a 1938 "Elgin Watch Industrial Plant" in Chicago, but there's very little organized documentation on industrial architecture in the city, so this may or may not be still standing in some form. I did a brief Googling and read a page that listed Elgin Watch Company factory locations, but there was no Chicago location listed. Go figure. It's possible that when the list said Chicago, that was a mistake and they really meant Elgin, but the point is moot - Elgin Watch Company's Elgin complex was torn down in the 60s.

[honte]

^ Unreal! I can't believe that thing in Waukegan exists. This is the best news I've had all month.

I think I have to go up there this weekend. Thanks so much.

[ardecila]

^^ Make sure to take some pictures - after doing all that work to track it down, I'm kind of interested in what it looks like after all these years.

[honte]

^ I will do so, probably posting in the "State of Chicago Architecture" thread. Looking at my schedule, it probably will be next week some time that I go, but I will not forget to post the photos.

I looked at LPCI's "Recent Past Survey" (a good effort that unfortunately could not yield even a fraction of the great modern buildings in Chicago), and this building is not listed. The problem with making lists - such as this one or the Chicago Historic Resources Survey - is that people start taking the list to be gospel. "It's not in the survey, so it must be a junk building." I would suggest e-mailing them with your discovery, just to make sure they are aware it exists, and so that they can include it.

It's a very important building and I think they should be "monitoring" it - I think they would be very happy to do so. Especially given that it's a state facility, a threat might arise any time. Most people probably think it's just another beat-up building from the 1960s and have no idea what they have there.

[BWChicago]

Okay... there's an extensive list of Pereira's work on Wikipedia, but I guess it's not complete, since it doesn't mention the Des Plaines Theater (great place for Bollywood movies, btw).

When it's open, it is indeed one of few places to see Bollywood - though there are a number of new venues coming this year (Golf Glen, Lincoln Village, Bloomingdale Court to name a few). It has only been open extremely sporadically this year. Great building with a lot of potential, though.

I'm involved in the preservation society for it, so that's how I know the Pereira link; they remodeled most of the theaters for the H&E Balaban chain before building the Esquire for them. And I think maybe one Balaban & Katz theater, and others outside of Chicagoland. You can find some of that on the Trib archive; there were a couple factory additions and such as well.

[honte]

...there were a couple factory additions and such as well.

Yes, this is the type of work where I've seen their name pop up. There are probably more hints of their practice around us than we know.

[BWChicago]

I think I just tracked down a forgotten Pereira work, too.

I stumbled across a Mar 1, 1936 Trib article describing a business block being built by a Harry Balaban company, adjacent to the Will Rogers theater.


This looks about right. (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&q=Belmont+%26+Major,+CHicago&ll=41.938877,-87.768668&spn=0.000882,0.001663&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.93854,-87.76888&panoid=En8U0Z07GTFW2iOl2jH-pA&cbp=1,137.99339809980637,,0,-4.52645255829837)

Of course it now clearly lacks the "walls of red and black structural glass and white metal".

I should also note that many of the theater remodeling may have been carried out by B.B. Buchanan, who was described as P&P's "theater consultant", having been head of Paramount-Publix construction 1918-1936.

While I'm at it, here (http://digital-libraries.saic.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/halic&CISOPTR=1765&CISOBOX=1&REC=2) is a vintage shot of the sanitarium, and a list of the projects I found for Pereira in the Trib:

Brevoort Hotel (remodel), Chicago, Cornice Removal 1934 - Dearborn Theater (remodel), Chicago, 1934 - Covent Garden Theater (remodel), Chicago, 1934 - E.A.R. Theater (remodel), Chicago, 1934 - Fox Theater, Aurora, 1935 - Des Plaines Theater (remodel), Des Plaines, 1935 - Rialto Theater (remodel), Waukegan, 1935 - Windsor Theater (remodel), Chicago, 1936 - Hamilton Theater (remodel), 71st & Paxton, 1936 - Main/Coronet Theater (remodel), Evanston, 1936 - West Englewood/Ogden Theater (remodel), 63rd & Ashland, 1936 - El Capitan/Paramount Theater (remodel), Hollywood, 1942

[honte]

^ Very cool. Thanks for that. I found some other references to their work in the CHS database too. There was a grand house in Lake Bluff, which I have seen photos of somewhere (probably the same as at CHS). I forget exactly what it looked like, but I remember being very impressed and hoping to find it. There are a number of theatre remodels listed too, some which are not on your list.

The same collection you linked to has a some historic photos of the Esquire. http://digital-libraries.saic.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fhalic&CISOPTR=861&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=1600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMOLDSCALE=14.20455&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=%2520pereira&DMTHUMB=1&REC=2&DMROTATE=0&x=5&y=91

Interesting that ArtIC classifies this as International Style instead of Art Moderne. I have always personally had a little trouble classifying the building.

[aaron38]

^ Excellent! The worst possible outcome - lose the historic building and get similar scale and density in exchange. Awesome!!

Well I guess we can look on the bright side. The Esquire wasn't of sufficient density really for the long term. There really should be a 30 story building there.
The new retail won't have any architectural significance, and at low density, it won't be cost prohibitive to redevelop in a future boom cycle.
Eventually we'll have propper infil there.

[SolarWind]

June 2, 2008

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/4549/barneysnewyorkin1.jpg

[honte]

^ Thanks SW... I obviously had a loss of memory last night about what this looks like, just remembering the entrance portion. Bad example for me to use in my earlier post...:dunno:

[BVictor1]

.

[Chicagoguy]

June 2, 2008

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/4549/barneysnewyorkin1.jpg

Does anyone know when Barneys is planning on moving into here? Also is their any talk of what is planned to go into the old Barneys building across the street?

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-mon-depaul-university-south-jun09,0,3873988.story

DePaul grows in South Loop
Lytton Building expands school's largest campus

By Robert Manor
June 9, 2008

...Acquisition of the 384,000-square-foot Lytton Building at State Street and Jackson Boulevard makes DePaul the largest college landowner in the South Loop, according to the school.

...DePaul said it will retrofit its new building at 14 E. Jackson Blvd. for graduate programs offered by the university's College of Communications. DePaul's School for New Learning is expected to relocate there as well.

DePaul said it will invest $7 million to improve the ornate terra cotta exterior and upgrade interior spaces.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-mon-uofc-hospital-jun09,0,6443523.story

U. of C. OKs hospital pavilion plan
Flexible design uses modular cubes that can be reconfigured

By Bruce Japsen
June 9, 2008

The University of Chicago Medical Center, preparing to embark on a $700 million expansion, has settled on a final design for a new hospital pavilion that will use a modular design executives say allows for flexibility should future renovations be needed.

The 10-story, 1.2 million-square-foot hospital pavilion will span a two-block area on East 57th Street, just north of the Comer Children's Hospital and the Duchossois Center for Advanced Medicine in the Hyde Park neighborhood on the city's South Side.

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/2456/ucpavilionak8.jpg
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/4650/ucpavilion2rc0.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

^ Will that be replacing the parking deck on the SW corner of 57th and Cottage Grove?

[honte]

^ It seems so boring... almost oppressive - uninviting and more sterile than any Mies building could possibly be.

I hope it's just the renderings, but even so, it doesn't look like much potential is there. You'd think for a $700M building they could do something spectacular. Vinoly is highly overrated.

[BWChicago]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-mon-depaul-university-south-jun09,0,3873988.story

DePaul grows in South Loop
Lytton Building expands school's largest campus

By Robert Manor
June 9, 2008

...Acquisition of the 384,000-square-foot Lytton Building at State Street and Jackson Boulevard makes DePaul the largest college landowner in the South Loop, according to the school.

...DePaul said it will retrofit its new building at 14 E. Jackson Blvd. for graduate programs offered by the university's College of Communications. DePaul's School for New Learning is expected to relocate there as well.

DePaul said it will invest $7 million to improve the ornate terra cotta exterior and upgrade interior spaces.

This building was retrofit 8 years ago for high-tech businesses (lots and lots of tech infrastructure) using Central Area TIF funds. Well-spent...

[the urban politician]

^ I can't tell if that was sarcasm

[spyguy]

^ Will that be replacing the parking deck on the SW corner of 57th and Cottage Grove?

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/6362/hosppavilion2kl1.jpg
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/719/43442977yh6.jpg
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/3423/31867974ie8.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

Thanks. It's striking how the old neighborhood (mostly dense rooming houses, courtyard buildings, some 6-flats and a few rowhouses) is basically completely gone and replaced with hospital facilities. Much different than the area I came up in... all of my childhood friends' houses/apartments are long gone. A continuation of the depopulation of Hyde Park that hasn't been compensated with new development in other parts of the neighborhood.

[Abner]

^ It seems so boring... almost oppressive - uninviting and more sterile than any Mies building could possibly be.

I hope it's just the renderings, but even so, it doesn't look like much potential is there. You'd think for a $700M building they could do something spectacular. Vinoly is highly overrated.

Have you been to the new GSB building on 58th? It has a superficial appeal but I don't like it at all, and I think it's a terrible use of space--a way-too-big atrium and a layout that really didn't allow much square footage in the building. I can't imagine he's responsible for it being too small (there's not enough space there for the GSB's current needs, let alone future expansion), but I do think he can be blamed for the sterile feel, confusing layout, and buggy environmental features. Those grand window wells collected a whole lot of dead birds.

[Abner]

Thanks. It's striking how the old neighborhood (mostly dense rooming houses, courtyard buildings, some 6-flats and a few rowhouses) is basically completely gone and replaced with hospital facilities. Much different than the area I came up in... all of my childhood friends' houses/apartments are long gone. A continuation of the depopulation of Hyde Park that hasn't been compensated with new development in other parts of the neighborhood.

At least in that part of the neighborhood it's been replaced with something, and something of value to boot. Which is more than you can say for much of Hyde Park, and certain other medical districts.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

"The University of Chicago Medical Center, preparing to embark on a $700 million expansion, has settled on a final design for a new hospital pavilion that will use a modular design executives say allows for flexibility should future renovations be needed..."

...in case they ever decide to settle on a real design?

[honte]

Have you been to the new GSB building on 58th? It has a superficial appeal but I don't like it at all, and I think it's a terrible use of space--a way-too-big atrium and a layout that really didn't allow much square footage in the building. I can't imagine he's responsible for it being too small (there's not enough space there for the GSB's current needs, let alone future expansion), but I do think he can be blamed for the sterile feel, confusing layout, and buggy environmental features. Those grand window wells collected a whole lot of dead birds.

Oh sure, I've been there and I see it all the time. I think it's a really unworthy neighbor for its lofty environs and nowhere near as good as the Saarinen complex it replaced. It has the feeling of a 1950s Holabird and Root State facility - actually, kind of like their big building over there on the Midway.

I thought it was especially ironic that they hired him for this hospital commission, since the GSB looks basically like a hospital itself.

By the way, anyone know the timetable for the construction of the arts center? Has the fundraising for that been completed?

[Abner]

I think it's a really unworthy neighbor for its lofty environs

Yeah, it seems to be doing a bad impression of Robie and the Seminary rather than "referencing" them. I'm surprised they're bringing him back. Of course this new hospital will mostly have as its environs... more hospital. I wonder if there are really good examples of new hospitals that have the large amount of space and flexibility they're looking for here.

[SamInTheLoop]

Something else I noticed on the preliminary Plan Commission agenda this month - JDL is apparently changing their plan from the high-rise (the design of which, like all JDL projects I found to be horrible) to a few single family homes.....

[Alliance]

I don't think that hospital building could scream "HOSPITAL!" any louder...how drab.

[VivaLFuego]

Something else I noticed on the preliminary Plan Commission agenda this month - JDL is apparently changing their plan from the high-rise (the design of which, like all JDL projects I found to be horrible) to a few single family homes.....

Yep this has been a long time coming. The Wirtz family sued to high heaven because of the alleged damage to the foundations any highrise construction on this site would have caused. This is a very old project (relatively), probably dating back to the turn of the century (I mean 2000). JDL finally gave up and gave in. Pity, really, since I'm sure -something- could have been worked out from an engineering standpoint and the site is just begging for something of the general form JDL was proposing (albeit perhaps something more attractive).

[the urban politician]

Psychology school to expand in Merchandise Mart (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chicago-psychology-school-mart-june10,0,5195029.story)
By Robert Manor | Tribune staff reporter
2:06 PM CDT, June 10, 2008
DePaul University made a splash when it announced Monday it was buying the 18-story Lytton building at State Street and Jackson Boulevard, adding to the school's already large inventory of downtown offices and classrooms.

But that wasn't the only news involving schools in Chicago's central business district.

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology will expand its lease at the Merchandise Mart to more than 82,000-square-feet from the current 15,000, its leasing representative, Transwestern, said Tuesday. The school has seen its student population jump from 845 students to 1,450 over the past four years.

Educators credit the appeal of an urban environment as leading to the increasing presence of higher education in the downtown area.

(More at link above)

[emathias]

I was reading through the zoning code today and noticed this:
17-10-0102-B Transit-Served Locations.

1. In B, C or D districts, minimum off- street parking ratios are reduced by 50 percent from the otherwise applicable standards for rehabilitation or reuse of existing structures located within 600 feet of a CTA or METRA rail station entrance.

2. For new construction in such locations, the Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Development is authorized to approve off- street parking ratio reductions of up to 25 percent if the Commissioner determines, based on information provided by the applicant, that transit use and alternatives to private automobile use will be actively promoted and/or that other factors are likely to result in automobile ownership rates that are lower than indicated by applicable off-street parking ratios.

3. The 600-foot distance specified in this section must be measured along a straight line between the rail station entrance and the entrance of the building for which the parking reduction is requested.

17-10-0102-C Underground Parking. When buildings in “D” zoning districts provide all parking spaces underground, minimum off-street parking ratios are reduced by 50 percent from otherwise applicable standards.

So, basically, just changing the aesthetics of the parking (as far as I know underground parking is just an aesthetic perference, yes?) can get you a 50% parking reduction in a new development, but being near something that can actually serve as a replacement to cars can only get you (maybe) at 25% reduction in parking? If parking is so elastic that they can cut it just for making it less obvious to the eye, why don't they cut it at least as much for when the building as nearby alternatives?

Lack of intelligent transit planning in this region is more and more bothersome.

[honte]

^ That was instituted directly as a consequence of the parking podium issue, as I recall.

[the urban politician]

I'm one of the few people who actually likes this ho-hum project. I'm happy to see it happen:

South Loop condos get $50-million construction loan (http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=29776)
By Eddie Baeb, June 11, 2008

(Crain’s) — Sedgwick Properties Development Corp. has landed a $50-million construction loan for a new, 180-unit condominium building in the South Loop, in a deal that seems to defy the downtrodden condo market.

Dubbed Terrazio, the seven-story building is going up at 1935 S. Wabash Ave., thanks to the loan inked last month from Amalgamated Bank’s LongView Ultra Construction Loan Fund.

[emathias]

^ That was instituted directly as a consequence of the parking podium issue, as I recall.

And I think it's a fine law, but it still sharply illustrates how poorly-considered our overall transit planning is.

[spyguy]

http://news.uchicago.edu/news.php?asset_id=1390

University of Chicago selects HOK as architect for new science tower
June 10, 2008

The University Board of Trustees has approved HOK as architect for the proposed Center for Physical and Computational Sciences. HOK, a firm with 26 regional offices worldwide, including one in Chicago, has completed several major science and technology projects in recent years.

The estimated $375 million center will encompass half a million square feet of new and renovated space on the west side of Ellis Avenue between 56th and 57th streets. The scientists who will move into the center currently work in multiple buildings that are either poorly connected or scattered across campus.

..."Construction is scheduled to begin in fall 2010, with completion in spring 2013.

...The Research Institutes building, slated for thorough renovation, represents a proud scientific tradition that dates back to Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi, Fefferman said. Fermi worked in the Research Institutes after he oversaw construction of the first nuclear reactor across the street during World War II.

...HOK's challenge will be to design an interior that meets the needs of the scientists, while presenting an engaging exterior. The project will entail razing the Accelerator Building, the High Energy Physics Building, the Astronomy and Astrophysics Center and the Low Temperature Laboratory.
The demolition will make way both for the new building and for new green space between the higher-density medical buildings to the west and the lower-density core of the campus to the east. "By virtue of its location, it will help define a new quadrangle that will bring together all of the sciences," Wiesenthal said.

The new center, standing eight stories high, will be important for other reasons as well. It will be a highly visible structure to visitors entering campus from the north, and it will sit across the street from the proposed Joe and Rika Mansueto Library, designed by architect Helmut Jahn.

[VivaLFuego]

I was reading through the zoning code today and noticed this:

So, basically, just changing the aesthetics of the parking (as far as I know underground parking is just an aesthetic perference, yes?) can get you a 50% parking reduction in a new development, but being near something that can actually serve as a replacement to cars can only get you (maybe) at 25% reduction in parking? If parking is so elastic that they can cut it just for making it less obvious to the eye, why don't they cut it at least as much for when the building as nearby alternatives?

Lack of intelligent transit planning in this region is more and more bothersome.
600 ft is a pretty pathetic transit catchment area too; the guidelines should at least apply to properties within 1200 ft, about 1/4 mile rather than 1/8 mile. Should be a 50% reduction for all properties within 1200 ft, and no requirement to add additional off-street parking for rehabilitation of existing structures.

[emathias]

600 ft is a pretty pathetic transit catchment area too; the guidelines should at least apply to properties within 1200 ft, about 1/4 mile rather than 1/8 mile. Should be a 50% reduction for all properties within 1200 ft, and no requirement to add additional off-street parking for rehabilitation of existing structures.

I think you and I agree on a lot of transit stuff. I totally agree that reuse should not require added parking. I might even be more nuanced but aggressive with the transit proximity, though.

The current language applies to both Metra and CTA "L" stations, and is probably fine for Metra stations, since Metra is really only a commuter service

For CTA "L" stations, though, I'd support pushing it to zero parking requirement up to the 600 feet and 50% the normal requirement within 1,980 feet (3/8 of a mile) as long as it was walking distance and not radial distance. This should go hand in hand with allowing zoning of 5 or higher within the same areas.

I also think that it should include language to support similar schemes for areas with high levels of bus service. The most intelligent way might be to to grant it for places with at least X number of buses per day stopping within some distance of the unit, but there would be other plausible methods to determine when to award the reduction in parking spots in bus-heavy areas.

At any rate, currently it appears to be something they have to apply for - the rules should be changed to make it an "as-of-right" classification so it's not a political tool.

[Mr Downtown]

For CTA "L" stations, though, I'd support pushing it to zero parking requirement up to the 600 feet

Where would you expect the residents to leave their cars while they're at work, then? Or while they're at home? If every new condo building means dozens of new cars fighting for spaces on the neighborhood streets, how receptive do you think residents will be to new development?

[BVictor1]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/998624,CST-FIN-roeder11.article

City to help pay for trailer park rehab
REAL ESTATE | Harbour Point Estates to get $26.5 million toward $286.5 million deal

June 11, 2008Recommend (1)

DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com

Chicago's only trailer park is getting a $286.5 million makeover. The Harbour Point Estates at 4000 E. 134th St. would re-emerge as a site for 953 permanent homes, from single-family to condos, under a city-brokered deal with a subsidy attached to it.

Because the location needs extensive construction of streets and sewers, city officials Tuesday agreed to a $26.5 million contribution. Under an agreement approved by the Community Development Commission, the money would be paid over six phases of a project expected to last at least through 2020.

http://media1.suntimes.com/multimedia/061108roeder.jpg_20080611_01_03_20_86-116-165.imageContent
Chicago’s only trailer park, Harbour Point Estates at 134th Street and Avenue K, is shown last September.

Eric Hagen, a partner in the project, said it'll be at least a year before he can begin marketing homes on the 130-acre property along the Illinois-Indiana state line. The property sits between Wolf and Powderhorn lakes and is on a flood plain. There will be no basements and the site will need a couple of feet of clay and topsoil before work can begin.

The project first was proposed a year ago and drew widespread praise from community and environmental groups. Even so, Hagen said the site plan was revised to include more open space based on comments from neighbors.

Partners in the deal include mortgage broker and trailer park investor Benjamin Kadish and James Soboleski. New West Realty Group LLC has signed on to manage the construction.

[VivaLFuego]

Where would you expect the residents to leave their cars while they're at work, then? Or while they're at home? If every new condo building means dozens of new cars fighting for spaces on the neighborhood streets, how receptive do you think residents will be to new development?

No one has a right to free car storage on a public street unless they buy that real estate from the city. It's shame that residents have developed such an entitlement against the general concepts of what constitutes public vs. private property (thus residential permit zones on public streets are also a travesty).

That said, I agree that emathias's perscription is probably too harsh. Maybe 50% reduction within 600ft, 25% within 2400, something to that effect. And of course, this is only talking about the minimum required off-street parking, a private property owner or residential developer could certainly include more if necessary for the development (e.g. a luxury condo requiring 2 garage spots per unit). Ideally, there would be no minimum at all, but I figure I might as well pitch something that could actually happen. And if the residents still complain, then screw 'em and remove any minimum requirement. Zone every surrounding parcelfor maximum-intensity porn shop with permits for neon signage.

[honte]

The project will entail razing the Accelerator Building, the High Energy Physics Building, the Astronomy and Astrophysics Center and the Low Temperature Laboratory.

This makes me very sad. I love those buildings and they represent a hidden pocket of first-rate modernism on the South Side. They were done by Schmidt, Garden and Erikson; SOM; and John Macsai. Macsai's building is especially unique.

[Dr. Taco]

06-10-08 Art Institute Expansion

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/2571872276_e7acbc58bd_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3155/2571047873_5d7c87f978_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3127/2571043103_304404f24c_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3136/2571870752_6ebccfe900_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3075/2571867822_1236a9d70c_b.jpg

[ethereal_reality]

^^^
jstush04......those shots are great buddy!

In the first pic you can see the South Shore Line train
working its way to Randolph Street Station. :)

[the urban politician]

This makes me very sad. I love those buildings and they represent a hidden pocket of first-rate modernism on the South Side. They were done by Schmidt, Garden and Erikson; SOM; and John Macsai. Macsai's building is especially unique.

^ You don't happen to have access to pics of those, do you?

[VivaLFuego]

This makes me very sad. I love those buildings and they represent a hidden pocket of first-rate modernism on the South Side. They were done by Schmidt, Garden and Erikson; SOM; and John Macsai. Macsai's building is especially unique.

I'm not familiar with exactly which is which, but yeah at least one of those in that cluster near 56th/Ellis is outstanding. Which one is the Macsai? Oh well; the replacement could yet be impressive.

[emathias]

Where would you expect the residents to leave their cars while they're at work, then? Or while they're at home? If every new condo building means dozens of new cars fighting for spaces on the neighborhood streets, how receptive do you think residents will be to new development?

The law (both as it exists and my recommended changes) prescribes a minimum, not a maximum. Even I don't usually think there should normally be a maximum (maybe in rare circumstances, but not usually).

Why is the government requiring people to build in parking anyway? It just doesn't make any sense. A developer will build parking because people will pay for it and use it, not just because existing residents think it might be useful.

[honte]

^ You don't happen to have access to pics of those, do you?

Actually, yes I do. I took these way back in 2003 with a first-generation digital SLR. The quality is obviously commensurate with the technology; I am embarrassed to post them, given the amazing photography that crosses these pages on a daily basis. Obviously, they do not do justice to these buildings and people should not judge the buildings thusly. But, in case no better photos surface, in the name of great architecture...

I can give you exact dates at a later time, if anyone cares.

This is John Macsai's [Hausner and Macsai] High Energy Physics Building. It was done in the mid 1960s.

North elevation
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8107/highenngf8.jpg

Facade
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9903/highenfacadent9.jpg

Detail - not beautiful as a photograph, but informative
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3420/highendetailzo5.jpg

______

This is the SOM Astrophysics lab. It also was constructed in the 1960s (as best I remember).

Seen from WNW
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6940/astrophywnwsk8.jpg

Facade Organization
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/4255/astrophyfacadeyu1.jpg


______

The Fermi Accelerator. It was done around the end of WWII, perhaps started during WWII. I'll have to get the dates later on, since I should remember these things. Architects were Schmidt, Garden, and Erikson. This is an early example of true Modernism in Chicago - consider what Mies was up to around 1944.

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6062/accelneuw9.jpg

______

Additions to the Fermi Accelerator. Circa 1974. These were also done by Schmidt, Garden, Erikson. I believe these buildings (there are three or four of them) will also come down. They are less interesting but nice design in any event.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/9193/fermiadditionwnwqu5.jpg

Overall, there is a very nice consistency among these buildings that I did not capture. There are some great spaces in between them and behind, much more interesting than another boring quad, in my opinion. It's a pleasant grouping of buildings, the whole greater than the sum of its parts, and it has a "human scale" (I hate that phrase) that the rest of the U of C campus does not have. I wish they would build another tower and not tear so much down.

Given HOK's recent Chicago work, I do not have high hopes at all for the replacement building. I would have expected U of C to continue their trend of hiring great firms... adds salt to the wounds.

[Taft]

Regarding the Francis Cabrini Homes (the CHA row houses just north of Chicago, just east of Larrabee)...

I just drove past them this morning and saw that a few of the houses closest to Chicago had been gutted completely (windows and all). No demo equipment was near the site, just several lifts. So it would appear that they are in fact getting rehabbed.

Any chance the units will be mixed income when rehabbed? I highly doubt it, but I really don't like the idea of such a large lot of prime development space being used solely for public housing. Take a look at the size of the land they sit on: Google map. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=chicago+and+larrabee,+chicago&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.332616,87.099609&ie=UTF8&ll=41.898668,-87.641319&spn=0.005231,0.010632&t=k&z=17)

Taft

[Breezyfingers]

The Erikson Institute:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3160/2573212604_fe786ea7ef_o.jpg

Wabash streetscaping:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3093/2573212574_8b1d0fdb8d_o.jpg

[ChiPsy]

Given HOK's recent Chicago work, I do not have high hopes at all for the replacement building.

Yes -- and I'd also remove the words "recent" and "Chicago" from that sentence.

Thanks for the illustrative pix, btw.

[Mr Downtown]

Why is the government requiring people to build in parking anyway?

Because of the bad experiences when they didn't. Certainly the high-end market in most parts of the city would provide parking as an amenity to help sell units. But you always have guys on the edge or in oddball locations doing projects that bring lots of new residents and new cars to neighborhoods where parking is a problem. That leads to resentment from current residents, and to opposition to new development.

During the zoning reform debates, passionate arguments were made on both sides. Some people made the dubious claim that available parking causes people to buy cars and drive them when they otherwise wouldn't. Other people made the dubious claim that a lack of parking would cause drivers to give up their cars.

[VivaLFuego]

During the zoning reform debates, passionate arguments were made on both sides. Some people made the dubious claim that available parking causes people to buy cars and drive them when they otherwise wouldn't. Other people made the dubious claim that a lack of parking would cause drivers to give up their cars.

Yeah, in the 80s when the city allowed major widespread downtown parking garage construction after a decades-long moratorium, and transit ridership was decimated....total coincidence, right?

To the extent the claims are 'dubious,' it's that of course both car ownership and mode choice are more complex decisions than merely parking availability, but you write as though neither claim has any merit despite past experience showing otherwise. Parking price and availability do have a major impact on both car ownership rates and trip-level mode choice decisions, it's strange to imply otherwise. But they are only contributing factors among many.

[BVictor1]

I thought this was a bit important even though it has nothing to do with construction...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_moves_DNC_operations_to_Chicago.html

Obama moves DNC operations to Chicago

In a major shakeup at the Democratic National Committee -- and a departure from tradition -- large parts of the committee's operations are relocating to Chicago to be fully integrated with the Obama campaign.

The DNC's political department, housed in Washington, D.C., will be dramatically rebuilt, with staffers offered a choice of moving to Chicago, joining state operations, or staying in Washington, DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said.

But the power will clearly be shifting to a centralized Chicago hub.

The DNC's key role in coordinating political operations with state parties is expected to largely be taken over and overseen by Obama's senior staff in Chicago, state party officials said.

[cbotnyse]

Hyde Park will be the new Crawford Texas.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

[EDIT] ^ HA! BVic, we must be reading the same sources. I deleted the reference but left my cursory analysis:

In some of the SSC threads, there's discussion about the kind of culture necessary to raise the profile of the city. Los Angeles has Hollywood, Washington is this country's political epicenter, and New York, well, it seems to have a little of everything. More and more, Chicago is becoming synonymous with a mounting Barack Obama -- dare I say? -- revolution. The pragmatism with which he operates is something I think we all recognize here as quintessentially Midwestern.

Exciting times to be a Chicagoan.

[Taft]

During the zoning reform debates, passionate arguments were made on both sides. Some people made the dubious claim that available parking causes people to buy cars and drive them when they otherwise wouldn't. Other people made the dubious claim that a lack of parking would cause drivers to give up their cars.

I fail to see how either of those claims are dubious. They sound like quite sensible market-based claims to me.

Parking in the city is a huge part of the expense of owning a car and is a finite product. If supply of that product starts to exceed demand, prices will be pushed down making both car ownership and car use less expensive. The reverse is also true: as demand rises or supply shrinks, prices go up. We are currently seeing the same effect with ever-higher gas prices: Americans are changing their driving habits and choice of cars do to the prices.

As Viva said, there is more at work here than pure parking economics (price of cars, gas, insurance, the "allure" of a car, individual need, congestion, etc.), but don't be fooled into thinking the cost of parking isn't a factor. And IMO, any decision by local gov. that makes car ownership less expensive should be avoided.

Taft

[Nowhereman1280]

Other people made the dubious claim that a lack of parking would cause drivers to give up their cars.

That is ridiculous. Just as a thought experiement, imagine a neighborhood where there is zero off street parking. There is a total of 1000 units and only 100 spaces on the street. How many people in the neighborhood are going to own cars? Hmmmm considering there is physically no room to put the cars, they don't even have a choice in the matter...


The only reason there is a parking problem in Chicago is that people think they are entitled to a parking space, when they are not. If there is only a 1/10 change of you finding a parking spot at any given time, what are you going to do? Just drive around and wait for someone else to leave? No, because then 90% of the neighborhood would be forced to sit in their cars and wait for someone else to leave. In such a circumstance, owning a car becomes impossible...

IF America ever falls from economic grace, it will be because of all the morons out there who think they are entitled to things, no, you only get stuff if you work for it. The two principle assumptions of economics are A. Constraints (resources, in this case parking spots, are limited) and B. Everyone wants more of those resources... Unfortunately the City government has show a dedication to trying to override the rules of economics and will eventually pay a price for it (we already do in the form of increased congestion, pollution, and environmental decay). You can't have your cake and eat it too...

[Mr Downtown]

I think Chicago's rather modest (4 percent) drop 1980 to 1990 in journey-to-work by transit primarily reflects the loss of outlying manufacturing jobs rather than construction of downtown garages as surface lots were developed. The nationwide figure for the same period was an 18 percent drop.

[VivaLFuego]

I think Chicago's rather modest (4 percent) drop 1980 to 1990 in journey-to-work by transit primarily reflects the loss of outlying manufacturing jobs rather than construction of downtown garages as surface lots were developed. The nationwide figure for the same period was an 18 percent drop.

At least as far as CTA rail is concerned, ridership peaked around 1984 and lost 20% before bottoming out in 1992, and didn't start recovering until 1998 even with the opening of the Orange Line in 1993. And it wasn't just the flood in 1992, it was an 8-year downward trend, through both good and bad economic times, following a period of relative stability from the mid-70s to mid-80s when there was no downtown garage construction. Causational proof? Of course not. But to say it's a total coincidence would be....dubious.

[emathias]

Hyde Park will be the new Crawford Texas.

I didn't get that far through the zoning and other ordinances, but I don't think Chicago currently allows ranches ... although maybe there are remnant laws left over from stockyard days ;-)

[emathias]

...Zone every surrounding parcelfor maximum-intensity porn shop with permits for neon signage.

Finally, a solution to bring back the old Times Square ...

[Alliance]

I thought this was a bit important even though it has nothing to do with construction...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_moves_DNC_operations_to_Chicago.html

Obama moves DNC operations to Chicago

In a major shakeup at the Democratic National Committee -- and a departure from tradition -- large parts of the committee's operations are relocating to Chicago to be fully integrated with the Obama campaign.

The DNC's political department, housed in Washington, D.C., will be dramatically rebuilt, with staffers offered a choice of moving to Chicago, joining state operations, or staying in Washington, DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said.

But the power will clearly be shifting to a centralized Chicago hub.

The DNC's key role in coordinating political operations with state parties is expected to largely be taken over and overseen by Obama's senior staff in Chicago, state party officials said.

Great. They should build a DNC tower lol.

[wrabbit]

Wow - so the Obama/Chicago connection is already producing dividends for the city. It's gonna be very interesting to watch how this connection continues to play out.

[the urban politician]

Great news about the DNC move. Unfortunately if Obama doesn't win, the DNC will surely high-tail it right back to Washington.

[schwerve]

Great news about the DNC move. Unfortunately if Obama doesn't win, the DNC will surely high-tail it right back to Washington.

the dnc will high-tail it back to washington regardless of the outcome of the election, the purpose of the move to chicago is better integration with the obama headquarters streamlining operations. these types of organizations in non-election years need to be in the washington bubble so this isn't permanent but still a nice little boost to the city.

[Eventually...Chicago]

Maybe da'Mare can get a couple of his union buddies to make the DNC some concrete shoes and keep 'em here!! ;)

[dagobert]

At least as far as CTA rail is concerned, ridership peaked around 1984 and lost 20% before bottoming out in 1992, and didn't start recovering until 1998 even with the opening of the Orange Line in 1993. And it wasn't just the flood in 1992, it was an 8-year downward trend, through both good and bad economic times, following a period of relative stability from the mid-70s to mid-80s when there was no downtown garage construction. Causational proof? Of course not. But to say it's a total coincidence would be....dubious.

Association is not causation, or a more statistical term Correlation is not Causation. In any introductory statistics or econometric analysis course you would learn that there are a number of dependent variables that impact the independent variable.

To say that their is a relationship between amount of parking downtown and public ridership you would have to do a bit of cross-sectional time series data analysis (also known as panel data or longitudal data analysis) which also looks at other contributing factors such as price of oil (we saw a big decline in price of oil in mid 1980s through late 1990s), amount of jobs downtown vs. suburbs, amount of people living downtown vs. suburbs, amount of crime recorded in the city vs. suburbs, amount of crime on CTA trains, cost of driving one mile in a car vs. cost of taking CTA train one mile, cost of parking, etc. Maybe a bigger contributing factor to a decline in ridership after 1984 was decline in price of oil and thus cost of drving and not building of parking in the loop. I might poke around some databases to see if such a study had ever been done for any major American city.

We also have to worry about omitted variable bias (or confounding) since we aren't talking about a controlled experiment but an observational study (looking at historical data). For example we can't measure perception of how safe people feel taking CTA trains as opposed to a car.

Also social attitudes (towards driving, commuting downtown, living in the city) in mid-70s might have been similar to those in early 80s since social attitudes are fairly similar from one year to the next, but they may vary considerably over longer period of time. So if this is true that social attitudes in late 90s are different than in 70s and assumption of independent error terms across observations in a time series is violated. The reason why this is important is because under the classical econometric model error terms for each observation need to be independent of one another. Otherwise error terms reflect omitted variables that influence the demand for parking or public transit ridership. This could also lead to autocorrelation and other problems.

Hope this helps you understand the sheer complexity of analyzing such complex problems as this one, those results are scientific and unbiased.

[alex1]

[EDIT] ^ HA! BVic, we must be reading the same sources. I deleted the reference but left my cursory analysis:

In some of the SSC threads, there's discussion about the kind of culture necessary to raise the profile of the city. Los Angeles has Hollywood, Washington is this country's political epicenter, and New York, well, it seems to have a little of everything. More and more, Chicago is becoming synonymous with a mounting Barack Obama -- dare I say? -- revolution. The pragmatism with which he operates is something I think we all recognize here as quintessentially Midwestern.

Exciting times to be a Chicagoan.

unfortunately, the country over equates Chicago with corruption. Personally, it's great that Obama has made the city ground zero for hopefully toppling over mcCain and the GOP but many democratic voters aren't so happy about this decision.

but to hit upon your smaller point, I'm amazed at how little the local population actually knows about Chicago's populist roots. Many "revolutions" have taken place in Chicago.

[Steely Dan]

PERSONAL INSULTS ARE FORBIDDEN ON THIS FORUM.

also, this thread is getting into off-topic territory. take cta discussion to the the cta thread. and this is not the thread for obama/national politics talk either.

[VivaLFuego]

Association is not causation, or a more statistical term Correlation is not Causation. In any introductory statistics or econometric analysis course you would learn that there are a number of dependent variables that impact the independent variable.

To say that their is a relationship between amount of parking downtown and public ridership you would have to do a bit of cross-sectional time series data analysis (also known as panel data or longitudal data analysis) which also looks at other contributing factors such as price of oil (we saw a big decline in price of oil in mid 1980s through late 1990s), amount of jobs downtown vs. suburbs, amount of people living downtown vs. suburbs, amount of crime recorded in the city vs. suburbs, amount of crime on CTA trains, cost of driving one mile in a car vs. cost of taking CTA train one mile, cost of parking, etc. Maybe a bigger contributing factor to a decline in ridership after 1984 was decline in price of oil and thus cost of drving and not building of parking in the loop. I might poke around some databases to see if such a study had ever been done for any major American city.

We also have to worry about omitted variable bias (or confounding) since we aren't talking about a controlled experiment but an observational study (looking at historical data). For example we can't measure perception of how safe people feel taking CTA trains as opposed to a car.

Also social attitudes (towards driving, commuting downtown, living in the city) in mid-70s might have been similar to those in early 80s since social attitudes are fairly similar from one year to the next, but they may vary considerably over longer period of time. So if this is true that social attitudes in late 90s are different than in 70s and assumption of independent error terms across observations in a time series is violated. The reason why this is important is because under the classical econometric model error terms for each observation need to be independent of one another. Otherwise error terms reflect omitted variables that influence the demand for parking or public transit ridership. This could also lead to autocorrelation and other problems.

Hope this helps you understand the sheer complexity of analyzing such complex problems as this one, those results are scientific and unbiased.

See response in transit developments thread.

[EarlyBuyer]

Photo's taken by EarlyBuyer 6/14/08


http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/1054/dsc0003qd0.jpg


http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/9702/dsc0009ol6.jpg


http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/2213/dsc0039bf8.jpg

[a chicago bearcat]

Photo's taken by EarlyBuyer 6/14/08
http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/2213/dsc0039bf8.jpg

I'm sorry, but this still is so odd. Townhomes a block from grant park and 2 blocks from the river and lake. Surreal.

I don't know whether I like it or not. I mean, I love the idea of wrapping a podium in townhomes (vancouver is sublime), but...there is just this odd smattering of townhomes north of the river and now south, that I'm just going to have to get used to.

I can't even fathom living in a full on home with a ground entrance right there. Money, it befuddles me sometimes.

But maybe the Pimp can enlighten me on how this type of living differs from almost the exact same buildings in Bucktown.

[Eventually...Chicago]

to be honest i kind of like the contrast between the two. in the south loop we have that too. i don't think it really gives the impression of a neighborhood but i do like the scale of walking next to a town house and then looking up at a high rise.

[a chicago bearcat]

to be honest i kind of like the contrast between the two. in the south loop we have that too. i don't think it really gives the impression of a neighborhood but i do like the scale of walking next to a town house and then looking up at a high rise.

I agree, but I'd rather they just saved everything they can of the existing.

Because I like my midrises.

[emathias]

...
But maybe the Pimp can enlighten me on how this type of living differs from almost the exact same buildings in Bucktown.

I'm not The Pimp (though sometimes I'm pimpin'), but I'd point out that you can't easily walk to your Loop office, or Millennium Park or the Museum Campus or Michigan Avenue from Bucktown. That much should be obvious. So, if you like having a townhouse, and you like the convenience of the location, it would be the perfect solution. :-)

Now that said, I think that townhomes in that location should be ungodly expensive.

[EarlyBuyer]

Now that said, I think that townhomes in that location should be ungodly expensive.

From a Magellan press release:

"Architecturally, The Steinberg Group of San Jose, CA teamed up with Loewenberg Architects as design consultants to create a series of charming facades that blend brick and stone with wrought iron and copper highlights, ala Lincoln Park.

A trio of design plans with private, attached parking ranges in size from 2,921 to 3,956 square feet of elegant living space, ranging in price from approximately $1.7 million to $2.5 million.
One grouping includes 10 three-story homes with rooftop terraces that provide from 3,565 to 3,956 square feet of living area. Optional private elevators are available.

A second design format consists of 12 three-story plans with balconies and terraces combined in a seven-story building, ranging in size from 3,355 to 3,909 square feet.

Rounding out the design portfolio is a pair of luxurious single-level penthouses featuring private terraces atop the seven-story building. They provide 2,921 or 2,923 square feet of living area with views of Lake Michigan and the award-winning park at the nucleus of Lakeshore East."

[honte]

Anything unexpected in a city is good in my opinion, provided it doesn't hurt anything - and townhouses next to 1000' buildings fit the bill.

[Busy Bee]

I don't really care for the townhomes but I'm really not that torn up about them because they essentially disappear at the base of the towers. I REALLY think the city and developers should have opted for a Parisian model though, with a minimum height of 6-7 stories. In my laymen opinion, the contrast between the townhomes and high-rises is just too great and was not the most ideal design.

[emathias]

From a Magellan press release:
...
A trio of design plans with private, attached parking ranges in size from 2,921 to 3,956 square feet of elegant living space, ranging in price from approximately $1.7 million to $2.5 million.
One grouping includes 10 three-story homes with rooftop terraces that provide from 3,565 to 3,956 square feet of living area. Optional private elevators are available.

A second design format consists of 12 three-story plans with balconies and terraces combined in a seven-story building, ranging in size from 3,355 to 3,909 square feet.

Rounding out the design portfolio is a pair of luxurious single-level penthouses featuring private terraces atop the seven-story building. They provide 2,921 or 2,923 square feet of living area with views of Lake Michigan and the award-winning park at the nucleus of Lakeshore East."

So the pricing is essentially half what the pricing in the Trump Tower is, on a sq/ft basis (though double the price per sq/ft I paid for my River North place 4 years ago). Spendy, but not what I'd consider to be "ungodly expensive."

[bnk]

video included

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/arts/chi-art-institute-0615jun15,0,2142268.story





An exclusive look inside the Art Institute's new wing with the building's architect, Renzo Piano

By Blair Kamin Tribune critic

June 15, 2008

Here's a prediction about the Art Institute of Chicago's modern and contemporary art wing that opens next May: The third-floor galleries, which overlook Millennium Park, will be hailed by critics and the public as some of the most beautiful rooms in Chicago.

...


http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-06/39955039.jpg

The third-floor galleries of the Art Institute of Chicago's under-construction Modern Wing offer an extraordinary view of Millennium Park, including Frank Gehry's Pritzker Pavilion. The wing is scheduled to open in May 2009. (Tribune photo by Antonio Perez / June 5, 2008)






http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-06/39955002.jpg

Facing Millennium Park's Lurie Garden, the Modern Wing's three-story exterior is dominated by its "flying carpet" roof, which will direct softly-diffused natural light into the third-floor galleries. The building’s principal exterior materials are limestone, glass, aluminum and steel. (Tribune photo by Antonio Perez / June 5, 2008)




six more photos in original link.

[America 117]

[QUOTE=EarlyBuyer;3613646]Photo's taken by EarlyBuyer 6/14/08


http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/1054/dsc0003qd0.jpg


that looks like an awsome pool!!!!! :banana:

[EarlyBuyer]

[QUOTE]


that looks like an awsome pool!!!!!

The pool is part of 400 East Randolph, also known as Outer Drive East. It has been used in several movie and TV productions and was closed for much of 2007 while it received repairs and upgrades. The pool and dome now has programmed and sequenced colorful up lighting.

[wrabbit]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-06/39955039.jpg

Wow - now that's a view!

[Eventually...Chicago]

I REALLY think the city and developers should have opted for a Parisian model though, with a minimum height of 6-7 stories.

I would absolutely agree with you except for the fact that the townhouses really just serve to cover up the parking podium. If the podium were 6-7 stories tall, then absolutely. Lakeshore east has the benefit of varying street levels so it can tuck the parking levels away more effectively.

In fact, i think the street level townhouse is probably the most effective and cost efficient way to cover up a parking podium. I know it's not always possible, but it must certainly be cheaper than sinking the parking underground. I suppose it takes a fairly large site to be able to put townhouses at the base while not making the parking garage abnormally narrow.

[spyguy]

If you look at the Parkhomes renderings there is a 7 story building planned.

[VivaLFuego]

I would absolutely agree with you except for the fact that the townhouses really just serve to cover up the parking podium. If the podium were 6-7 stories tall, then absolutely. Lakeshore east has the benefit of varying street levels so it can tuck the parking levels away more effectively.

In fact, i think the street level townhouse is probably the most effective and cost efficient way to cover up a parking podium. I know it's not always possible, but it must certainly be cheaper than sinking the parking underground. I suppose it takes a fairly large site to be able to put townhouses at the base while not making the parking garage abnormally narrow.

Yeah. Townhomes ringing the parking podium base should have been the ideal paradigm desired for all the PDs granted all these years to the multitude of residential highrises with parking blobs. Obviously in some cases it's not feasible or practical, but you can count the number of applications on a hand or two when it should have been the norm. Canadian cities (Toronto and Vancouver, at least), seemed to get this important step in their recent residential highrise booms.

[the urban politician]

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/1830/50862862ys9.jpg

^ Remember this?

Crains is reporting that the developers are very close to signing a couple leases (Walgreens, Bank of America, and Roundy's). Of course, they've been "very close" to new leases for a while now. Article @ link below:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?articleId=30149

[Dr. Taco]

^ what the hell is that??

[nomarandlee]

:previous: That's "Metropolis" planned for State St. and Pershing Rd.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=324117&page=8

The old article which no longer has a working link from 5/07.......

http://www.nearwestgazette.com/Archi...story0507b.htm

Metropolis development coming to Bronzeville

By Christine Mangan

Capri Capital Partners LLC has announced a joint venture with Judson Investment Co. to develop The Metropolis, a mixed-use building that will be located at the intersection of south State Street and Pershing Road.

Capri expects the proposed building will bolster economic development in Bronzeville and Grand Boulevard and generate both temporary construction jobs and permanent employment.

“Beyond economic development for the community, the ultimate design intent for Metropolis is to create a city center for the Near South Side of Chicago,” said Quintin E. Primo III, Capri’s chairman and CEO. “Importantly, the project addresses the chronic lack of commercial retail in the area and will offer market rate and affordable housing to the growing community.”

Primo said 20% of the 102 condominiums planned for phase one will be set aside for low- and moderate-income buyers........