[Alliance]

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

Actually, I think we should shoot them all into space where they can fall into a microscopic black hole we place in orbit around earth, emitting radiation which we can harness and use to power our planet 4EVA!

Save the developments for us young folk.

[the urban politician]

Bed Bath & Beyond plans S. Loop store (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30123)
By: Eddie Baeb July 09, 2008
(Crain’s) — Despite the housing market slump and a dismal retail climate, housewares chain Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. plans to open a new store in the South Loop.

The Union, N.J.-based retailer has leased about 28,000 square feet on the second level of the Joffco Square development at 555 W. Roosevelt Road.

(Click link above for full article)


Joffco Square:
http://www.joffco.net/images/jsquarefull.jpg

Joffco Plaza, planned next door:
http://www.joffco.net/images/jplazafull.jpg

^ I wish the city was pushing retail developers to design their projects like this years ago. Imagine how nice Roosevelt/Canal and North Clybourn would have turned out if they were more like this

[honte]

The new Joffco building is one of the ugliest things I've ever seen. The old 1960s strip mall on that site was so much more attractive - I'm not kidding.

I can't see how this is any better than North / Clybourn. Roosevelt is one of the most car-choked arteries in the city, and it's hardly the kind of place I'd like to walk about. Clybourn is much more pleasant.

Everyone still drives to these stores on Roosevelt anyway. The only difference is that they are stacked upon you in an oppressive manner and built on the cheap.

On Canal, thanks to the new market, I am surprised by how much pedestrian activity there already is, however. That has some potential.

[the urban politician]

^ I'm not saying they're pretty, in fact they remind me a lot of the kind of oppressive big-box centers you see in Queens (which, indeed, I've actually grown to like over time).

The truth is, these kinds of structures are a part of the urban experience just as much as everything else. If this is what it takes to get a big box retailer into the city without occupying 10 acres of surface parking, then so be it. I'd much, much rather see this than huge, insulting swaths of pavement. And even if everybody drives to this, it's still much more accessible to a pedestrian or bus-rider than a giant mega-center set 200 ft back from the sidewalk by oceans of parking.

I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[DHamp]

^ Yeah, I work in the Loop and walk (or sometimes bike) to the Home Depot/Best Buy/Target/Big mall on Roosevelt and Canal all the time. It's a helluva lot more pedestrian friendly than walking across a few city blocks worth of surface parking lot while dodging clueless drivers. If these big box type stores are going to be anywhere near the loop, this is probably the best location and the best result we could have hoped for.

[Busy Bee]

It's not the form, deck over retail—multiple stacked tenants, that seems to be the problem with Joffco Square—it's the architecture. It's just bad. I won't get to far into this but I'd almost rather see a throwback neo-traditional design done well on this one than a cliche hodge-podge contemporary design done bad. Cheap tan and mauve precast panels? Yeah, that will age well. The Plaza seems to have much more promise as creativity appears to have been part of it's design.

[VivaLFuego]

From Clinton to Desplaines, Roosevelt has a pretty nice streetwall going, with wide pleasant sidewalks. Even if the majority of people are driving there (traffic is getting laughably bad), it's still a vastly more pleasant experience to mosey about checking out the shops than the North/Clybourn cluster$%@. I will note that while driving is dominant, the #12 Roosevelt bus is also seeing dramatic ridership growth (think 20% year-over-year) in the area as well, and the Roosevelt retail scene probably constitutes at least some component of that increase.

That said, while the Joffco Plaza looks both interesting and provides an uptick in intensity, I do enjoy the current status of Roosevelt as the epicenter of bargain-bin and wholesale clothing in the city. It's a fascinating example of agglomeration that has clearly persisted long after the original Maxwell Market was killed. With each new development, the area will gradually become filled with more of the same stores as North/Clybourn and the Elston corridor, with the older clothiers/tailors/etc. gradually pushed out as their old 1-story retail spaces get replaced with higher-priced minimalls with on-site parking.

Not that this is inherently a bad thing, of course, given the inevitability of change and the possibilities that progress affords. However, I do encourage people to check it out before it's gone.

But yeah, Joffco Square is hilariously monstrous and ugly, but nonetheless an improvement from an urban design standpoint (this is where people like tup and I will differ with the more architecturally-minded forumers).

[Mr Downtown]

^ I wish the city was pushing retail developers to design their projects like this years ago. Imagine how nice Roosevelt/Canal and North Clybourn would have turned out if they were more like this

How exactly would the city "push" retail developers to do something with such a radically different pro forma? And surely you don't think Dominick's and Walgreen's would have agreed to be in a center without surface parking in 1994?

[VivaLFuego]

How exactly would the city "push" retail developers to do something with such a radically different pro forma? And surely you don't think Dominick's and Walgreen's would have agreed to be in a center without surface parking in 1994?

Well, the Dominick's could have fronted Roosevelt with the large surface parking field behind, rather than have the Dominick's set a quarter mile (only the slightest exaggeration) back from Roosevelt and thus completely non-applicable to anyone contemplating arriving by anything other than auto. I've seen strip malls in the exurbs that are less offensive. Just because something is accommodating of drivers doesn't inherently necessitate it being so hostile to pedestrians or transit riders.

[AdrianXSands]

i actually laughed out loud when i checked this thread just now. WOW. the south loop never ceases to amuse me. :haha:

[Mr Downtown]

Well, the Dominick's could have fronted Roosevelt with the large surface parking field behind

First, what supermarket chain in 1994 would have agreed to have the parking where potential shoppers couldn't see how safe (no garages) and plentiful it was? Even Whole Foods wouldn't go into Southgate Market last year without being guaranteed a Roosevelt Road lot. Second, having the parking behind the building means the pitiful souls arriving by bus would have to traipse all the way around the building to get into the store and then schlep their bags all the way back to the bus stop. And most important, the whole concept of a retail center is to put the anchor in a location that will draw shoppers past the inline stores.

[Chicago3rd]

Well, the Dominick's could have fronted Roosevelt with the large surface parking field behind, rather than have the Dominick's set a quarter mile (only the slightest exaggeration) back from Roosevelt and thus completely non-applicable to anyone contemplating arriving by anything other than auto. I've seen strip malls in the exurbs that are less offensive. Just because something is accommodating of drivers doesn't inherently necessitate it being so hostile to pedestrians or transit riders.

Exactly. Or they could have placed parking under the store like the Targets are doing in some of the neighborhoods. Or in the case of Jewel in Boystown put parking up on top just like Dominicks is on Broadway.....and did on Fullerton. From Western East there should be NO more surface lots in the city. Note that the Target a few blocks east has a very small "surface lot" on the northside....most of it is under the store. They haven't gone out of business yet.

[VivaLFuego]

^ While MrD has a point about the different context in the mid-90s, there's no reason it had to be as awful it is. There could have been a compromise with the grocery store still partially built to Roosevelt, e.g. at the corner of Roosevelt/Canal but proceeding lengthwise south down Canal with visible surface parking to the west also fronting Roosevelt with a *gasp* curbcut. There are a number of different site plans with the same retail square footage, same number of parking stalls, but much less offensive disregard for anything other than the private automobile. Concur that an ideal would be like the Target, but I can see how in the mid-90s that was unthinkable especially considering that back then, public transit's constituency was "dying," per Hizzoner, so that attitude trickled through CDOT, DPD, etc, begetting us, well, a whole lot of crap at North/Clybourn for example.

[honte]

^ While MrD has a point about the different context in the mid-90s, there's no reason it had to be as awful it is. There could have been a compromise with the grocery store still partially built to Roosevelt, e.g. at the corner of Roosevelt/Canal but proceeding lengthwise south down Canal with visible surface parking to the west also fronting Roosevelt with a *gasp* curbcut.

That was exactly the arrangement of the old Joffco Square.

[the urban politician]

That was exactly the arrangement of the old Joffco Square.

^ Well then now there's an improvement. No surface parking at all.

;)

[honte]

^ Of course I agree with you. Win one, lose one.

[Mr Downtown]

Target has no surface parking at all. But it was built a lot later, and more importantly, it's not a supermarket. Supermarkets without surface parking are extremely rare, and were unknown in Chicago in 1993.

Putting the Dominick's where the Walgreen's is, and stretching it along Canal creates new problems unless the store is 80 feet wide and 800 feet long. Try actually sketching a site plan that hides the truck loading and makes the supermarket reasonably efficient (front end along one edge, backroom storage along the opposite edge) and pulls supermarket patrons past the inline stores. Soo Line Marketplace is actually not all that bad a site plan when you really study it, except that it needs a couple of freestanding pad site restaurants along Canal south of Walgreen's.

And besides, where else can you see exactly how the ancient Mayans would have built their drive-in banks?
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/5872/southcentralbankaerialrw2.jpg

[ardecila]

There are lots of options for site plans that would have satisfied Dominick's concerns at the time, as well as the concerns of the strip mall developer, while still respecting the pedestrian and minimizing his walk from Roosevelt.

While this site plan was fairly typical at the time, I'm surprised you're justifying it, when any half-decent architect with a respect for how the city works could have balanced proper urban design with Dominick's concerns.

[AJphx]

Beer JV close to picking Chicago or Dallas
By: Thomas A. Corfman July 09, 2008

(Crain’s) — Barely one week old, MillerCoors LLC is close to picking either downtown Chicago or the Dallas area as its headquarters, with a decision expected within weeks.

MillerCoors, a joint venture of Molson Coors Brewing Co. and SABMiller PLC, has been looking for 100,000 to 150,000 square feet and could employ as many as 400 people at the headquarters, sources familiar with the search say.

MillerCoors, which began operations July 1, expects to be in its new headquarters in less than a year, a factor that has put the search on a tight timetable. Should MillerCoors pick Chicago, the joint venture has already focused on three buildings, sources say:

• 350 N. Orleans St., which along with its sister building, the Merchandise Mart, has emerged as a haven for advertising firms. 350 N. Orleans is also home to the Chicago Sun-Times. A representative of Merchandise Mart Properties Inc., which owns both riverfront structures, declined to comment. Mart Properties is a subsidiary of New York-based Vornado Realty Trust.

• The landmark former Carson Pirie Scott & Co. building, 33 S. State St. Renamed the Sullivan Center after the architect Louis Sullivan, the 15-story structure is owned by Joseph Freed & Associates LLC, which is also the developer of the retail and residential portions of the Block 37 project. Representatives of Freed and HSA Commercial Real Estate, which handles leasing for the building, decline to comment.

• 250 S. Wacker Drive, a nearly 250,000-square-foot office building that has recently undergone a complete renovation, including a new exterior. A representative of CB Richard Ellis Inc., which manages the building, declined to comment. Boston investment firm AEW Capital Management L.P. owns the building.

Which buildings MillerCoors is considering in the Dallas area could not be determined.

In an e-mail message, a spokesman for the joint venture declines to comment on the specifics of the search, except to say, “Our executive leadership is actively engaged in determining a location for the MillerCoors headquarters and a decision will be made soon."

In its search, MillerCoors is being advised by Dallas-based tenant representative Staubach Co., which also advised the parent company of United Airlines in its well-publicized 2006 hunt for new headquarters. The airline eventually moved from suburban Elk Grove Township to downtown Chicago, passing over San Francisco and Denver.

A spokesman for Staubach’s Chicago office declined to comment.

Both the former Carson’s building and 250 S. Wacker Drive are in tax increment financing districts. The status of subsidy discussions with the Daley administration or with public officials in Texas could not be determined.

Molson Coors and SABMiller announced in October that they would combined their U.S. operations, and early in the search for a new headquarters apparently ruled out Denver and Milwaukee, where the two companies have strong ties.

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28184

[a chicago bearcat]

And besides, where else can you see exactly how the ancient Mayans would have built their drive-in banks?
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/5872/southcentralbankaerialrw2.jpg

just what I needed
some humor to cure my postnasal drip induced insomnia

the answer to frank lloyd wright's shopping mall design off division i presume

[simcityaustin]

Beer JV close to picking Chicago or Dallas
By: Thomas A. Corfman July 09, 2008

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28184

Gotta love news like this. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[jstush04]

• The landmark former Carson Pirie Scott & Co. building, 33 S. State St. Renamed the Sullivan Center after the architect Louis Sullivan, the 15-story structure is owned by Joseph Freed & Associates LLC, which is also the developer of the retail and residential portions of the Block 37 project. Representatives of Freed and HSA Commercial Real Estate, which handles leasing for the building, decline to comment.

how awesome would this be?

I would like for both the company to be based in Chicago

[the urban politician]

There are lots of options for site plans that would have satisfied Dominick's concerns at the time, as well as the concerns of the strip mall developer, while still respecting the pedestrian and minimizing his walk from Roosevelt.

While this site plan was fairly typical at the time, I'm surprised you're justifying it, when any half-decent architect with a respect for how the city works could have balanced proper urban design with Dominick's concerns.

Parking can easily be provided for our auto-deranged society of nitwits while still making big box stores pedestrian friendly. From June's Near West Gazette, here is a schematic of a CVS planned on the SW corner of Roosevelt & Racine. We are viewing this store from the NW, it is flush with Roosevelt & Racine (the side away from the picture is Racine, where the developer has promised the city to have large window displays so that there won't be a blank wall along the sidewalk). Parking is along the west (seen here) and south sides of the building. Great compromise:

http://www.nearwestgazette.com/Archive/2008/0608/News0621.jpg

[the urban politician]

Townhouses replace East Village garage (http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=5364&TM=33327.21)

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER
Editor

http://www.chicagojournal.com/SiteImages/Article/5364a.jpg

The East Village neighborhood will soon be getting 24 new neighbors at the intersection N. Marshfield and W. Pearson with the construction of the MaP Collection townhouses.

The development by World Development and North Clybourn Group is expected to break ground later this year. The townhouses replace a defunct parking garage that has recently been demolished.

[the urban politician]

Judge tosses out lawsuit against developer (http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=49&SubSectionID=142&ArticleID=5328&TM=33500.52)
West Ridge residents will appeal ruling on Devon-Rockwell development

By LORRAINE SWANSON
Editor

A Cook County Circuit Court judge dismissed West Ridge residents' case against developer Mohammed Siddiqui who plans to build a parking garage and condominium development on the corner of Rockwell Street and Devon Avenue.

[Mr Downtown]

There are lots of options for site plans that would have satisfied Dominick's concerns at the time, as well as the concerns of the strip mall developer, while still respecting the pedestrian and minimizing his walk from Roosevelt.

That's why I'm inviting any of you to do a quick sketch and post it. I don't think there are a lot of good alternatives for this site that keep surface parking. From Canal to Clinton is only 330 feet, and an efficiently proportioned 70,000 sf supermarket is going to be at least 200 feet along its short side. And I don't see how it's preferable to make the bank, Walgreen's, and inline stores a long walk from Roosevelt. If they can't be seen from Roosevelt, if the supermarket doesn't pull people past them, they simply won't lease space there or will soon fail. The supermarket is a destination that shoppers will get to, even if it's a block off the main street.

[VivaLFuego]

That's why I'm inviting any of you to do a quick sketch and post it. I don't think there are a lot of good alternatives for this site that keep surface parking. From Canal to Clinton is only 330 feet, and an efficiently proportioned 70,000 sf supermarket is going to be at least 200 feet along its short side. And I don't see how it's preferable to make the bank, Walgreen's, and inline stores a long walk from Roosevelt. If they can't be seen from Roosevelt, if the supermarket doesn't pull people past them, they simply won't lease space there or will soon fail. The supermarket is a destination that shoppers will get to, even if it's a block off the main street.

Considering that Banco del Kukulcan doesn't assume people will ever even step out of the car, there's no reason that couldn't have been shoved to the back.

Viva Microsoft Paint:
http://fifth-city.com/RoosCanal.JPG
Square footage of each store is maintained. Several options for loading dock placement. All stores comfortably accessibly by pedestrians from Roosevelt. Prominent signage can be displayed at SW corner Roosevelt/Canal. Parking clearly visible. Dominick's is shallow but still quite feasible operationally. Curb cuts for parking from both Clinton and Canal.

[Chicago3rd]

We have a two story Dominicks at Fullerton. So we have a lot more options now. And I don't think we have much of an excuse back in the 1990's when cities on both coasts were already tackling the car worshipping decay had brought to their cities....some since the 1970's.

Forgot about Home Depot and Best Buy in Lincoln Park too...parking needs to be below or above the stores. not at street level in the denser parts of the city.

[Mr Downtown]

Good start. But how would the inlines work with only half the frontage? Are you dooming half of them to face Clinton? Where are the rear exits, loading, and storage for the inlines? Doesn't seem like the inlines and Walgreen's will meet code for parking. Where are you putting the Walgreen's drive-thru? And why would the bank pay for Roosevelt Road exposure if you've sent them all the way south to Teotihuacán?

Taming the modern supermarket is something New Urbanists and I have pondered for 20 years now. One seeming solution is the one often used in the 1950s, having the store and its parking side by side on the arterial, using a big blade sign to attract motorist attention. It's not hard to find stores like this in Chicago, where the arterial street frontage is only 125 feet deep (the former Bridgeport Jewel, Evanston's Chicago Avenue Jewel). But as supermarkets have gotten bigger, this apparently becomes inadequate for serious supermarkets, and two dozen more examples all over the city have been abandoned, turned into freestanding CVSs, Office Depots, or Cermak Produce locations. It also is unclear how it's really a great advantage for the streetscape, which still has a big gap for a parking lot.

[Loopy]

Though not technically a "supermarket", Treasure Island deserves props for shoehorning itself into sidewalk-friendly locations.

The Old Town TI at North and Wells was built in the early 70's on the sidewalk line with rooftop parking.

[Mr Downtown]

Isn't the Old Town TI actually an old Packard garage? Treasure Island seemed to specialize in garages for a while, with the Broadway/Cornelia and (now-gone) Broadway/Berwyn locations both former garages. You're thinking of the TI at Maple/Clark, which I suspect was developed in conjunction with the apartment building it fronts.

There was a short period around 1980 when Treasure Island was expected to locate in Dearborn Station.

It's interesting to compare Treasure Island Market Square on Clybourn with Soo Line Marketplace. One revered by us planner-types and the other reviled, but the site plans are not dramatically different.

[ardecila]

Why not just switch the Dominick's with the big parking lot in front of it? That pulls the building closer to Roosevelt, making it a shorter walk for bus riders. Leave the Walgreens, the bank, and the inline stores where they are.

Entrances, instead of being on the north side, are shifted to the northeast and southeast corners. The northeast entrance serves people walking from Roosevelt or from the smaller lot for the inline stores, and the southeast serves people walking from Dominick's own parking lot. The eastern edge of the interior, between the two entrances, is "paid" space after the checkout lines, which allows for a glassy design along the eastern facade that invites drivers down Canal to the southern parking lot.

Loading will take place in a rectangular "cutout" on the building's southwest corner, and the space to the north of it serves as the stockroom.

[Mr Downtown]

Well, one problem would be because the supermarket shoppers would naturally wheel into the visible lot north of the store rather than search out the hidden lot south of it. Inline shoppers would find no available parking.

[trvlr70]

Did that quaint little alleyway, Couch Pl., ever get completed?

[the urban politician]

Well, one problem would be because the supermarket shoppers would naturally wheel into the visible lot north of the store rather than search out the hidden lot south of it. Inline shoppers would find no available parking.

^ That's easily corrected with some multiple visible signs that read "additional parking in rear"

I believe that if Chicago required all supermarkets in a given geographic area (east of Western, north of 63rd, for the sake of argument) to be designed in some sort of variation of this manner, it would level the playing field and supermarkets would probably comply.

Walgreens/CVS have already significantly changed the way they are building stores in the city. Have you seen them halt their expansion because of these new formats?

[aaron38]

Where are you putting the Walgreen's drive-thru?

Our nation is facing a massive obesity and gasoline crisis and we're worrying about where to put the drive-thru? How about they park the damn car and walk?

[the urban politician]

Hypothetical question for Mr. D:

Lets ask this question. If the city of Chicago said "No more new drive-thrus in such and such area" (which would, of course, encompass Chicago's densest, wealthiest, urban neighborhoods). Would Walgreens or CVS retaliate by not building new stores, or do you think that they would bite the bullet, still see the huge potential for growth, and continue to build neighborhood stores?

[aaron38]

That's a great question to ask. I think we're at the point in time where those sorts of zoning changes need to be seriously considered. And an outright ban would eliminate the competition argument.
And wouldn't banning drive-thrus reduce the incentive to drive, and thus traffic congestion? Isn't traffic congestion NIMBY compliant numero uno?

And if Walgreens and CVS want to cede market share, Duane Reade knows how to build drug stores without drive-thrus, I'm sure they wouldn't mind tapping the Chicago market.

[a chicago bearcat]

And if Walgreens and CVS want to cede market share, Duane Reade knows how to build drug stores without drive-thrus, I'm sure they wouldn't mind tapping the Chicago market.

Walgreens and CVS have ceded their drive thru requirements on many occasions in which the demand justified a walk up store, but those are also areas where they are not demanding parking, because their are enough people living within a 5 block radius to guarantee their only competition with each other will be supply, service, and pricing.

This is almost the same as the Western Avenue Corridor around the terminus of Clybourn. It is a pocket of suburban development for the less dense areas surrounding, which are dense enough to support mass transit, but not large supermarkets, without parking. The jewel at the roosevelt el stop and the Home Depot in this corridor are two examples of probably the best we can hope for.

Not saying we shouldn't keep debating this.

But, I bleieve bundling drive thru lanes, parking and entrances into one central area with a perimeter of inline shops and a grocery store taking up a large portion of the property's periphery seems like a good solution. As long as the stores front directly on the street, and outdoor seating/eating. Because fronting a street doesn't do crap without people seen using it.

[Mr Downtown]

If the city of Chicago said "No more new drive-thrus. . .would Walgreens or CVS retaliate by not building new stores

No, I think they'd play by whatever rules the city sets. But there probably would be a new drive-thru Walgreen's on the west side of Western every mile. I also think it would present a problem for retail leasing in neighborhoods (like Bronzeville or Tri-Taylor or Roosevelt Square) that are still struggling to become sought-after.

Walgreen's wanted to go at Roosevelt/Wabash, but demanded to tear down the Union Bus Depot (which ironically had a Walgreen's in it originally) because they had to have a drive-thru. So they went over to Soo Line Marketplace instead. And then, ten years later, came back and took a space in State Place (that includes a drive-thru).

On the New Urbanism listservs, questions come up every month about how to force the national drugstore chains to do pedestrian-friendly design. Apparently both CVS and Walgreen's will change their standard store designs if they want the location bad enough and are pushed skillfully enough. But I sometimes wonder what is really gained by forcing CVS to build to the sidewalk (as at Roosevelt/Racine) when they immediately back their display cases up to the windows.

[VivaLFuego]

But I sometimes wonder what is really gained by forcing CVS to build to the sidewalk (as at Roosevelt/Racine) when they immediately back their display cases up to the windows.

At minimum it improves the coherence, continuity, and "framing" effect of the commercial streetwall, which improves the aesthetic experience of being on the street shopping. Tough to quantify this effect, of course.

That said, it's pretty damn pointless when they just put the entrance in back anyway, like that criminal new Aldi's in Uptown.

[VivaLFuego]

dp

[Breezyfingers]

Someone a few pages back asked about Couch Place. They were testing a smoke machine out in the alley last week:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/2660024764_a4c23d7aff_o.jpg

Some pictures of Roosevelt Collection from today also seem somewhat relevant:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2659196193_74c9baa06e_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/2660024800_0fd84af271_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3150/2660011582_ab53bd65e8_o.jpg

[the urban politician]

No, I think they'd play by whatever rules the city sets. But there probably would be a new drive-thru Walgreen's on the west side of Western every mile. I also think it would present a problem for retail leasing in neighborhoods (like Bronzeville or Tri-Taylor or Roosevelt Square) that are still struggling to become sought-after.

Walgreen's wanted to go at Roosevelt/Wabash, but demanded to tear down the Union Bus Depot (which ironically had a Walgreen's in it originally) because they had to have a drive-thru. So they went over to Soo Line Marketplace instead. And then, ten years later, came back and took a space in State Place (that includes a drive-thru).

^ State Place's Walgreens has a drive thru? Wow, I never knew that (and I have seen it in person).

I agree that such a strategy wouldn't work in up and coming neighborhoods. But that's why my hypothetical situation applied more to Chicago's more established ones.

I think Chicago has a lot of leverage against chain stores in these areas and should exercise it. Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Bucktown, etc etc are going to be just fine whether CVS or Walgreens come to town or not.

[the urban politician]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2659196193_74c9baa06e_o.jpg

^ Thanks for the pics. Are those one story portions (back right part of the pic above) going to stay as such, or is there a residential portion planned above them?

[ardecila]

That section will get taller, but it won't be residential units. The renderings show 2 or 3 windowless floors above the one that's already poured. So I think the Kerasotes Theaters will be on floors 2 and 3, on either side of the cul-de-sac. Their space on the west side has already been framed out with steel, but not yet on the east side.

Roosevelt Collection is turning out a lot better than I thought it would be, especially since Centrum confirms that there will be retail down along Clark Street on the west side of the development. I don't think this retail will be very successful initially, at least until there's development on the other side of Clark, and Clark actually leads to something south of Roosevelt.

But when that happens, 5-10 years from now, there could actually be pedestrians walking down Clark on what used to be an unpaved gravel country road!

[Mr Downtown]

^Wells, not Clark.

[spyguy]

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?articleId=30250

Big plans for Pullman
By: Thomas A. Corfman July 14, 2008

Billionaire banker Michael Kelly is picking up where utopian visionary George Pullman left off.

...The 170-acre Ryerson site at 720 E. 111th St. abuts Park National's 10-story office building along the Bishop Ford Freeway and the landmark Pullman District, where many of the buildings from Mr. Pullman's quixotic experiment still stand.

Crain's has learned that Mr. Kelly envisions a development with up to 1,000 single-family homes in keeping with the adjacent Pullman District's architecture, as well as big-box stores. Development on such a scale hasn't been seen on the South Side since the postwar era, and the project could transform a largely dormant industrial area into a new neighborhood.

..."We are going to build a suburban community within the city," says Mr. Beale, whose ward includes the Ryerson site. "We're looking at curved (streets), a gated community, the attached three-car garage."

----
Ugh @ Ald. Beale's suburban "vision."

[honte]

You got it, "curved (streets), a gated community, the attached three-car garage" is exactly "in keeping" with Pullman. Can't this crap be made illegal? I'll take the dormant industrial park, thank you.

[firstcranialnerve]

^ F$%# NO, a gated community in the city.... I wonder how many machine gun turrets, mine fields and guard towers are in the plan. Any chance of a moat?

[neverdone]

What exactly is the land being considered here? The nearby stretch of the bishop ford expressway is beautiful.

[Alliance]

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?articleId=30250

Big plans for Pullman
By: Thomas A. Corfman July 14, 2008

Billionaire banker Michael Kelly is picking up where utopian visionary George Pullman left off.

...The 170-acre Ryerson site at 720 E. 111th St. abuts Park National's 10-story office building along the Bishop Ford Freeway and the landmark Pullman District, where many of the buildings from Mr. Pullman's quixotic experiment still stand.

Crain's has learned that Mr. Kelly envisions a development with up to 1,000 single-family homes in keeping with the adjacent Pullman District's architecture, as well as big-box stores. Development on such a scale hasn't been seen on the South Side since the postwar era, and the project could transform a largely dormant industrial area into a new neighborhood.

..."We are going to build a suburban community within the city," says Mr. Beale, whose ward includes the Ryerson site. "We're looking at curved (streets), a gated community, the attached three-car garage."

----


I call for a fatwa.

[VivaLFuego]

Crain's has learned that Mr. Kelly envisions a development with up to 1,000 single-family homes in keeping with the adjacent Pullman District's architecture, as well as big-box stores. Development on such a scale hasn't been seen on the South Side since the postwar era, and the project could transform a largely dormant industrial area into a new neighborhood.

..."We are going to build a suburban community within the city," says Mr. Beale, whose ward includes the Ryerson site. "We're looking at curved (streets), a gated community, the attached three-car garage."


Seriously?

The depressing part is the pride dripping from Beale. It's a shame these investment-deprived areas have to repeat the mistakes of 1955 en route to present day urban planning concepts.

Why, we can build new interchanges at 103rd and 111th. Big Box stores that never have a shortage of easy to find parking... right off the street! Separated land uses, so the clutter of retail doesn't spill over into our quiet family-friendly neighborhoods. No street parking after midnight, of course! Why, we'll even develop a hierarchical road network for maximum automobile efficiency. I swear, we can build a utopia, and make the crowded and dirty city hospitable to the modern family.

[schwerve]

if they want to build a suburban area in the city they should just look a couple miles west to beverly for a model. it keeps the single family homes with a backyard and garage without gating off a whole area and trying to engineer quality of life.

[Marcu]

^ Beverly has done pretty much all it can to keep the outsiders out, so I wouldn't really call it a good model to follow. If the residents there had the choice, they'd gate themselves off from Western Ave altogether.

I can't really blame the Pullman leadership for viewing the stale vision of suburbian utopia in such a positive light. While it's true that many of us have at this point realized that the burbs just flat out sucks in every way, for many of Pullman's residents, the suburbs still represent an escape from all their high crime impoverished urban area. In fact, many people that reside in high crime urban areas in Chicago still view ths suburbs in an almost utopia-like light. Those that escape usually find their way to suburban col-da-sac communities, not the higher rent areas of Chicago like Lincoln Park. Hence, the excited reaction from the Alderman. It's baffling to those that have witnesses the suburbs for all that they are not, but not to those that have not.

Is this proposal dissapointing? Yes. But it certainly doesn't surprise me. As the South Side slowly redevelops, we will surely see more of these kinds of suburban-esque proposal. After all, it's what the residents believe they want and what they think will solve the problems plauging their communities.

[schwerve]

^ Beverly has done pretty much all it can to keep the outsiders out, so I wouldn't really call it a good model to follow. If the residents there had the choice, they'd gate themselves off from Western Ave altogether.

there are certain elements in the neighborhood who certainly would agree with that statement (see culdesacs in northern beverly) but on a whole its not true, in fact beverly has a history of inclusion which it prides itself on. i'm biased as I grew up there, but the major reason it has maintained itself as a community for so long was its willingness to stand up to things such as the racism of white flight and welcome new members to the neighborhood.

[the urban politician]

Hey everyone, I'm not sure if you all read the article carefully.

The quote of the "suburban community" came from the Alderman, who also appears to have a different vision for the neighborhood than the developer. The developer talked about keeping in "character" with Pullman. So we have yet to see if a suburbanesque community with winding cul-de-sacs really gets built.

Of course, I don't see why anyone here cares. We're talking about 103rd street on the south side. It might as well be in friggin Indiana...

[schwerve]

Of course, I don't see why anyone here cares. We're talking about 103rd street on the south side. It might as well be in friggin Indiana...

i'd be willing to make an argument about how that attitude, is more detrimental to the development of chicago than a gated community, but as I've mentioned, I grew up on 100th street.

[the urban politician]

^ Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Chicago shouldn't care about that part of town. What I mean to say is that it would behoove the city to relax its urban design guidelines so far from the urban core, especially if it wants to attract development. This especially considering that the people most likely to live in this area are by far going to have a more suburban mindset than, say, the people buying condos in the West Loop. I view these places (far NW, SW, SE sides of the city) being like Chicago's Staten Islands--having much more in common with suburbia than the city's culture.

Now if such a project were planned for 45th street, for example, I would definitely have a different opinion (as would city planners, I'm assuming). But that is not the case here..

[schwerve]

^ Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Chicago shouldn't care about that part of town. What I mean to say is that it would behoove the city to relax its urban design guidelines so far from the urban core, especially if it wants to attract development. This especially considering that the people most likely to live in this area are by far going to have a more suburban mindset than, say, the people buying condos in the West Loop. I view these places (far NW, SW, SE sides of the city) being like Chicago's Staten Islands--having much more in common with suburbia than the city's culture.

Now if such a project were planned for 45th street, for example, I would definitely have a different opinion (as would city planners, I'm assuming). But that is not the case here..

fair enough, I can agree with that. a place on 103rd shouldn't be designed the same way as on 35th although one of the major problems with the south side is the lack of cohesion between the various neighborhoods. these areas shouldn't necessarily be "urban" but they still need to hold the connection to each other to maintain a coherent community.

[the urban politician]

one of the major problems with the south side is the lack of cohesion between the various neighborhoods.

^ I would argue that by far the major problem with the south side is the lack of anything at all. For crying out loud, there is just way too much undeveloped land down there yet with excellent infrastructure in place :(

[schwerve]

^ I would argue that by far the major problem with the south side is the lack of anything at all. For crying out loud, there is just way too much undeveloped land down there yet with excellent infrastructure in place :(

you'll get no argument from me on that aspect. there isn't much on the southside to travel to outside of beverly, hyde park, and some great harold's chicken. my point is that when you start promoting the idea that the southside isn't chicago you're perpetuating the myth that chicago is just downtown and the northside, when the majority of the city lives south of madison. it becomes a chicken and egg argument where because everyone laughs off the south side nobody invests in the south so there's nothing to do on the south side so people feel validated in ignoring the south side. the south side does have massive issues stemming directly from white flight and the misguided utopian planning of the 60's which left the area scared and bereft of culture and destinations. however the majority of growth in the city over the next couple of years is going to be directly linked to areas such as bronzeville and washington park which hopefully will begin reconnecting much of the area and begin recreating the community there so that there are things to do and see with destinations to bring it back into the "city". while chicago has gone through a great rebirth in recent years the south side still suffers from the failures of the last 40 years and those failures will always drag on the city until they're adequately addressed.

[BVictor1]

you'll get no argument from me on that aspect. there isn't much on the southside to travel to outside of beverly, hyde park, and some great harold's chicken. my point is that when you start promoting the idea that the southside isn't chicago you're perpetuating the myth that chicago is just downtown and the northside, when the majority of the city lives south of madison. it becomes a chicken and egg argument where because everyone laughs off the south side nobody invests in the south so there's nothing to do on the south side so people feel validated in ignoring the south side. the south side does have massive issues stemming directly from white flight and the misguided utopian planning of the 60's which left the area scared and bereft of culture and destinations. however the majority of growth in the city over the next couple of years is going to be directly linked to areas such as bronzeville and washington park which hopefully will begin reconnecting much of the area and begin recreating the community there so that there are things to do and see with destinations to bring it back into the "city". while chicago has gone through a great rebirth in recent years the south side still suffers from the failures of the last 40 years and those failures will always drag on the city until they're adequately addressed.

Exactly!

There are 4 vacant 2 flats on my block. Beautiful brick buildings from the 1910's. Believe you me, if I ever won the jackpot, I see property in my future.

I'd rather live south than north anyway because you get more value for a $buck$.



Grant Park Advisory Council and Grant Park Conservancy public meeting

Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 6:30 p.m.

Daley Bicentennial Plaza - 337 E. Randolph ( just east of Columbus Drive in the park)



Updates on:



New Chicago Gateway Harbor.

Buckingham Fountain restoration - $25 million rejuvenation and some design changes.

Plan for southwest corner of Grant Park at Roosevelt and Michigan.

Chicago Athletic Association Building - 12 S. Michigan on Grant Park.

Congress Parkway streetscaping - $20 million renovation of Congress Parkway from Wells to Grant Park.

Discussion of Steering Committee for Daley Bicentennial Plaza reconstruction.

[the urban politician]

you'll get no argument from me on that aspect. there isn't much on the southside to travel to outside of beverly, hyde park, and some great harold's chicken. my point is that when you start promoting the idea that the southside isn't chicago you're perpetuating the myth that chicago is just downtown and the northside, when the majority of the city lives south of madison. it becomes a chicken and egg argument where because everyone laughs off the south side nobody invests in the south so there's nothing to do on the south side so people feel validated in ignoring the south side. the south side does have massive issues stemming directly from white flight and the misguided utopian planning of the 60's which left the area scared and bereft of culture and destinations. however the majority of growth in the city over the next couple of years is going to be directly linked to areas such as bronzeville and washington park which hopefully will begin reconnecting much of the area and begin recreating the community there so that there are things to do and see with destinations to bring it back into the "city". while chicago has gone through a great rebirth in recent years the south side still suffers from the failures of the last 40 years and those failures will always drag on the city until they're adequately addressed.

^ Well then, VOILA!

City deal aims to create Bronzeville retail area (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-re-bronzeville-retail-0713jul13,0,3954228.story)
By Jeanette Almada | Special to the Chicago Tribune
July 13, 2008
Aiming to draw retail development to Bronzeville, in the booming Grand Boulevard neighborhood, the city is acquiring several vacant parcels there: 7,190 square feet at 446-450 E. 47th St. between Martin Luther King Drive and Vincennes Avenue and 49,382 square feet at 40th and State Streets.

The Community Development Commission last month approved the deal.

[Nowhereman1280]

Grant Park Advisory Council and Grant Park Conservancy public meeting

Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 6:30 p.m.

Daley Bicentennial Plaza - 337 E. Randolph ( just east of Columbus Drive in the park)



Updates on:



New Chicago Gateway Harbor.

Buckingham Fountain restoration - $25 million rejuvenation and some design changes.

Plan for southwest corner of Grant Park at Roosevelt and Michigan.

Chicago Athletic Association Building - 12 S. Michigan on Grant Park.

Congress Parkway streetscaping - $20 million renovation of Congress Parkway from Wells to Grant Park.

Discussion of Steering Committee for Daley Bicentennial Plaza reconstruction.

Is the gateway harbor thing that land bridge plan out of Smith and Gill?

Also, what could be the plans for the Southwest corner of the park? Is that something related to the Metra Station bridge reconstruction or maybe even the capping of the tracks?

This should be and interesting meeting...

[museumparktom]

Is the gateway harbor thing that land bridge plan out of Smith and Gill?

Also, what could be the plans for the Southwest corner of the park? Is that something related to the Metra Station bridge reconstruction or maybe even the capping of the tracks?

This should be and interesting meeting...


In 2007 The Chicago Park District approved plans to construct 2 new harbors that could be used for the 2016 Olypmics. One at 31st street directly East of the Olympic Village Site and the other is the Chicago Gateway Harbor south of Navy Pier

The 31st Street lakefront has been marked as the site of sailing competition for the Chicago Olympics. The Olympic rowing venue would be at Monroe Harbor, and Gateway could help accommodate boat owners displaced from Monroe, officials say.

[VivaLFuego]

Congress Parkway streetscaping - $20 million renovation of Congress Parkway from Wells to Grant Park.


Congress streetscaping... Now that could be interesting. That is one barren uninviting stretch of quasi-expressway right now. $20 million is a pretty hefty project, so I have high hopes for improving the pedestrian experience here.

[the urban politician]

^ I hope they're planning something akin to what they're doing on Houston St (NYC). If you recall, Houston is very much a wide-lane auto gutter like Congress. Currently there is a streetscaping project that will add median planters and make the street more ped-friendly (when I first saw those plans, I had a hunch that this was all inspired by what Daley has been doing in Chicago)

[cbotnyse]

Congress streetscaping... Now that could be interesting. That is one barren uninviting stretch of quasi-expressway right now. $20 million is a pretty hefty project, so I have high hopes for improving the pedestrian experience here.agreed. Congress (and Columbus) desperately need some serious improvement.

[migueltorres]

Congress streetscaping... Now that could be interesting. That is one barren uninviting stretch of quasi-expressway right now. $20 million is a pretty hefty project, so I have high hopes for improving the pedestrian experience here.

My partner went to a meeting where they discussed this project and he came back really amazed with the proposal. He saw renderings. I told him he should've taken pictures. I can ask him to provide more details and I'll pass them along.

[VivaLFuego]

^ Would be very interested if anyone can offer more details on the project. I won't be able to make it to the GPAC meeting Tuesday evening.

[Mr Downtown]

My mistake, TUP. The Walgreen's at State Place doe not have a drive-thru. I thought one was in the original plans.

Congress Parkway plans are a little more elaborate than a standard CDOT streetscaping plan, but not a complete reconception of the street. IDOT has been very watchful about not losing traffic capacity. It will lose one through lane in each direction between State and Clark, but most of that will be reallocated to turning lanes. Lanes will be carefully realigned along the entire length, and shifted a bit at the west end to make sidewalks a little wider. Signals are being resynchronized. Ped signals will all be countdown timers and will all allow a rather generous ped crossing time of 3.5 feet per second (city standard is 4.0) and midpoint refuges where possible. The ped crossing on the west side of LaSalle will be closed, but Plymouth will remain completely open (a victory for me and other cyclists). Intersections will have brick-look crosswalks. Planters will be redone and lowered in places for visibility. Rough-hewn granite blocks will be used for seating at various places. Sidewalks will be the exposed chip aggregate seen on Michigan south of the river. Light standards will be the olde-timey Gateway 2000s as seen on the rebuilt Wacker Drive, unless I can convince them that these are anachronistic on the mid-century Congress and that they should use the more modern standards used on Michigan to supplement the Boulevard Electroliers. I'm also trying to convince CDOT to do a sort of banner in the curving corner at the top of the light standards, to give a processional feeling to Congress and mark its importance as a gateway. The subway entrance will match the one at Dearborn/Jackson.

Perhaps the most exciting feature is CDOT's plan to use computer-controlled LED lighting at various places to tie the street together and link it visually to Buckingham Fountain at the foot. They're still working out the details (like how to avoid the Microsoft blue screen of death), but this will probably wash the walls under the Stock Exchange, be in small light columns in the median planters, and light trellises in the sidewalk planters. The arcades east of State will have a variation of the trellises in some openings. This is actually a pretty innovative concept, because Congress has such varied conditions along its length that it's hard to think of any streetscape element that can be the same from end to end. There will be tree plantings along the sidewalks, and they're trying to make them all the same shape (but not same species) for formality, but I think there are too many interruptions for it to ever read as an allée.

Finally, CDOT is looking for ideas on how to treat the two remnant parcels, NWC of Clark and SEC of Plymouth. The one south of the Manhattan Bldg (NEC Dearborn) is not owned by the city. I suggested that perhaps the best solution for the one at Plymouth is to sell it to Exelon ComEd for $1 (to expand their substation next door), provided ComEd builds a really nice wall to hold the street edge, maybe something of undulating brick that could actually incorporate some Lombardy poplars. No one else thought much of the ComEd idea, so suggestions are welcome.

[VivaLFuego]

SEC of Plymouth is the sales center for Library Tower, no?

Thanks for the description, by the way. Sounds like a pretty ambitious and exciting project. Do you know the planned timeline for design/construction? (I'll go ahead and agree with you on the light standards, but it's a pretty minor point).

[honte]

^ Sounds good-to-ok, especially great news about the colored lighting to give it some personality. I think the concept of bringing Buckingham Fountain out into the city is brilliant. I hadn't thought of that at all, but the excitement could be tangible and then when you come over the viaduct, bam!

Great work on telling CDOT to get with the picture on the era of their lighting. While I personally would simply push for something cutting-edge and exciting, since Congress has no overriding character at the moment, at least getting them to realize that stock faux-Victorian fixtures don't always work is a great step forward.

My favorite humorous illustration of this is on the Wabash bridge. You have a 1930s-era bridge with modern Cobrahead lights, and then when you get to the Trump and IBM buildings - classic modernism - you have fake Victorian lighting. ????

[ardecila]

Light standards will be the olde-timey Gateway 2000s as seen on the rebuilt Wacker Drive, unless I can convince them that these are anachronistic on the mid-century Congress and that they should use the more modern standards used on Michigan to supplement the Boulevard Electroliers. I'm also trying to convince CDOT to do a sort of banner in the curving corner at the top of the light standards, to give a processional feeling to Congress and mark its importance as a gateway. The subway entrance will match the one at Dearborn/Jackson.

It's a shame that the city is doing the chip aggregate (is the aggregate material a brown stone?) and the LEDs, which scream modernism to me, yet is installing Wacker Drive light standards and Dearborn/Jackson subway stairs.

Are they replacing all four subway entrances? I guess that would be alright - at least they're the black ones and not the gold-colored State Street ones...

Hammond, Beeby, and Babka came up with an interesting scheme for Congress back when they designed the Harold Washington Library - it found uses for all the vacant lots. My favorite part was that small lots between Plymouth and Dearborn, on either side of Congress, were turned into stairs for a massive Classical pedestrian bridge that seems like something Burnham would have applauded. I can't tell you how many times I've wished for this bridge while waiting (on foot) for the ridiculously long red lights on Congress - which is why I'm glad to see that all signals will be adjusted to favor the pedestrian.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4867/p7190229mg5.jpg

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3084/p7190233bq6.jpg

[Mr Downtown]

SEC Congress/Plymouth is currently the Library Tower sales center.

Construction would be 2009, finishing in 2010. They hope to coördinate with IDOT's reconstruction of the Congress bridges.

At the first meeting, I asked whether the design would incorporate Bennett's design vocabulary of obelisks with light globes, etc., as seen on Wacker. Janet Attarian of CDOT responded that no, since Congress was a midcentury improvement that didn't seem appropriate. Since that immediately made sense to me, now I'm trying to convince her that the same argument should apply to the light standards. But apparently Gateway 2000's are about the only thing allowed downtown anymore. And I've about given up ranting about Victorian entrances to Moderne subway stations. As one of my friends points out, neo-Victorian is the style of our times.

As for ped bridges, have you ever seen anyone willingly choose to climb up 40 steps and back down rather than simply waiting to cross at level? And with ADA, the ramps would have to start at Harrison and Van Buren.

[ardecila]

Each of the Postmodern stair structures is big enough to accommodate an elevator and two mirrored sets of stairs.

If you really want a Mid-Century Modern look, Mr. D, why not suggest some of the 4-headed standards they once used on State, back in the day? They definitely give the processional feel you're looking for.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9470/2270198862f300cfbe3bqc4.jpg

[Busy Bee]

That's one of the better pictures I've seen of those green monsters besides this one:

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q286/urbsinhorto/P12901.jpg

Thanks for posting that. Ironic how these could almost pass for being a current cutting edge streetlight design. Replace fluorescents/mercury halide?? with LED, cast in stainless steel, etc....

[BWChicago]

5 months after closing Sunflower Market, Supervalu is putting Urban Fresh By Jewel, a slightly different concept, in the same space on Clybourn: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/urban-fresh-jewel-open-chicagos/story.aspx?guid={186E4204-623B-4363-8083-1A5D943B37CB}&dist=hppr

[spyguy]

http://searchchicago.suntimes.com/homes/1056742,cover113.article

Gold Coast is still as good as gold
July 15, 2008
BY CELESTE BUSK

...Commercial and retail growth also is sprouting in the Gold Coast. Developer Jeffrey Shapack, president of M Development, has plans under way to demolish the old Esquire Theater at 58 E. Oak. The Esquire was built in 1938.

Shapack said plans for the old theater site call for "multiple two- to three-story buildings" that will house retail space on a stretch of Oak Street that already includes many high-end boutiques and shops. Shapack said the new buildings will have an architectural style "consistent with other buildings on the street today." Work is scheduled to begin in 2009.

[honte]

Cheers! It's Miller (and Coors) time, Chicago
BEER | MillerCoors to pick downtown site for combined headquarters
http://www.suntimes.com/business/1058020,CST-FIN-BEER16.article

July 16, 2008

BY DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com

Don't say Chicago's economy is "ale-ing." A beer company headquarters is on tap.

MillerCoors LLC has picked Chicago as the home of its new combined operation. The joint venture handles U.S. business for SABMiller PLC and Molson Coors Brewing Co. and was formed June 30.

The company plans a main office of 300 to 400 employees. It has yet to pick its exact Chicago location, but MillerCoors has been evaluating at least three downtown buildings.

...


_________

See also: http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30210

"The decision to select Chicago as the location for our corporate headquarters was made to achieve our goal of becoming the best beer company in America by having access to an attractive base of talent, transportation and business resources," MillerCoors President Tom Long says in statements from the state and World Business Chicago, the city’s economic development arm.

...

MillerCoors has been looking for 100,000 to 150,000 square feet, sources familiar with the search say.

[DCCliff]

:previous:

Great news!!

Was anyone able to attend the Grant Park meeting last night?

[VivaLFuego]

Shapack said plans for the old theater site call for "multiple two- to three-story buildings" that will house retail space on a stretch of Oak Street that already includes many high-end boutiques and shops. Shapack said the new buildings will have an architectural style "consistent with other buildings on the street today." Work is scheduled to begin in 2009.

Crap.

Thanks, Alderman Panderhack.

The underlying zoning allows an FAR of 5.0. If you don't want to allow a highrise, fine, but not even allowing a 5-story building? What a piece of crap. If it weren't for the "Lakefront Protection Ordinance" then the developer could have at least built a 5-7 story building by right, but unfortunately that additional layer of government power gives the fascist Gold Coast NIMBYs one more lever to pull in the application of government force for their own desires, and one more form of power to be wielded by a lawyer without the training or faculty to make or justify development-related decisions.

And this is not even getting into the potential architectural merits of the property, and the silliness of demolishing it when the replacement isn't even an improvement or upgrade in the intensity and quality of land use.

[Steely Dan]

Was anyone able to attend the Grant Park meeting last night?

yes, i attended, but it was unusually uneventful and uninformative. basically, bob oneil talked about a bunch of steering committees that are forming to address the southwest corner of the park and for the the total remake of daley bicentennial with the move of the children's museum. he also talked about a new harbor between the locks and navy pier and the resurfacing of the plaza around buckingham fountain with a brick paver type of surface to make it ADA compliant. the congress parkway redo was also mentioned. there was almost nothing in the way of new visual information save for one small aerial image of the new harbor.

if you missed last night's meeting, you didn't miss much.

[jstush04]

^ thanks, steely

[woodrow]

and the resurfacing of the plaza around buckingham fountain with a brick paver type of surface to make it ADA compliant.

g'damn! I really like the decomposed granite. The crunch of the stone underfoot. Is is really difficult for wheelchairs, etc?? Seriously. I don't know. I want access for everyone, but the current gravel is so small.

[Chicago Shawn]

Crap.

Thanks, Alderman Panderhack.

The underlying zoning allows an FAR of 5.0. If you don't want to allow a highrise, fine, but not even allowing a 5-story building? What a piece of crap. If it weren't for the "Lakefront Protection Ordinance" then the developer could have at least built a 5-7 story building by right, but unfortunately that additional layer of government power gives the fascist Gold Coast NIMBYs one more lever to pull in the application of government force for their own desires, and one more form of power to be wielded by a lawyer without the training or faculty to make or justify development-related decisions.

And this is not even getting into the potential architectural merits of the property, and the silliness of demolishing it when the replacement isn't even an improvement or upgrade in the intensity and quality of land use.

Write a letter to the alderman's office. It wouldn't hurt to even have one published in the Skyline Newspaper outlining your statement above. I too am pissed about this, demolishing real history for Disneyland-style fake history and a less intensive use on prime real estate. I would even say that this is a waste of our tax money, as a FAR of 5, which the site is zoned for would pull in more revenue.

[wrabbit]

g'damn! I really like the decomposed granite. The crunch of the stone underfoot. Is is really difficult for wheelchairs, etc?? Seriously. I don't know. I want access for everyone, but the current gravel is so small.

Agreed - like the Mall in DC - I'll miss the crushed granite.

[Steely Dan]

g'damn! I really like the decomposed granite. The crunch of the stone underfoot. Is is really difficult for wheelchairs, etc?? Seriously. I don't know. I want access for everyone, but the current gravel is so small.

sorry about that, let me clarify, i came to the meeting late and missed the first part about the buckingham plaza redo, but from what i heard, i think that the brick pavers is one direction they're thinking of going in order to make the plaza more accessible. apparently the loose gravel bunches up and can make it difficult for those in wheelchairs to navigate across the plaza, though it sounds like perhaps better maintenance of the gravel could address that.

sorry to make it sound like the decision to go with brick pavers is a done deal, it's not, but from what bob said, it seems like they're leaning that way.

[emathias]

Write a letter to the alderman's office. It wouldn't hurt to even have one published in the Skyline Newspaper outlining your statement above. I too am pissed about this, demolishing real history for Disneyland-style fake history and a less intensive use on prime real estate. I would even say that this is a waste of our tax money, as a FAR of 5, which the site is zoned for would pull in more revenue.

I live in the ward and wrote to him to register my disdain for his treatment of the site. I'm a condo association president, too, which I mentioned even though I wrote as an individual. Maybe he'll listen to reason eventually.

By the way, I think his fax number is hillarious (and I wonder if it reflects any planned legislation):

312-6-420-420

[emathias]

sorry about that, let me clarify, i came to the meeting late and missed the first part about the buckingham plaza redo, but from what i heard, i think that the brick pavers is one direction they're thinking of going in order to make the plaza more accessible. apparently the loose gravel bunches up and can make it difficult for those in wheelchairs to navigate across the plaza, though it sounds like perhaps better maintenance of the gravel could address that.

sorry to make it sound like the decision to go with brick pavers is a done deal, it's not, but from what bob said, it seems like they're leaning that way.

Instead of pavers, I'd love to see them use those lattice-like paver-type things that are popular in Europe that let rainwater soak through (much greener than solid pavers) and a little grass poke up, too. They can be driven on, or moved on in wheel-chairs if properly laid, but look nice with the grass poking through.

[ardecila]

^^ They're called "permeable pavers" and they are just one in a long list of green products.

I liked the rotten granite, too... my driveway has the same stuff on it. Its use in landscaping goes back to the gardens of French palaces, which Grant Park is modelled after.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-buckingham-16-jul16,0,2039636.story

Buckingham Fountain's $25 million renovation to begin after Labor Day
Park District's plan is to impress International Olympic Committee

By Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah
11:15 PM CDT, July 15, 2008

...Plans have yet to be finalized, but officials are considering a more dramatic lighting show that would coordinate with lighting installed along Congress Parkway. They're also debating between new lamps that show sharper colors and the yellowish, more romantic hues of the current lights.

...Park officials are considering replacing the loose pink gravel at the site with precast stone and concrete pavers. Landscaping and the planting of trees will more closely mirror the original plans by Edward H. Bennett.

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/4460/41043262jy4.png

[honte]

I too am pissed about this, demolishing real history for Disneyland-style fake history and a less intensive use on prime real estate.

Bingo.

[Abner]

precast stone

What is this?

[Loopy]

^Pigmented concrete with colored aggregate, cut into bricks or tiles and dressed-off like terrazzo.

The pavers being discussed for the fountain area would be pigmented to match the gravel and will contain pink marble aggregate. THe will also be set with a 1/2" gap for percolation. The gap will be filled with the same pink granite gravel being used on the site currently.

I support the change. The pavement field around the fountain is just too large and too out of scale with the fountain itself for the gravel to convey the "formal garden" function that is intended.

[Breezyfingers]

I walked past 30 W. Oak for the first time today and was impressed by the reflecting pool:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3132/2676005212_ded4e7a70b_o.jpg

[Breezyfingers]

And they recently started work on this at Rush:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2676048240_5d1c7a3a07_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3040/2675231019_4eab1a47bd_o.jpg

[Busy Bee]

^What happened to the original version of that plan. Looks like it was value engineered down to a concrete parking deck.

[ardecila]

^^ It's printed on a sheet of vinyl stuck to a fence... not the best medium for doing really detailed images. A better rendering might show that there haven't been any changes at all.