[Eventually...Chicago]

On a side note, Chicago as a city needs to do something about this "guest parking" phantom fear that its residents are beginning to have. "How will we accommodate the guests of these new residents? More parking!"

Seriously, the city needs to kill that argument with one swift blow. I'm thinking an across the board ordinance that puts a parking cap on all projects in at least certain parts of the city.

if you know you're going to have guests who insist on parking you do this:

a week ahead of time, you post a sign in your buildings lobby asking if anyone will be not using their spot over the weekend.

You make your guest bring that person a bottle of wine or sixer of beer to thank them for letting them use their spot and saving them 30-50 bucks.

[VivaLFuego]

if you know you're going to have guests who insist on parking you do this:

a week ahead of time, you post a sign in your buildings lobby asking if anyone will be not using their spot over the weekend.

You make your guest bring that person a bottle of wine or sixer of beer to thank them for letting them use their spot and saving them 30-50 bucks.

Yeah. The notion that all transportation facilities have to be built to allow for smooth flow at the peak of the peak of the peak of demand is what begat the suburbs and endless fields of unused parking and endless 6-lane arterials. It's mind-numbingly stupid and wasteful from an urban planning standpoint.

My question still stands about writing in support of the project... just Vi Daley? I worry that would just be like talking at a pile of bricks of a recently-demolished building.

[emathias]

I didn't realize that JDL's site extends all the way up to Goethe... At 131 feet tall, a building that long is monolithic. I hope JDL chooses a good architect. Their track record suggests that they'll pick a traditional style, which isn't necessarily a bad thing...

It doesn't go to Goethe, there are private townhomes on the corner of Goethe and Wells (I used to live on Goethe between Wells and Lasalle).

[VivaLFuego]

It doesn't go to Goethe, there are private townhomes on the corner of Goethe and Wells (I used to live on Goethe between Wells and Lasalle).

And in keeping with 43rd Ward awesomeness, every single one of those townhomes has a curb cut right onto Goethe :tup:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=wells+and+goethe,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.310476,74.179688&ie=UTF8&ll=41.90714,-87.634141&spn=0.005701,0.009055&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.90573,-87.63415&panoid=qqfvLuj70l3iLI3GlXaGDA&cbp=1,209.76071181923555,,0,-0.03425708366165525

[Abner]

Not sure where to put this, so with apologies I'll mention it here:

One of the biggest and most visible remnants of the old Czech population of Pilsen, the Plzensky Sokol at 1812 S. Ashland, was recently used for the filming of a new movie by Universal (the Johnny Depp film about Dillinger and others). This sign above the door was removed for the movie:
http://www.divus.cz/images/umelec/enplzensky_sokol.jpg

I called Universal and asked when it would be put back up. At first I was told everything would be replaced, but it has become obvious that the studio has no such plans. This worries me not just because of the sign itself but because the owner of the building is notorious in the neighborhood for using the building for underhanded purposes, and he has apparently tried to tear the building down in the past. Removing another historic facet of the building might make it easier to do that (even though the building is orange rated). Is there any chance of pursuing a case like this? I'm worried that between a major movie studio and a possibly crooked owner, bad things could happen without anyone having any say in the matter.

[honte]

^ Very interesting / sad. Please contact Landmarks Illinois and Preservation Chicago about this - they will not take it lightly. The "soft demolition" of Orange-rated buildings has increased since the Demo. Delay ordinance. There is no monitoring of these buildings until the demo permit is pulled, so to ruin it bit by bit is a good tactic for an unscrupulous owner, as you say.

[emathias]

And in keeping with 43rd Ward awesomeness, every single one of those townhomes has a curb cut right onto Goethe :tup:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=wells+and+goethe,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.310476,74.179688&ie=UTF8&ll=41.90714,-87.634141&spn=0.005701,0.009055&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.90573,-87.63415&panoid=qqfvLuj70l3iLI3GlXaGDA&cbp=1,209.76071181923555,,0,-0.03425708366165525

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of that then, either. In my own defense, I lived in the vintage building in the middle of the block - my unit was about where the sunburst is here (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=wells+and+goethe,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.310476,74.179688&ie=UTF8&t=h&layer=c&cbll=41.905736,-87.633905&panoid=AMdDFYEfBH9WxV1gSro0_w&cbp=1,205.22988044394003,,0,-31.75007671073007&ll=41.907148,-87.633895&spn=0.005509,0.010686&z=17)

:-)

[the urban politician]

Check the zoning map and historical census data, then get back to me. Household sizes are shrinking, and the only desirable neighborhoods zoned for any density are built out.

Areas that are densifying: Streeterville, Lakeshore East, The Loop
Areas that are densifying but nearing maturity/build out: South Loop (think Bob is gonna approve and/many more highrises?)

The only areas with dense zoning waiting for development are Bronzeville (along the Green Line from 39th down to 51st), and a pocket near East Garfield Park.

Any further discussion on this point, let's take it to the "General Developments" thread.

^ The North/Clybourn area, the former Cabrini Green, the entire south & west sides of Chicago, Rogers Park, Uptown, West Ridge, South Halsted/UIC, the Fulton District, River North to name some others.

The South Loop near build out? How about South Michigan, the south Grant Park Towers, Cermak, several apt towers along S. Clark., the vacant swath of land on the SW corner of Roosevelt & Clark, the west side of south Wells St, Chinatown... Little Bobby may pander to NIMBY's but he hasn't successfully blocked a single highrise project yet, and even with some height concessions there is undoubtably going to be a significant density increase in the South Loop no matter how you look at it.

Even Hyde Park will likely get 3 new highrises despite NIMBY grumbling. Perhaps even South Shore.

I get your concern about NIMBYism, but I think your pessimism here is misplaced. It is a major real estate downturn that has killed the boom, not armies of NIMBY's at every corner. Perhaps with the disappearance of torrential development everywhere, the once drowned-out NIMBY voice has gotten more attention? Again, I really don't see any real basis behind your incredibly grim outlook for development in the city of Chicago, at least long term

[spyguy]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2008/06/architecture-cr.html

Architecture critic Kevin Nance leaving Sun-Times for Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture

Blair Kamin

Kevin Nance, the Chicago Sun-Times art critic who also served as the newspaper's architecture critic, will leave the Sun-Times on July 10 and will join the fast-growing Chicago firm of Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture as director of publications.

------
Seems like in the last year or so we've lost a number of good architecture critics and bloggers.

[aaron38]

I'm not really a big fan of the park at K Station. First, it meets the Desplaines overpass in a very odd way - the dirt just stops and there's a sheer drop to "true ground level", instead of building an attractive retaining wall on the overpass.

Second, because of the design, you can stand in the park and still see underneath the support pillars of the Desplaines overpass, which is a dead space of gravel, puddles, and trash - a space that is now completely sheltered, and perfect for homeless people.

Third, the stair-stepped slope of the earth there rules out any sort of frisbee, or baseball tossing, or any other kind of sport, since the ground is too uneven. All this grassy area is maybe good for picnics or sunbathing, and that's about it.

Now - the design here seems like the result of some serious budget constraints. The city (or FRDA, the neighborhood group) probably asked for a park, and Fifield grudgingly gave them an useless piece of land with grass, some trees and a path. The playground and sail pavilion are nice, though.

I saw that from the train today, I agree it's pretty worthless as park space. I basically viewed it as a landscaped staircase. It looks nice, but it didn't really look like a space that people would actually hang out in.

[VivaLFuego]

^ The North/Clybourn area, the former Cabrini Green, the entire south & west sides of Chicago, Rogers Park, Uptown, West Ridge, South Halsted/UIC, the Fulton District, River North to name some others.

The South Loop near build out? How about South Michigan, the south Grant Park Towers, Cermak, several apt towers along S. Clark., the vacant swath of land on the SW corner of Roosevelt & Clark, the west side of south Wells St, Chinatown... Little Bobby may pander to NIMBY's but he hasn't successfully blocked a single highrise project yet, and even with some height concessions there is undoubtably going to be a significant density increase in the South Loop no matter how you look at it.

Even Hyde Park will likely get 3 new highrises despite NIMBY grumbling. Perhaps even South Shore.

I get your concern about NIMBYism, but I think your pessimism here is misplaced. It is a major real estate downturn that has killed the boom, not armies of NIMBY's at every corner. Perhaps with the disappearance of torrential development everywhere, the once drowned-out NIMBY voice has gotten more attention? Again, I really don't see any real basis behind your incredibly grim outlook for development in the city of Chicago, at least long term

Alot of projects never even go public because the aldermen and their NIMBY puppetmasters kill them so early in the process. I know this to be true of projects in V. Daley's, Reilly's, and Fioretti's wards, and would be surprised if it isn't also true of Tunney's and Waguespack's. And no, I won't reveal my source(s) on this ... :)

You're right, I'm being a bit too pessimistic. Generally speaking, our Central Area will get more residential density, even if the parking ratios and unit mix are suboptimal. And having a larger, more continuous, and more vibrant Central Area is definitely a good thing that we can look forward to. I guess I'm just more pessimistic about the dream of actually having an entire huge dense bustling city, in light of the gems of neighborhoods (or at least the gem in their potential) we have. I look outside the Central Area and see largely progress in the wrong direction in terms of density, albeit with some important positive exceptions like the gradual reduction in auto dealerships, drive-thrus, strip malls, etc. that blight so many of our neighborhood commercial streets citywide.

And even that progress we can expect in the Central Area, we generally owe to Natarus, Heithcock, and Burnett; the latter of which is still around to approve density (yay for North/Clybourn and parts of West Loop), but one wonders if his time is limited given the erosion of his Cabrini-Green powerbase and the increasing NIMBYfication of his ward. How many projects have been approved under Reilly and Fioretti's watch? How many amendments for the better have happened under their watch, versus amendments for worse, e.g. Fioretti upping Avalon Bay's parking ratio from 0.65:1 to 0.95:1? Even in the Central Area, the trend is still for future improvement, but the second derivative of our Urban Awesomeness Graph could be said to be getting quite negative.

I'm also quite excited about the very recent turn Hyde Park has seemed to make in approving some new developments, and hope that they culminate in an awesome Harper Court redevelopment (when visiting my childhood home, I'll have a spectacular view of Solstice construction :) ). But I'll believe it all when I see some caissons in the ground and cranes in the air, since to date the only large-scale construction in Hyde Park has been the demolition of ever more residences to make way for hospital and some other academic facilities. Not that the progress is inherently bad (Saarinen demolition excepted, nod to honte), it's just that Hyde Park's density continues to shrink and shrink and no new units are yet to be built.

[ardecila]

Don't forget Dowell... she seems to be fairly pro-development.

[honte]

I guess I'm just more pessimistic about the dream of actually having an entire huge dense bustling city, in light of the gems of neighborhoods (or at least the gem in their potential) we have.

I have to agree with TUP on this - I don't know where you are coming from. I was out this weekend (which is sadly very unusual these days) and I couldn't believe how active the city was. Sure, the taste, subway series, and pride festivities have people out and about, but the city felt like it was bursting at the seams. People were flooding the streets from Edgewater all the way to Grant Park, and from Wicker Park to Bridgeport, from dawn until very, very late in the night. The increase in public transit ridership seems palpable and this has the added effect of more foot traffic in the neighborhoods.

All this banter about NIMBYs is overblown. Many NIMBYs are in favor of smart growth (however they perceive that) - but growth is the key word here. I don't know of many community groups outside of Lincoln Park that are anti-growth. Many people I know lament the way things have gone here in the last 10 years, but we all realize that the city is a better place due to the growth - just wish it could be handled the right way.

I think you give too much credit to Natarus and the others. Sure, they rubber-stamped things left and right, leading to lots of development and gold-threaded pockets. But this also causes a total distrust of government that you can hear echoed from Rogers Park to Chatham. Distrust of local government is nearly universal in Chicago. In the development arena, this leads to a backlash known as NIMBYism - or, at least, to backwards-thinking amateur planners like WLCO suffocating a neighborhood's potential for no good reason. If we had strong, sensible, predictable planning in this city, I think the opposition to density and development would fall by the wayside. Everyone wants a healthy and productive city - this isn't Barrington. Chicago is still one of the most urban and exciting centers in North America, and most of the people here are here for that reason.

[VivaLFuego]

If we had strong, sensible, predictable planning in this city, I think the opposition to density and development would fall by the wayside.
Though the governmental structure is stacked against this, I generally agree with you. The lackadaisical and idiosyncratic interest in transit/smart-growth/etc comes straight from the top of City Hall.


Everyone wants a healthy and productive city - this isn't Barrington. Wouldn't know that from the community meetings. While it's true that distrust of government is a major subtext of all development considerations in Chicago, the concerns voiced at community meetings are always: 1) parking, 2) height/density, 3) parking, etc.

I think the positive change of which you speak results more from a cultural shift among the population to utilize Chicago's assets by foot and does not represent the culmination of real estate development activities that increase population density or even transit- or pedestrian-accessibility. To some extent, increased street-level vitality also results from broader macroeconomic trends: not only the recent gas price spike, but also the general affluence and growth in real income and purchasing power experienced by city dwellers and city visitors over the past 15 years.

This cultural shift is, of course, very good news in its own right, but it also means we're plateauing as the changing factors that created the shift plateau themselves. Only in the Central Area neighborhoods like Streeterville, South Loop, River North would I not challenge the assertion that recent real estate development is largely or primarily responsible for the increase in community vitality. Like I wrote in my previous rant, while our Urban Awesomeness equation is still heading upwards for the time being, I see our second derivative as getting more and more negative, which sours the taste in my mouth because I feel I can see "the end" of where the city will end up (particularly once a cheap new energy source for cars is found), rather than a feeling of wonder, amazement, excitement at anything being possible for Chicago's future.

This is a topic in which we can agree to disagree, of course, but I would love to be proven wrong.

EDIT: I'll also give credit where credit is due, and give Reilly some props for his general support of the 630 McClurg project and River Pointe or whatever 444 W Lake St is called. Reilly is apparently supportive of actual serious urbanity, but only in a very tightly defined area that appears to be bounded about by about Ontario on the north and Canal on the west. Will be interesting to see what he does when Habitat finally pops the question regarding the East Bank Club's (where Reilly works out) parking lot.

[ardecila]

Perhaps honte might be able to answer this...

The city plans to purchase Michael Reese hospital and build a mixed-use complex there - ideally the Olympic Village, but the city claims it will pursue the development with or without the Olympics.

Is there anything of architectural value on the Michael Reese campus that we ought to be concerned about? Perhaps we could encourage some sort of adaptive reuse.

[BVictor1]

Perhaps honte might be able to answer this...

The city plans to purchase Michael Reese hospital and build a mixed-use complex there - ideally the Olympic Village, but the city claims it will pursue the development with or without the Olympics.

Is there anything of architectural value on the Michael Reese campus that we ought to be concerned about? Perhaps we could encourage some sort of adaptive reuse.

The old hospital building and the archway over 29th Street.

I think these features might be saved, but I'm not 100% sure.

[honte]

Perhaps honte might be able to answer this...

The city plans to purchase Michael Reese hospital and build a mixed-use complex there - ideally the Olympic Village, but the city claims it will pursue the development with or without the Olympics.

Is there anything of architectural value on the Michael Reese campus that we ought to be concerned about? Perhaps we could encourage some sort of adaptive reuse.


Yes, in my opinion there is a great deal of architectural merit at that site, but I am not prepared to get into a long, heated debate about it at this moment. Very insightful observation, though.

Landmarks Illinois has been actively advocating for the old Michael Reese hospital building for many years. However, there are other noteworthy structures there from both the pre-war and post-war periods. And, ignoring the architecture, the history of the institution itself is tremendous.

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer 7/1/08


http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/4059/dsc0152zt0.jpg


http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/9007/dsc0157af4.jpg


http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/2808/dsc0159lj1.jpg

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer 7/1/08


http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/6179/dsc0012nu8.jpg


http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/189/dsc0044qw7.jpg


http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/1393/dsc0056af0.jpg


http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/4935/dsc0165xl1.jpg


http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/9092/dsc0099dk2.jpg

[the urban politician]

This cultural shift is, of course, very good news in its own right, but it also means we're plateauing as the changing factors that created the shift plateau themselves. Only in the Central Area neighborhoods like Streeterville, South Loop, River North would I not challenge the assertion that recent real estate development is largely or primarily responsible for the increase in community vitality. Like I wrote in my previous rant, while our Urban Awesomeness equation is still heading upwards for the time being, I see our second derivative as getting more and more negative, which sours the taste in my mouth because I feel I can see "the end" of where the city will end up (particularly once a cheap new energy source for cars is found), rather than a feeling of wonder, amazement, excitement at anything being possible for Chicago's future.

^ Well lets be honest here, you've set up an argument that is clearly impossible to disprove. But let me leave you with this: so the hell what if Chicago's most gentrified, tony lakefront north side neighborhoods don't densify any further? From what everybody is saying, the trains headed downtown during rush hour are packed to the brim anyhow, as all the roads are clogged.

That's a pretty small fraction of Chicago's land area. There are a lot of places with a lot of potential and the will to grow, and yes they have transit connections. I'd rather we focus on these areas; and I would argue that a much larger "urbanized" area within the city would make for a much more fascinating and healthy place than the current, extremely lop-sided one we can experience now

In other words, the miles and miles of vacant grasslands & abandoned buildings that make up much of the south & west sides is a much, much, much, much, much bigger problem for Chicago than whether Lincoln Park's pop. density drops from 25,000 to 23,000 people/sq mile as it grows wealthier....

[Marcu]

In other words, the miles and miles of vacant grasslands & abandoned buildings that make up much of the south & west sides is a much, much, much, much, much bigger problem for Chicago than whether Lincoln Park's pop. density drops from 25,000 to 23,000 people/sq mile as it grows wealthier....

I totally agree. And frankly, I don't see what the problem is with much of Chicago not resembling River North. The density levels of Rogers Park, Lincoln Square, or even most of Evanston are more than sufficient to sustain a vibrant urban environment. In much of the urbanized world, particularly Europe, 3 to 5 story buildings are the norm. And I certainly wouldn't mind having the street life and transit ridership levels of cities like Amsterdam or Dublin. As TUP said, I'd much rather see the under-developed south and west side neighborhoods become as dense as South Evanston (which from my understanding the zoning code for the most part supports) and have LP wither down to 23,000 people/sq mile over 20 years.

Additionally, the parking issue will not go away, no matter how much we complain. Even if gas reaches 8$/gallon, people will still want to park their car somewhere near their residence. Even if just to leave it there without ever driving. With this in mind, new neighborhoods resembling East Lakeview, which most consider to be a parking nightmare, are just not gonna happen.

[honte]

^ Well lets be honest here, you've set up an argument that is clearly impossible to disprove.

Sure, it's easy to disprove: If the second derivative is negative, it doesn't necessarily imply that the first derivative is. ;)

[VivaLFuego]

From what everybody is saying, the trains headed downtown during rush hour are packed to the brim anyhow, as all the roads are clogged.


You can always add more service...higher frequencies, longer trains, more buses, bus priority lanes... I dunno why it should be inherently normal for a transit agency to only recover ~50% of costs from fares (and CTA is on the high end of course), when our neighbors in Canada push 80% with only moderately lower car ownership rates and barely higher fares.

In much of the urbanized world, particularly Europe, 3 to 5 story buildings are the norm. And I certainly wouldn't mind having the street life and transit ridership levels of cities like Amsterdam or Dublin. As TUP said, I'd much rather see the under-developed south and west side neighborhoods become as dense as South Evanston (which from my understanding the zoning code for the most part supports) and have LP wither down to 23,000 people/sq mile over 20 years.


Much of the south side and a good chunk of the west side are indeed zoned for rather high densities(R5-FAR2.2, and B/C-3-FAR-3.0), which is exciting to dream about if ever someone decides to invest their capital there. But in the meantime...

Cities like Amsterdam and Dublin also have:
1) less real estate devoted to transportation rights of way
2) higher lot coverage and lower or nonexistent private open space requirements, and ergo higher floor area ratios in buildings of the same height
3) off street parking requirements?
4) smaller or non-existant minimum unit sizes

all contributing to much, much higher units/acre than a 3-story neighborhood in Chicago. Though hopefully culturally we continue to progress towards a more pedestrian-friendly urban lifestyle, which will go a long way towards making more of the lower density areas vital.

Also, Rogers Park is one of the densest neighborhoods of the city. If only a neighborhood like that could still be built!

And honte, re-read my posts and note where I specifically said that the current trend is indeed positive, but I perceive it slowing rapidly :) in other words, I already pre-emptively conceded the first derivative argument before you made it ;) With few exceptions, I just don't see Chicago's recent resurgence in vitality as partcularly tied to neighborhood residential construction, in contrast to our own Central Area or say, Vancouver, two places where serious density increases and scarcity of parking jolted moribund areas to life. I say this based on recent careful study of neighborhood transit ridership trends (which I think are generally strongly correlated with pedestrian/street-level economic and recreational activity), and seeing little correlation with real estate development (ridership is up all over the place, fyi). I'd be happy to discuss further via PM...

I'll stop griping now, and consider this poor horse's corpse beaten beyond recognition and laid to rest in the rubble of Maxwell Street.

[honte]

And honte, re-read my posts and note where I specifically said that the current trend is indeed positive, but I perceive it slowing rapidly :) in other words, I already pre-emptively conceded the first derivative argument before you made it ;)

Sure. But I was only 3/4 joking.

The point is that your, well, er, very loosely defined Urban_awesomeness(x1, x2... xn; t) function need not go into decline due to declining rates. I can see some leveling off in certain areas, but a healthy breather might be good for some neighborhoods still trying to adjust to their new realities. Meanwhile, there likely still will be growth, just not especially rapid growth.

Massive population increases and/or overcrowding are one way to produce vibrant communities, such as Bronzeville c. 1920. Another way is simply to have tons of income or, better, increasing levels of income, a la Lincoln Park 2008. I realize you identified the last trend, but I think it's more powerful than you suggest. Have you been up to Green Bay Road in Winnetka recently? It's pretty bustling with an odd collection of high-end design stores better suited to the Merchandise Mart, despite stagnant population in that area.

Another factor that you neglect is Chicago's constant urge to remake itself. Continued investment and redevelopment will take place. It's in the DNA.

I'm generally very pessimistic about most trends I see in Chicago these days, but population density and activity in the city are definitely not one of them. :shrug: But you've got the numbers.

[the urban politician]

In this week's "Lakefront Outlook" they discuss Ald Dowell downzoning some vacant properties at 43rd & King Drive so that any further development will have to be discussed with the community.

I have heard of Aldermen doing this elsewhere. I completely LOATHE this practice. Why are they being allowed to do this?

I would love for Daley to force through some sort of mandate that prevents downzoning property any further in the city without the Dept of Planning's approval.

[VivaLFuego]

I have heard of Aldermen doing this elsewhere. I completely LOATHE this practice. Why are they being allowed to do this?

I would love for Daley to force through some sort of mandate that prevents downzoning property any further in the city without the Dept of Planning's approval.

Ald. Hairston did something similar in Hyde Park to the Vivekananda temple at 54th and Hyde Park Boulevard. The whole area is zoned R6 (high-density, potential highrise) but she downzoned that one property to R5 because the temple and a developer were making plans without consulting her... i.e., she spot-zoned out of spite.

It's criminal, really, but the notion of Daley pushing through an ordinance that would have to be approved by the very crooks whose own power would be diminished by that ordinance is, well, implausible. Is there any provision for a referendum in Chicago? I feel like that might be the only way to fix the the Aldermanic problem.

And just to twist the corkscrew while it's already in your heart, Vivekananda is moving to Homer Glen :tup:

[honte]

^ I don't believe it's a horrible as you guys make it sound. The alderman initiates the discussion with the department of zoning and if it's deemed appropriate, it happens.

I disagree entirely, 100% with spot downzoning you have mentioned, but the downzoning process is not quite this arbitrary. The notices still get posted, the community has a chance to respond, etc.

In the end, this is again a factor of the city having little or no control over development due to few clear plans and very, very few measures beyond zoning that allow any degree of discussion. I understand why the aldermen do it and why the community puts up with it, despite the fact that it is totally the wrong approach.

[the urban politician]

^ Why downzone at all?

Zoning is oppressive. Zoning should dictate minimum densities, not maximum ones, I say.

[simcityaustin]

Some shots from last Wednesday:

Modern Art Expansion and Bridge:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/maxisguy/Chicago%20Taste/P6290168.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/maxisguy/Chicago%20Taste/P6290167.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/maxisguy/Chicago%20Taste/P6290166.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/maxisguy/Chicago%20Taste/P6290226.jpg

LSE Townhomes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/maxisguy/Chicago%20Taste/P6290242.jpg

Roosevelt Collection:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/maxisguy/Chicago%20Taste/P6280042.jpg

[honte]

^ Why downzone at all?

Zoning is oppressive. Zoning should dictate minimum densities, not maximum ones, I say.

Well, a street like Hyde Park Boulevard is such an obvious landmark district, but due to the fact that it's never been designated, it leaves the community, politicians, and planning department virtually powerless to protect it.

[VivaLFuego]

Well, a street like Hyde Park Boulevard is such an obvious landmark district, but due to the fact that it's never been designated, it leaves the community, politicians, and planning department virtually powerless to protect it.

I agree with the beauty of that stretch, but amusingly (in an ironic sense), the Vivekananda temple is one of the few sites that warrants redevelopment, in contrast to the several gorgeous apartment buildings nearby that warrant some consideration for preservation but are otherwise left open to redevelopment.

I think spot-zoning is generally wrong but occasionally appropriate, as in cases like this, where a district deserves general protection but not of every single structure; in this case, Hairston's spot-zoning gets it exactly backwards, by downzoning the one parcel that should be built to a high density to compensate for what should be a lack of buildable density on surrounding lots.

Of course, it's only backwards from a planning standpoint. From her standpoint of political power games and personal spite, her move makes sense, and will serve as a warning to other pesky developers to not dare initiate any discussions with neighbors regarding development without putting her in charge of everything.

[BVictor1]

.

[Chicago Shawn]

Isn't JDL the one who is doing the old firehouse rehab in conjuction with the new tower? Why can't they work out something like that over here? Hell, they could even get a density bonus that lets 'em stick it to the NIMBYs..

Density bonuses are only available in Dowtown "D" districts, and old town has no such zoning.


Our zoning code in the neighborhoods is too restrictive. I too side with Viva in the negitive outlook on chicago's future. Too many great sites near transit are going underutilized and upzoning anywhere is becoming political suicide among the nieghbors. Even zoning districts with no height limits such as B-5 and all D districts have low PD thresholds begining the three ring circus of community bitching and alderhacking. Half of our city is illegal under current zoning code, and further downzonings further complicate the problem. This latest example near 43rd and King is total BS. That was supposed to be a targeted TOD site that DPD is working on. Anyone who supports downzoning there is an environmental criminal, this prime open land right next to the green line; and also is an outright waste of tax money. Remember that tax increase we just got to supply the CTA with opperational funds?


The only area that I see getting a major boost in density is Prekwinkle's 4th ward. She understands why density is needed and convinces the community to welcome it. We need more alderman like her, and if that does not happen; then we need aldermanic privillage to go the way of the dodo in regards to development and zoning. Outside of the few alderman who really understand city economics and vitality over the concerns of complaining neighbors; aldermanic perogitive has done and will continue to harm to our great city to appease selfish voters, far more often than good results perogitive produces. Perhaps I too am being too pesimistic, but I just don't see these factors changing.

[VivaLFuego]

^I would add that Mary Ann Smith is also one of the 'better' aldermen in terms of taking planning/development considerations seriously and not just using them as a tool for political point scoring.

[Chicago Shawn]

^Mary Ann Smith is great. She also has a pedestrian activist on her staff that is responsibile for building out the pedestrian bump outs on Marine Drive.

[Abner]

I agree with the beauty of that stretch, but amusingly (in an ironic sense), the Vivekananda temple is one of the few sites that warrants redevelopment, in contrast to the several gorgeous apartment buildings nearby that warrant some consideration for preservation but are otherwise left open to redevelopment.


Aren't there still two high-quality buildings behind the temple's front addition, or are they no good? I don't know, I always kind of liked the ridiculous "summer house" thing that the temple throws into the mix there. Not to say that it should have been the first priority for downzoning-as-preservation of course, just curious.

Isn't spot-zoning a pretty lousy substitute for actual preservation? Much of the most egregious new construction is of much lower density than what it replaces.

[honte]

Aren't there still two high-quality buildings behind the temple's front addition

Yes there are

...or are they no good?

No, they are good.


I don't know, I always kind of liked the ridiculous "summer house" thing that the temple throws into the mix there. Not to say that it should have been the first priority for downzoning-as-preservation of course, just curious.

Isn't spot-zoning a pretty lousy substitute for actual preservation? Much of the most egregious new construction is of much lower density than what it replaces.

Yes, it's a miserable substitute that accomplishes very little.

Ironically, in Hyde Park the major preservation battle has been over the old hospital facing Jackson Park, which I personally consider one of the least worthy structures for preservation in the entire neighborhood. I'd rather see Harper Court preserved, to put it in perspective. ... among hundreds of other noteworthy buildings there.

[OhioGuy]

Does anyone know if there has ever been any interest by any developers in bringing back into existence the large apartment complex building that's located on the southeast corner of where N Pine Grove Ave & W Surf St intersect? It's an abandoned building that looks like it has great bones. I'm wondering what the history is behind that building? I haven't been by it in months, but last summer I was in that area a lot and there was a night guard that would keep watch over the building, presumably to prevent anyone from breaking in & causing further degradation to the building. I'd love to see it come back completely renovated as a condo building. Considering its location in East Lakeview, just a short walk from the Diversey/Clark/Broadway intersection, I would assume the potential condo units would be highly popular.

[Abner]

Thanks Honte. By the way, thankfully, after a lot of intervention, the Sokol sign on Ashland has been put back up. That building sure isn't out of the woods yet, but its integrity is intact.

[spyguy]

http://www.insideonline.com/site/epage/64831_162.htm

Griffin Theater prepares for move into old police station
By Adam Prahl

Working closely with Alderman O’Conner, the Griffin Theatre plans to open in the old Ravenswood police station, located at 1940 West Foster Avenue, in fall of 2009.
-----

Plans for shuttered theater modified
By Patrick Butler

Preservationists and worried local residents both claimed victory recently when M Development dropped plans for a 10-story, 100-room luxury hotel on the site of the old Esquire Theater, 58 W. Oak, at the behest of Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd). In its place will apparently be a three-story retail complex now being reviewed by Reilly’s staff and the city.

[Chicagoguy]

So I was sitting here tonight with a group of friends...some from both here in Chicago and New York City. We got on the topic somehow of things that could be done to improve the city/make the city a more desirable place to live. These are some of the things we talked about and I was wondering if anything of this nature had been brought up in the past or thought about?

*Taking better advantage of our great lakefront...ie more piers and things of that sort. We have an amazing lakefront that very few cities get the chance to have and it seems like we just arent taking advantage of it the way we should. Look at NY for example, they have so many peirs with different attractions on their bayfront...we should do more things like that. Maybe a casino peir, a peir with a mall maybe...more shopping, and just more fun attractions to bring people out to the lake. Right now we are doing great with all of the lake front parks, beaches, and bike paths...but it would be cool to expand that!

*Trying harder to establish more high rises in the Lincoln Park area. Our city is blessed with this amazing park and it just seems like it gets lost among other things in the city. People try and compare Grant/Millenium Park to Central Park in NYC, but it is nothing close to that. Lincoln Park is beautiful and actually very simialar to Central Park in its qualities and such. We just wish more would be done to bring more people to that area of the city...and I dont mean to build things in the park either like they keep doing in Millenium...maybe a few Luxury Hotels, more shopping, and more park front restaurants would do alot!

Those are just a couple of our ideas we came up with so I thought I would share them with the rest of you! Please comment on what you think!

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=5293&TM=4147.833

Transit oriented means taller in Logan Square
Milwaukee master plan calls for denser development

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER

Logan Square residents got their first look at a draft long-term development plan for Milwaukee Avenue on Tuesday. While some praised the plan, others said it calls for buildings that are too tall and dense.

The Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Plan lays out development guidelines for the stretch of Milwaukee from Western to California.

One section of the plan that turned into a hot-button issue at the Tuesday meeting, held at the Congress Theater in Logan Square, calls for transit-oriented developments at the El stops at Western and California. Such developments are typically taller and denser-about seven to 14 stories-and are located within a quarter mile of the train station. With El stations at California and Western, the quarter mile boundary could include much of the corridor.

[denizen467]

*Taking better advantage of our great lakefront...ie more piers and things of that sort.
...
it seems like we just arent taking advantage of it the way we should. Look at NY for example, they have so many peirs with different attractions on their bayfront...we should do more things like that.
...
more fun attractions to bring people out to the lake.
...


It's strange that more people don't talk about this.

Chicago's Lakefront is one of the most spectacularly wasted opportunities ever. It's practically all just beaches and parks. So, unless one makes a conscious decision to do something outdoors/lake-related, this dramatic body of water, and the world's 5th-largest lake, is just a distant presence, enjoyable by very few on a regular basis. The handful of exceptions are things people do very rarely if at all - football games, a couple museums, the Shakespeare theater. (Driving down LSD at 55mph does not count.) In particular, the drama of the lake during the cold months is never experienced by the vast majority of people.

We should be showing off the lake a lot more to business travelers as well as to tourists and locals. It should be possible that it becomes a casual encounter while engaging in something else, e.g. going to a restaurant or hotel. So there should be more hotels (only the Drake and the W come close, and even there it's no pleasant stroll to get to the water), restaurants, and even retail and offices, abutting the lake. Even if confined to just a couple blocks' worth of shoreline, which it should be, it would be a huge improvement.

Of course, the places where this would be viable are very limited. Obviously everything between Randolph and Roosevelt is out of the question, Grant Park being a precious asset. If something were ever to be done in some distant future (if lakefront protection laws and attitudes were to become more sensible), planners could consider the area east of LSE (e.g. shift the shoreline and marina, but not LSD, out a block or two), the area at or around McCormick Lakeside Center, and the general environs of the present or an expanded Navy Pier.

To look at it another way, consider the popularity and growth of restaurants along the river downtown. Although it is wonderful this is happening, in the grand scheme of things it is rather perverse that the city is flocking to the Chicago River - a dingy canal, to most outsiders - for casual relaxation along the water, rather than to the majestic lake.

[Mr Downtown]

Surely the filmmakers didn't remove the actual stone with the Sokol inscription; they simply covered it with a piece of plywood. Think what a ridiculous amount of work it would be to actually remove that piece of stone.

[BVictor1]

*Taking better advantage of our great lakefront...ie more piers and things of that sort. We have an amazing lakefront that very few cities get the chance to have and it seems like we just arent taking advantage of it the way we should. Look at NY for example, they have so many peirs with different attractions on their bayfront...we should do more things like that. Maybe a casino peir, a peir with a mall maybe...more shopping, and just more fun attractions to bring people out to the lake. Right now we are doing great with all of the lake front parks, beaches, and bike paths...but it would be cool to expand that!

I don't know if I really agree with this. I think that a few piers could be nice, but the openness of the water is what makes our lakefront so spectacular. I'd rather not see it cluttered.


Trying harder to establish more high rises in the Lincoln Park area. Our city is blessed with this amazing park and it just seems like it gets lost among other things in the city. People try and compare Grant/Millenium Park to Central Park in NYC, but it is nothing close to that. Lincoln Park is beautiful and actually very simialar to Central Park in its qualities and such. We just wish more would be done to bring more people to that area of the city...and I dont mean to build things in the park either like they keep doing in Millenium...maybe a few Luxury Hotels, more shopping, and more park front restaurants would do alot!

The north lakefront has highrises stretched all along it. Lets work on the south lakefront for a change. I know that there are major projects in the works like the Olympic Village, The Gateway Project, the redevelopment of Lake Meadows and the South Works project. But that's the thing, they're all in the works and not yet a reality.

[VivaLFuego]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=5293&TM=4147.833

Transit oriented means taller in Logan Square
Milwaukee master plan calls for denser development

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER

Logan Square residents got their first look at a draft long-term development plan for Milwaukee Avenue on Tuesday. While some praised the plan, others said it calls for buildings that are too tall and dense.

The Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Plan lays out development guidelines for the stretch of Milwaukee from Western to California.

One section of the plan that turned into a hot-button issue at the Tuesday meeting, held at the Congress Theater in Logan Square, calls for transit-oriented developments at the El stops at Western and California. Such developments are typically taller and denser-about seven to 14 stories-and are located within a quarter mile of the train station. With El stations at California and Western, the quarter mile boundary could include much of the corridor.

Cool. And the Alderman seems to buy into the concept.

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=5293&TM=4147.833

Transit oriented means taller in Logan Square
Milwaukee master plan calls for denser development

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER

Logan Square residents got their first look at a draft long-term development plan for Milwaukee Avenue on Tuesday. While some praised the plan, others said it calls for buildings that are too tall and dense.

The Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Plan lays out development guidelines for the stretch of Milwaukee from Western to California.

One section of the plan that turned into a hot-button issue at the Tuesday meeting, held at the Congress Theater in Logan Square, calls for transit-oriented developments at the El stops at Western and California. Such developments are typically taller and denser-about seven to 14 stories-and are located within a quarter mile of the train station. With El stations at California and Western, the quarter mile boundary could include much of the corridor.

Sweet!

Development like this should be considered around all El stations where available.

[Chicagoguy]

I don't know if I really agree with this. I think that a few piers could be nice, but the openness of the water is what makes our lakefront so spectacular. I'd rather not see it cluttered.

Thats what I was meaning...I wasnt saying to flood the lake with piers, but adding a couple more I think would be a great thing.


The north lakefront has highrises stretched all along it. Lets work on the south lakefront for a change. I know that there are major projects in the works like the Olympic Village, The Gateway Project, the redevelopment of Lake Meadows and the South Works project. But that's the thing, they're all in the works and not yet a reality.

And I wasnt really talking about the northside lakefront...I was talking more about the park in general. When people visit NYC most of them always make it a point to visit Central Park. That isnt the case here. I said that we should promote it more or give people more reason to visit there. There really arent any luxury hotels in that area and it would be great to have one along Lincoln Park. All I was trying to say is that it is such a beautiful asset to our city and yet it tends to get lost among everything else!

[Abner]

Surely the filmmakers didn't remove the actual stone with the Sokol inscription; they simply covered it with a piece of plywood. Think what a ridiculous amount of work it would be to actually remove that piece of stone.

It's a little strange. The inscription looks like it's actually on a thin piece of stone that somehow bolts into the facade; now that it's back you can faintly see bolt holes at the corners of the inscription. When it was down you could see streaked stains underneath where it had been. But even a thin piece must be awfully heavy and fragile; seems like it would make more sense to fill in the letters with something. In any case the oddest thing is that they didn't just digitally alter it later like they would if they were working somewhere where the city would be paying attention to how they treat historic buildings.

[BVictor1]

And I wasnt really talking about the northside lakefront...I was talking more about the park in general. When people visit NYC most of them always make it a point to visit Central Park. That isnt the case here. I said that we should promote it more or give people more reason to visit there. There really arent any luxury hotels in that area and it would be great to have one along Lincoln Park. All I was trying to say is that it is such a beautiful asset to our city and yet it tends to get lost among everything else!

Okay, I better understand your point. There should certainly be more hotels in Boystown and Wrigleyville.

I think one thing that will make the park more significant is extending it to Evanston no matter what the people in Rogers Park say.

[Steely Dan]

When people visit NYC most of them always make it a point to visit Central Park. That isnt the case here.

ummmmmmmmmm.............. i don't know how often you get down to the lakefront, but i bike along the lake just about every single day march through novemeber, and when the weather cooperates, the lakefront is JAMMED with tourists and city residents alike. on the northside it's to the point where the lakefront path is completely unusable on nice summer weekend days. go before 7:00am or after 9:00pm, otherwise you're dealing with a tourist back-up that rivals the kennedy at rush hour. or you can just head to the southside lakefront (but don't tell that to the tourists).

as a daily user of our magnificent lakefront, i find this notion that some of you are spouting about the lakefront being unused or not visited by tourists to be COMPLETELY ABSURD. just because you don't use the lakefront everyday doesn't mean that the thousands of tourists who do aren't there.

and i for one love the lakefront park system as is and wouldn't trade it in for anything else. our city has had to fight tooth and nail to keep our lakefront forever clear and open and devoid of private development. i wouldn't trade that for anything in the world. besides, one navy pier is more than enough.

[VivaLFuego]

I have to generally agree with Steely. Chicago has one of the best and most-utilized urban waterfronts in the country if not the world; it's one of the primary assets for which it's known.

Chicagoguy is right that our Lincoln Park is more akin to NYC's Central Park in terms of being a more naturally landscaped park, in contrast to Grant Park which is really a functional park and grand meeting space for festivals and the like to which NYC really has no equivalent. Some more hotel space and highrises would be great, but the impediment to this isn't lack of will, it's NIMBYism in the neighborhoods.

I agree there is some level of underutilization, particularly on the South Side, but only insomuch as there are not yet enough residents in the area to use it as their neighborhood amenity (the Olympic Village will hopefully jump start the south lakeshore rejuvenation). I see no reason why the lakefront has to be commercialized, in light of the many awesome commercial districts that are very close to the lakefront parks anyway.

To the extent there is any disconnect, perhaps the city in its tourism/outreach efforts could place more emphasis on using Chicago's bus system to access certain activities and neighborhoods that grew up around the streetcars and buses as opposed to the L. Of course, the 151 is already crush-loaded up to the park from downtown on weekends anyway...

[Steely Dan]

I agree there is some level of underutilization, particularly on the South Side, but only insomuch as there are not yet enough residents in the area to use it as their neighborhood amenity.
but i really like the less hectic attitude of the southside lakefront. it's a nice counterbalance to the insanity of the northside, and it allows one to actually ride a bicycle on a saturday afternoon if one is interested in doing such a thing. i don't think our goal as a city should be to make the southside lakefront as congested and overused as the northside.



I see no reason why the lakefront has to be commercialized, in light of the many awesome commercial districts that are very close to the lakefront parks anyway.
1 billion trillion quadrillion percent agreed!

[nomarandlee]

Awesome about Logan Square and hopefully the next neighborhood that gets on board should be Jefferson Park (though I think it should have more a commercial/buisness focus).

Such a perfect axis point between the loop, O'Hare, Northwest suburbs, and north side communities would be very attractive. The idea that people wouldn't be attracted to being less half then the twice the distance from O'Hare or that commuters couldn't save up to as much as twenty minutes each way then the Loop seems absolutely crazy not to take advantage of. Maybe the largest underutilzation in all the city off the top of my head.

This quote kils me......

Sally Hamann, head of the Greater Goethe Neighborhood Association's zoning committee, said she was surprised to see the draft report recommend buildings as tall as a dozen stories.

"What I'm hearing is they want to make it transit oriented," she said. "The interesting thing to me is that it wasn't until tonight that I heard transit-oriented buildings were seven to twelve stories high. And they have to be that tall? Sorry, but I don't buy that."

mmmmmm yea, they kinda do. :koko:

[Chicagoguy]

ummmmmmmmmm.............. i don't know how often you get down to the lakefront, but i bike along the lake just about every single day march through novemeber, and when the weather cooperates, the lakefront is JAMMED with tourists and city residents alike. on the northside it's to the point where the lakefront path is completely unusable on nice summer weekend days. go before 7:00am or after 9:00pm, otherwise you're dealing with a tourist back-up that rivals the kennedy at rush hour. or you can just head to the southside lakefront (but don't tell that to the tourists).

as a daily user of our magnificent lakefront, i find this notion that some of you are spouting about the lakefront being unused or not visited by tourists to be COMPLETELY ABSURD. just because you don't use the lakefront everyday doesn't mean that the thousands of tourists who do aren't there.

and i for one love the lakefront park system as is and wouldn't trade it in for anything else. our city has had to fight tooth and nail to keep our lakefront forever clear and open and devoid of private development. i wouldn't trade that for anything in the world. besides, one navy pier is more than enough.

Well for one I never said that our lakefront doesnt get visited by tourist...I was stating that Lincoln Park doesnt get the amount of tourist that it should! And as for our lakefront parks, I like them too and I visit them quite a few times a week, but honestly once you get out of the Gold Coast area...they are very few "tourist" at the beaches and lakefront. And even when you are at the beaches and lakefront downtown, most of those people either went with a friend that lives in the city, or stumbled on it while visiting Navy Pier. You might not want to hear it but Navy Pier brings in much more tourism than our beaches and lakefront parks. Most people that don't live here have no idea that we even have beaches in Chicago!

[OhioGuy]

Well for one I never said that our lakefront doesnt get visited by tourist...I was stating that Lincoln Park doesnt get the amount of tourist that it should!

I like that the tourists have Grant/Millenium Park in downtown while the city's residents can enjoy a more peaceful & pleasant experience in Lincoln Park.

[Steely Dan]

Well for one I never said that our lakefront doesnt get visited by tourist...I was stating that Lincoln Park doesnt get the amount of tourist that it should!
that's because the VAST majority of tourists who visit chicago stay in a downtown hotel and don't venture very far outside of the city center. is that a bad thing? perhaps, but it's not a fault of lincoln park or our lakefront, it's a function of where hotels are built in the city of chicago (ie. primarily downtown and rivernorth).




but honestly once you get out of the Gold Coast area...they are very few "tourist" at the beaches and lakefront.
not true. i consistently see tourists along the lakefront from conventioneers at mccormick center all the way up to north avenue beach. no, south shore and edgewater are not crawling with tourists, but we can't expect the entire lakefront to be constantly mobbed with tourists, it's simply too big.





And even when you are at the beaches and lakefront downtown, most of those people either went with a friend that lives in the city, or stumbled on it while visiting Navy Pier.
i don't know what numbers you're sourcing that back up that statement, but if it's just a conjecture on your part from your own personal experiences, then we'll just have to agree to disagree because my experiences do not lead me to such a conclusion.




You might not want to hear it but Navy Pier brings in much more tourism than our beaches and lakefront parks. Most people that don't live here have no idea that we even have beaches in Chicago!
once again, i don't know what numbers you're sourcing that back up that statement, but if it's just a conjecture on your part from your own personal experiences, then we'll just have to agree to disagree because my experiences do not lead me to such a conclusion.

[Chicagoguy]

I like that the tourists have Grant/Millenium Park in downtown while the city's residents can enjoy a more peaceful & pleasant experience in Lincoln Park.

In a way I do agree with you there...it is nice to not have it flooded with flocks of tourist, but I still think putting a luxury hotel, maybe a Hyatt, Hilton, Four Seasons, or some other name...would help make Lincoln Park a more favorable place to go. And as for the comment made about NIMBY's being the reason why Lincoln Park cant get a hotel or something...look at Lincoln Park 2520 which is likely to break ground very soon...if that can get approved so could a hotel of the same of similar height!

[Chicagoguy]

that's because the VAST majority of tourists who visit chicago stay in a downtown hotel and don't venture very far outside of the city center. is that a bad thing? perhaps, but it's not a fault of lincoln park or our lakefront, it's a function of where hotels are built in the city of chicago (ie. primarily downtown and rivernorth).





not true. i consistently see tourists along the lakefront from conventioneers at mccormick center all the way up to north avenue beach. no, south shore and edgewater are not crawling with tourists, but we can't expect the entire lakefront to be constantly mobbed with tourists, it's simply too big.






i don't know what numbers you're sourcing that backs up that statement, but if it's just a conjecture on your part from your own personal experiences, then we'll just have to agree to disagree because my experiences do not lead me to such a conclusion.





once again, i don't know what numbers you're sourcing that backs up that statement, but if it's just a conjecture on your part from your own personal experiences, then we'll just have to agree to disagree because my experiences do not lead me to such a conclusion.

I do agree with you about the fault being with the hotels and where they are built and that is why I didnt understand why hotels arent really built on Lincoln Park.

And as for my numbers I based my opinion about Navy Pier on the fact that its gets so much attention from schools all over that state to visit it (My highschool outside of Springfield, IL made field trips yearly to Navy Pier), and because I had to do a report on Chicago about 5 years ago in high school and Navy Pier was one of the leading tourist attractions in the city, I think solely for the fact that it is our only pier...if we had multiple I dont think Navy Pier would be that big of a deal! I just based my opinion on personal experience at the beach and with the report I did! So I guess we can agree to disagree...but that is just my honest opinion!

[Steely Dan]

^ i will agree that navy pier is certainly a gigantic tourist attraction for the city of chicago. but i also happen to believe that one navy pier is enough. i would not support littering our gleaming lakefront park system with more overly commercialized eyesores of that sort.

i love the lakefront park system just the way it is, and thankfully most chicagoans, and over a century's worth of legal precedents, agree with me.

some things that i think can make the lakefront/parks even better than they are today:

1. better access - both through ped. bridges and underpasses (especially southside) and through transit improvements, although i realize the words "transit expansion" are seemingly verboten in chicago. a new ped/bike bridge at the river mouth is most needed right now.

2. come up with some better solutions for the 8 lane monstrosities that tear up grant park, while at the same time also leaving ample room for the large festivals hosted there.

3. pull the parks over stretches of lake shore drive. what i mean by this is that in an ideal world, instead of just having wimpy little ped bridges traverse the expressway, i envision, every mile or so, 500' wide fully landscaped bridges that would give the illusion that the park crawls up and over LSD at certain points, while still preserving most of the dramatic views that make driving up and down LSD so special.

[jstush04]

^ it'd be nice if they were able to sort of put columbus under ground from monroe to roosevelt, and have a parkway of some kind in its place above it. I don't think columbus is pretty at all

[Chicagoguy]

^ i will agree that navy pier is certainly a gigantic tourist attraction for the city of chicago. but i also happen to believe that one navy pier is enough. i would not support littering our gleaming lakefront park system with more overly commercialized eyesores of that sort.

i love the lakefront park system just the way it is, and thankfully most chicagoans, and over a century's worth of legal precedents, agree with me.

some things that i think can make the lakefront/parks even better than they are today:

1. better access - both through ped. bridges and underpasses (especially southside) and through transit improvements, although i realize the words "transit expansion" are seemingly verboten in chicago. a new ped/bike bridge at the river mouth is most needed right now.

2. come up with some better solutions for the 8 lane monstrosities that tear up grant park, while at the same time also leaving ample room for the large festivals hosted there.

3. pull the parks over stretches of lake shore drive. what i mean by this is that in an ideal world, instead of just having wimpy little ped bridges traverse the expressway, i envision, every mile or so, 500' wide fully landscaped bridges that would give the illusion that the park crawls up and over LSD at certain points, while still preserving most of the dramatic views that make driving up and down LSD so special.

I agree with you there! I think having the parks extend over lakshore drive would be awesome! Especially from an aerial view that would be awesome and it would add to our parkspace as well! I love it!

[VivaLFuego]

And as for the comment made about NIMBY's being the reason why Lincoln Park cant get a hotel or something...look at Lincoln Park 2520 which is likely to break ground very soon...if that can get approved so could a hotel of the same of similar height!

I'm not sure that you fully appreciate how big a deal it was for the Lincoln Park 2520 development to get to where it is today. I'm not exaggerating when I say this development has been on the books for going on 10 years, and it's only just now getting ready to start real construction. In order to get approval, it involved:

- making the units so large as to mean the units/acre is lower than every other highrise in the area
- providing so much open space behind the building so as to make the highrise have the lowest overall floor area ratio of highrises in the whole area (I think the FAR is something in the 7-10 range)
- providing 3 parking spaces per unit
- demolition of dozens of units of existing housing in addition to the hospital site, meaning the net increase in housing units was fairly small and that the overall traffic demand in the area decreased dramatically from switching the land use from hospital (high traffic) to residential (low traffic).

I see no way a developer could come in and propose a 400-room hotel along Lincoln Park and get it approved with the level of NIMBY fervor.

[VivaLFuego]

1. better access - both through ped. bridges and underpasses (especially southside) and through transit improvements, although i realize the words "transit expansion" are seemingly verboten in chicago. a new ped/bike bridge at the river mouth is most needed right now.

2. come up with some better solutions for the 8 lane monstrosities that tear up grant park, while at the same time also leaving ample room for the large festivals hosted there.

3. pull the parks over stretches of lake shore drive. what i mean by this is that in an ideal world, instead of just having wimpy little ped bridges traverse the expressway, i envision, every mile or so, 500' wide fully landscaped bridges that would give the illusion that the park crawls up and over LSD at certain points, while still preserving most of the dramatic views that make driving up and down LSD so special.

Yeah, increasingly the accessibility of the lakefront never hurts, but there are really only a few areas with this is necessary; in most locations, there is already access at least every 1/2 mile, which is a reasonable target, with access every 1/4 mile in downtown being appropriate. What I find additionally compelling about the notion of "malling" Columbus and taking out traffic is that when it's closed, traffic on Lakeshore Drive still flows just fine, even during Grant Park festivals. Columbus is really not needed to meet traffic demand in the area. Imagine what could be done if Columbus were turned into a grand pedestrian promenade that could also still function as host to the various summer festivals.

Regarding building parks over LSD, I would sooner focus on building parks over the hideous sunken expressways with lots of truck traffic: the Dan Ryan from 31st-63rd, the Kennedy between the Circle and Hubbard's Cave, and much of the Eisenhower. Lake Shore Drive, given the lack of trucks, isn't so loud and smoggy as compared to the expressways, and thus isn't nearly as oppressive a barrier (as evidenced by the insane volume of people using it on the north side, as you point out).

[cbotnyse]

1. better access - both through ped. bridges and underpasses (especially southside) and through transit improvements, although i realize the words "transit expansion" are seemingly verboten in chicago. a new ped/bike bridge at the river mouth is most needed right now.

2. come up with some better solutions for the 8 lane monstrosities that tear up grant park, while at the same time also leaving ample room for the large festivals hosted there.

3. pull the parks over stretches of lake shore drive. what i mean by this is that in an ideal world, instead of just having wimpy little ped bridges traverse the expressway, i envision, every mile or so, 500' wide fully landscaped bridges that would give the illusion that the park crawls up and over LSD at certain points, while still preserving most of the dramatic views that make driving up and down LSD so special.I just had this conversation with my brother last week as we went to the Taste. I say reduce Columbus to one lane in each direction and make the speed limit 20 mph. If you really think about it Columbus is such a travesty to Grant Park. I wouldnt even call it heavily used, does it really need to be 8 friggen lanes???. Rarely do I see it with bumper to bumper traffic.

I also love your idea of pulling the park over LSD. The pedestrian access to the lake from Roosevelt to Navy Pier is non-existent.

Lets get a grass roots petition going and get this done! :notacrook:

[honte]

What I find additionally compelling about the notion of "malling" Columbus and taking out traffic is that when it's closed, traffic on Lakeshore Drive still flows just fine, even during Grant Park festivals. Columbus is really not needed to meet traffic demand in the area. Imagine what could be done if Columbus were turned into a grand pedestrian promenade that could also still function as host to the various summer festivals.

Totally disagree with you there... from personal experience. When Columbus closes, I feel the impact in a major way on LSD, but I also feel it all the way over on the Dan Ryan. I know you've probably got some kind of numbers, but I've had hours and hours sitting there to think about this.

Taking out the traffic light on LSD at Buckingham Fountain also has had a major improvement on traffic flow.

[nomarandlee]

I gave this suggestion awhile ago but never got any replies (maybe that is an indicator of the stink of the idea). What about an offshore island (2-10 miles away or MAYBE Northerly Island) that is completely pedestrian but is kind of an dense urban summer getaway. I am thinking a kind of mix between the Toronto Islands, Mackinaw Island, Monaco, with a lot of vintage Chicago housing stock mixed with highly modern architecture with a healthy mix of eco/green elements. It could have its own marina and beach and I am guessing we could come up with something better then fudge the island staple. Yea, its FAR fetched but I think it could have potential once past some of the greenies.

I was thinking if not an offshore island Goose Island long in the future could make also be made something akin to this.

[cbotnyse]

Totally disagree with you there... from personal experience. When Columbus closes, I feel the impact in a major way on LSD, but I also feel it all the way over on the Dan Ryan. I know you've probably got some kind of numbers, but I've had hours and hours sitting there to think about this.

Taking out the traffic light on LSD at Buckingham Fountain also has had a major improvement on traffic flow.in my personal experience I've never felt LSD was greatly affected when Columbus closes. I've sat in LSD traffic longer sometimes when Columbus was open. I travel LSD or Columbus almost everyday and there is no way Columus needs to be 8 lanes, considering it cuts directly throught the middle of our grandest park.....get rid of it!!!

[TheBigHurt]

So I was sitting here tonight with a group of friends...some from both here in Chicago and New York City. We got on the topic somehow of things that could be done to improve the city/make the city a more desirable place to live. These are some of the things we talked about and I was wondering if anything of this nature had been brought up in the past or thought about?

*Taking better advantage of our great lakefront...ie more piers and things of that sort. We have an amazing lakefront that very few cities get the chance to have and it seems like we just arent taking advantage of it the way we should. Look at NY for example, they have so many peirs with different attractions on their bayfront...we should do more things like that. Maybe a casino peir, a peir with a mall maybe...more shopping, and just more fun attractions to bring people out to the lake. Right now we are doing great with all of the lake front parks, beaches, and bike paths...but it would be cool to expand that!

*Trying harder to establish more high rises in the Lincoln Park area. Our city is blessed with this amazing park and it just seems like it gets lost among other things in the city. People try and compare Grant/Millenium Park to Central Park in NYC, but it is nothing close to that. Lincoln Park is beautiful and actually very simialar to Central Park in its qualities and such. We just wish more would be done to bring more people to that area of the city...and I dont mean to build things in the park either like they keep doing in Millenium...maybe a few Luxury Hotels, more shopping, and more park front restaurants would do alot!

Those are just a couple of our ideas we came up with so I thought I would share them with the rest of you! Please comment on what you think!

Responding to your first bullet:

I am not living in the area, but I do visit Chicago often to see my brother. One of Chicago's best draws is the beauty and tranquility of the lakefront. I live outside of NYC. It is perfectly fine to build on the Hudson and East rivers because the only views being stolen are of Jersey City and the other boroughs--nothing scenic like Lake Michigan. If a monstrosity like Chelsea Piers was built in Chicago, I would probably call it a public disaster.

[the urban politician]

I agree with those of you who like the lakefront as it is--tranquil, less commercial. I was lucky enough to have lived and jogged daily right along Chicago's south lakefront, and in part it is this wonderful experience about Chicago that I continue to carry with me.

[Chicagoguy]

I'm not sure that you fully appreciate how big a deal it was for the Lincoln Park 2520 development to get to where it is today. I'm not exaggerating when I say this development has been on the books for going on 10 years, and it's only just now getting ready to start real construction. In order to get approval, it involved:

- making the units so large as to mean the units/acre is lower than every other highrise in the area
- providing so much open space behind the building so as to make the highrise have the lowest overall floor area ratio of highrises in the whole area (I think the FAR is something in the 7-10 range)
- providing 3 parking spaces per unit
- demolition of dozens of units of existing housing in addition to the hospital site, meaning the net increase in housing units was fairly small and that the overall traffic demand in the area decreased dramatically from switching the land use from hospital (high traffic) to residential (low traffic).

I see no way a developer could come in and propose a 400-room hotel along Lincoln Park and get it approved with the level of NIMBY fervor.

I actually do understand completely...it was ahard task to accomplish and that is why it is one of the first high rises to be put up in Lincoln Park in so so so long! This project will be huge and even though it took a long time...it is my favorite project going up in the city right now! I know it would take along time to do...but learn from Lincoln Park 2520...I think it will pave the way for more like it to come in the future if things play out well!

[VivaLFuego]

Totally disagree with you there... from personal experience. When Columbus closes, I feel the impact in a major way on LSD, but I also feel it all the way over on the Dan Ryan. I know you've probably got some kind of numbers, but I've had hours and hours sitting there to think about this.

Taking out the traffic light on LSD at Buckingham Fountain also has had a major improvement on traffic flow.

Hmm OK. Actually I don't have authoritative/conclusive numbers handy, just going on my anecdotal experience. I've found driving LSD during the summer fests (such as recently, during the Taste) to be no worse than a normal busy weekend when Columbus is open, and it's often actually noticeably faster. Spillover onto the Ryan does seem plausible, but given the recent major capacity expansion on the Ryan I wonder if it can easily handle it?

Sort of an academic point though, since no one at any level of authority has suggested permanent closure of Columbus anytime soon.

[wrabbit]

The closest counterpart to Central Park in Chicago isn't Lincoln Park IMHO but Jackson Park on the South Side. And some of the skyline views are killer, like looking at the Emerald City, or Atlantis - almost unreal.

The great lakefront travesty to my eye is the 2-mile stretch of LSD that inartfully cuts off Streeterville/Goldcoast from the lake for, like, the sake of three exits. Primo real estate. Awesome potential.

[emathias]

Totally disagree with you there... from personal experience. When Columbus closes, I feel the impact in a major way on LSD, but I also feel it all the way over on the Dan Ryan. I know you've probably got some kind of numbers, but I've had hours and hours sitting there to think about this.

Taking out the traffic light on LSD at Buckingham Fountain also has had a major improvement on traffic flow.

I'm sure it affects traffic, but lets not forget that the reasons Columbus gets closed are almost always reasons that also involve drawing hundreds of thousands of additional people downtown.

I'm not sure you can easily separate the traffic impact of closing one street with the traffic impact of adding a huge traffic generator.

[wrabbit]

.....Taking out the traffic light on LSD at Buckingham Fountain also has had a major improvement on traffic flow.

Good perhaps for vehicular traffic, but bad for pedestrian traffic, at what could & should be an important pedestrian thoroughfare to & from the Lake.

[honte]

^ Sure, never said that it was the ultimate solution. But I like to look at both sides of the coin. Burial of LSD through Grant Park would be the ultimate solution ... something that probably will happen one day.

[Chicago Shawn]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=5293&TM=4147.833

Transit oriented means taller in Logan Square
Milwaukee master plan calls for denser development

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER

Logan Square residents got their first look at a draft long-term development plan for Milwaukee Avenue on Tuesday. While some praised the plan, others said it calls for buildings that are too tall and dense.

The Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Plan lays out development guidelines for the stretch of Milwaukee from Western to California.

One section of the plan that turned into a hot-button issue at the Tuesday meeting, held at the Congress Theater in Logan Square, calls for transit-oriented developments at the El stops at Western and California. Such developments are typically taller and denser-about seven to 14 stories-and are located within a quarter mile of the train station. With El stations at California and Western, the quarter mile boundary could include much of the corridor.

HELL YES!!!! And the alderman is pushing for it too. This is one of those uncommon moments where aldermanic perogitive is used for the good of the community. In this case getting outside consultants for a planning charratte crafted by people who know what they are doing. I love the alderman's comment "are we going to commit to sustainability? If so, we must not be affriad." That's right folks, it takes more than screwing in CFL bulbs to reduce carbon emmissions; so stop being so damn selfish. The green wagon is getting crowded as people are jumping on, but the average person only will do so much, including looking out to protect thier view. Transit oreinted development everywhere in this city would be the absolute greenest thing anyone could avocate for.


On the lakefront note, keep it open. The last thing we need is commercialization. The lakefront is used amazingly well, and certinally has additional capacity, although the bike path should be widened to probably 20-25 feet in some spots. ;) Despite its heavy use, the park system still has lots of quiet spots, one of my favorites is Montrose Point, which I spent yesterday afternoon at. I would like to see us continue to rehape the shoreline and increase the park space as people continue to it use more as ever greater numbers of people move in from the suburbs. I really want to see some of those off shore islands built at some point in the future.

[denizen467]

I see no reason why the lakefront has to be commercialized, in light of the many awesome commercial districts that are very close to the lakefront parks anyway.


First, because people LOVE the lake, as evidenced by the popularity of Navy Pier. It is the biggest tourist attraction in the state. Ergo, there is a huge demand for things to do near the water. (Also consider what city projects could become possible with additional $$$ revenue from this.) And since there exist elderly people, handicapped people, tired people with kids, people who don't like frostbite, etc., not everyone is interested in biking or jogging - they want restaurants and other activities.

Second, the business district is not "very close" to the lake for most businesspeople (the lake is 1/2 mile from State St). Both business visitors as well as working locals (a huge portion of whom only do the daily trudge from Metra to an office tower) deserve a little more interaction with the lake, in a way that's compatible with the busy schedules that many people have to deal with. Having more restaurants, entertainment, hotel, office (in roughly that order of importance and appropriateness) would give more people more chances to get to the lake. Right now, there are really only a few choices that could potentially bring someone to the lake during the course of doing business; one of them is too touristy (Navy Pier); a couple others aren't even right on the lake (Drake or W).

Obviously nobody is arguing to "commercialize the lakefront" entirely. Rather, contemplate allowing development along just, say, a couple carefully designated blocks' worth. Conjuring up one image, take for example a boardwalk with a narrow low-rise restaurant building running a block or two between Randolph and Wacker along the shore east of LSD (no interruption of lakefront trail). Or something similar accessible by a short extension of Wacker past LSD. Maybe combine with a hotel, with a ballroom that makes it feel like you can reach out and touch the lake and boats. Ever been a guest to eat at either of the 2 yacht clubs downtown? Taking in the spectacular views, with the tranquil (or ferocious) lake at one's side, over a leisurely meal, is something everybody should have a chance to enjoy, without special connections or massive planning or fuss.

We need to sell Chicago to outsiders more aggressively. Too many people on the coasts, and overseas, have no idea that Chicago is on Lake Michigan, nor how impressive and beautiful the lake is. There need to be more opportunities for outsiders to encounter, to accidentally discover, to spend time near the lake - especially business visitors (tourists less so, because by definition they're already in Chicago by choice) who can be influential down the road whether economically or in the media or otherwise. Eventually Chicago's image becomes more associated with the lake, and we better distinguish ourselves, in the greater public's mind, versus Vegas, Orlando, Atlanta, Dallas, Charlotte, and other fast-growing (and landlocked) cities.

[spyguy]

On the site of the Sears Auto Center
13 story, 160 unit building facing Lawrence with three levels of retail
50 townhome units on the northern part of the site
4 story parking garage in between both developments
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9376/lawrencer1qy0.jpg
http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/5993/lawrencer2kg3.jpg

[Chicago3rd]

On the site of the Sears Auto Center
13 story, 160 unit building facing Lawrence with three levels of retail
50 townhome units on the northern part of the site
4 story parking garage in between both developments
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9376/lawrencer1qy0.jpg
http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/5993/lawrencer2kg3.jpg

Thanks God!!! I was wondering why they shored up the banks of the railroad area last year! Whew!

[the urban politician]

^ Awesome. And the NIMBY's? Have they torn this project to shreds yet?

[Alliance]

04 July 08
Tute Expansion

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3280/2639860354_c212e5efde_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23169212@N07/2639860354/in/set-72157606014920249/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2639067821_dd13333825_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23169212@N07/2639067821/in/set-72157606014920249/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3013/2639047389_4d1e989664.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23169212@N07/2639047389/in/set-72157606014920249/)http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3119/2639055729_58f10106dc.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23169212@N07/2639055729/in/set-72157606014920249/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3094/2639925998_02ce6fb27c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23169212@N07/2639925998/in/set-72157606014920249/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/2639969980_78765ec166_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23169212@N07/2639969980/in/set-72157606014920249/)

[AdrianXSands]

if this isn't the greatest building built since contemporaine, what is? wow.

[Alliance]

The South side of the building along Columbus is awesome, the flying carpet has a colonade over a plaza like area. I just realized I spent so much time gawking at it to take a picture, though i did get the top part in the last shot.

[the urban politician]

Thanks for the pics, Alliance.

Does anybody know how much this addition will actually add to the size of the Art Institute, at least in total area? Just curious..

[the urban politician]

Here is an interesting (or at least i found it interesting) article that was in the LA Times. It's not exactly on-topic but I think the regular viewers here would find this to be an interesting read. Hope you don't mind Steely. Actually, it might be a good idea to start a new thread like ":cool: CHICAGO | General Discussion" or something where we can talk about current events and whatever else that isn't development related.

A role model for L.A.? Chicago
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez6-2008jul06,0,20610.column

^ What the author is responding to is something that I think a lot of people visiting from cities like LA would respond to (positively or negatively, depending on how they see the value of cities). That is, he appears astounded by the enormous civic sense that exists in Chicago, and the uncanny ability of Chicago's highly centralized leadership to mobilize tremendous resources towards the betterment of the city. And to a certain degree, Chicago's inherently corrupt political environment sometimes churns out wonderful results, which I'm sure is very peculiar and difficult for anyone, including this author, to comprehend.

[the urban politician]

Ald. Balcer updates community on various projects (http://www.nearwestgazette.com/Archive/2008/0708/ud0708.htm)

In an interview with the Gazette, 11th Ward Alderman James Balcer updated the community on several Bridgeport projects.

Concerning the Ramova Theater at 3518 S. Halsted St., Balcer said the City is reviewing a proposal from a developer to transform the theater into a banquet hall and restaurant. The City also is entertaining other offers for the theater’s redevelopment.

“Demolition of the theater is prohibited—it will be remodeled and rebuilt,” Balcer asserted. “We have to sell it to the people who have the financial means to see the project through.”

[Via Chicago]

Does anybody know how much this addition will actually add to the size of the Art Institute, at least in total area? Just curious..

The number I see floating around is 264,000 square feet. However, I think of that, 65,000 is actually gallery space (which will increase the AIC gallery space as a whole by 30%). Someone can correct me if I'm off.

[VivaLFuego]

On the site of the Sears Auto Center
13 story, 160 unit building facing Lawrence with three levels of retail
50 townhome units on the northern part of the site
4 story parking garage in between both developments
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9376/lawrencer1qy0.jpg
http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/5993/lawrencer2kg3.jpg

Wow, nice. This proposal could not -plausibly- (i.e. in the reality of Chicago) rock any more. 210 housing units and a great deal of retail right next to a rail station and along a commercial arterial. And the last I'd heard was that this plot would just get a bunch of townhouses on it. Who's the alderman here? Schulter or Smith?

[OhioGuy]

:previous: That development looks great!! The Ravenswood neighborhood is continuing to improve and I'm thrilled to see this going up in that area. Besides the fact it will be next to the Ravenswood Metra station, it's also just a few blocks northeast from the Damen brown line stop. Great transit options for anyone that lives there. And on the rendering it says "foods"... might there be a grocery store included? That would be really wonderful for that neighborhood!

[SolarWind]

The South side of the building along Columbus is awesome, the flying carpet has a colonade over a plaza like area. I just realized I spent so much time gawking at it to take a picture, though i did get the top part in the last shot.Here's a picture I took last Tuesday while visiting the Taste of Chicago.
http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/7193/dsc0070rz9.jpg

[ardecila]

On the site of the Sears Auto Center
13 story, 160 unit building facing Lawrence with three levels of retail
50 townhome units on the northern part of the site
4 story parking garage in between both developments

It's also about 1/3 of a mile from the Damen Brown Line stop, which provides residents with an alternate route downtown (and one with longer hours!)

Honestly, I'm not foreseeing a huge NIMBY outcry on this one. This proposal is about as sugar-coated as it gets. First, there's a large retail component, which is sure to draw some big-box type store, either a grocery, bookstore, electronics, etc. We all know how much city people love getting easier access to cheap suburban-style stores. Second, there are townhomes on the north end of the site that "preserve neighborhood character". Third, there's a four story garage that probably provides lots of parking beyond 160 spaces.

Of course, any density is an improvement over the huge parking lot that was the Sears Auto Center.

Viva - the alderman for this lovely proposal is Schulter. Is that good or bad?

[wholehog]

Does anyone know if there has ever been any interest by any developers in bringing back into existence the large apartment complex building that's located on the southeast corner of where N Pine Grove Ave & W Surf St intersect? It's an abandoned building that looks like it has great bones. I'm wondering what the history is behind that building? I haven't been by it in months, but last summer I was in that area a lot and there was a night guard that would keep watch over the building, presumably to prevent anyone from breaking in & causing further degradation to the building. I'd love to see it come back completely renovated as a condo building. Considering its location in East Lakeview, just a short walk from the Diversey/Clark/Broadway intersection, I would assume the potential condo units would be highly popular.
Those are the Britton Budd Apartments... CHA senior housing. The building is still vacant, awaiting renovation by CHA.

[VivaLFuego]

Viva - the alderman for this lovely proposal is Schulter. Is that good or bad?

Not as good as Mary-Ann Smith but Schulter is willing to play ball and gently challenge his constituents on density when it comes to "neighborhood gateways", which I think describes this project (he's also trying to get a big "gateway" project for Lincoln Square at the NE corner of Lincoln/Western where he's pushing for eminent domain of an otherwise healthy but low-rise retail stretch). The NIMBY pushback would have to be pretty powerful for Schulter to nix this, I think, but it's possible - he did downzone a good deal of the neighborhood along the Brown Line, so he's not a dyed-in-the-wool pedestrian and transit advocate like Smith.

Even if the parking ratio is high, this is nonetheless exactly the sort of development that should be occurring near any number of dozens of outlying train stations throughout the city and near suburbs.

[i_am_hydrogen]

INSIDE
July 2-8, 2008

Plans For Shuttered Theater Modified
By Patrick Butler
Special to Inside

Preservationists and worried local residents both claimed victory recently when M Development dropped plans for a 10-story, 100-room luxury hotel on the site of the old Esquire Theater, 58 W. Oak, at the behest of Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd). In its place will apparently be a three-story retail complex now being reviewed by Reilly’s staff and the city.

“Once we feel comfortable,” Reilly said, “M Development President Jeffrey Shapack, his zoning lawyer and his architect will be invited to discuss their scaled-down plans at a public meeting with a healthy dose of community input.”

http://www.insideonline.com/site/epage/64831_162.htm

[Abner]

(he's also trying to get a big "gateway" project for Lincoln Square at the NE corner of Lincoln/Western where he's pushing for eminent domain of an otherwise healthy but low-rise retail stretch)

Ugh, the absolute worst way to endear anyone to urban development is to abuse eminent domain to tear down a healthy and well-used retail stretch in anticipation of a project that doesn't exist yet. That situation is exactly the kind of rotten urban renewal we ought to be trying to get away from.

[OhioGuy]

Those are the Britton Budd Apartments... CHA senior housing. The building is still vacant, awaiting renovation by CHA.

Thanks for the update. I'm disappointed though. There's nothing exciting about that. Rather boring actually. I mean I know seniors need housing, but I'd prefer it not be in young happening neighborhoods. :(

[honte]

Thanks for the update. I'm disappointed though. There's nothing exciting about that. Rather boring actually. I mean I know seniors need housing, but I'd prefer it not be in young happening neighborhoods. :(

Huh? :hell: I agree - all seniors should be exiled to ghettos and boring places where they can rot away without disturbing anybody.

Ugh, the absolute worst way to endear anyone to urban development is to abuse eminent domain to tear down a healthy and well-used retail stretch in anticipation of a project that doesn't exist yet. That situation is exactly the kind of rotten urban renewal we ought to be trying to get away from.

Right, 100x worse than spot downzoning. I couldn't believe it when I first read about this issue.

[VivaLFuego]

Ugh, the absolute worst way to endear anyone to urban development is to abuse eminent domain to tear down a healthy and well-used retail stretch in anticipation of a project that doesn't exist yet. That situation is exactly the kind of rotten urban renewal we ought to be trying to get away from.

I actually 100% agree with you (and one wonders why he's pushing so hard for the eminent domain... what's in it for him or someone he's trying to hook up?). However I brought the example up just to show that Schulter is not reflexively opposed to density when it is in a certain type of location. Luckily, this Ravenswood TOD would replace a parking lot rather than a viable and fully-occupied retail stretch.

[OhioGuy]

Huh? :hell: I agree - all seniors should be exiled to ghettos and boring places where they can rot away without disturbing anybody.

That's not what I said. :yuck: