[simcityaustin]

Why is it so important that the gravel at the fountain be pink??

Is it b/c of the desired formal garden effect?

[Loopy]

^The color was specified by Edward H. Bennett, the fountain's designer.

[Taft]

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

Makes me like this building even more. Classy.

Taft

[woodrow]

Why is it so important that the gravel at the fountain be pink??

Is it b/c of the desired formal garden effect?

It is pleasing to the eyes. Warm rose against the dark soft green of the trees and grass and the sparking blue of the lake and sky. Heee. . . I kid . . .sorta.

As I said before, it is the crunch of the stone underfoot that I particularly like.

The gravel in the Lurie Garden is whitish gray. Slightly different texture (different stone) and entirely appropriate for the plant material and hardscape features.

[Mr Downtown]

I think the European tradition is actually brick dust. I don't know why we don't commonly use that in the US.

[Marcu]

I may be completely forgetting something really obvious, but are there any plans to develop the lot on the east side of the river, south of Harrison, west of Wells, north of river city?

[jstush04]

This photo was in the literal suntimes, and I was pretty impressed, so i scanned it:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y6/jstush04/artinstituteinside.jpg

[Mr Downtown]

I may be completely forgetting something really obvious, but are there any plans to develop the lot on the east side of the river, south of Harrison, west of Wells, north of river city?

Yes. We often call this the "Franklin Point" site for a never-built 1990s PD. The corner at Harrison/Wells is now owned by the Chieftain Group, developer of Lexington Park, which plans a couple of 25-story towers (one with hotel). The rest of the site is now owned by Russland Group, developer of Michigan Avenue Tower and Tower II. Ald. Fioretti is pushing the two developers to work together, but I know no other specifics.

[Marcu]

^ Thanks. Completely slipped my mind.

[spyguy]

Grossinger development

East side:
Retail
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/4646/wellsandscotteastretaillo3.jpg
Residential
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/5664/wellsandscotteastresideyw8.jpg

West side:
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/281/wellsandscottwestplanc2ah2.jpg
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/5755/wellsandscottwestelevatli4.jpg

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer 7/20/08


http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/3483/dsc0161qx4.jpg


http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3603/dsc0175zw9.jpg


http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/1153/dsc0181ed2.jpg

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ Man, the "parkhomes" are a real missed design opportunity. They could have really capitalized on their buried nature with a modern yet earthy and very eco-friendly design, you know, something like Tolkien's Shire meets that thing Renzo Piano is doing in Golden Gate Park. I mean, it's a great concept but in execution they no way refer to the surrounding glass and steel behemoths or, even, the wild curvilinearity of the super vibrant park onto which they open.

[Marcu]

^ I like the brick. Adds some variety to an area already predominated by modern. Sort of gives the area that "don't worry, this isn't China just yet" feel

[wrabbit]

^ Aqua will also have some townhouses, I believe, so it'll be interesting to compare & contrast once they're all done. Honestly, I liked the Lowenberg ones better when their white sheeting was still exposed. So much of this kind of brick out there right now - flat, dark, ponderous. Not happy brick. And this is a city of great brick buildings.

[Chicagoguy]

Was just wondering if anyone knew when the new Barneys Department Store Building is opening on Rush? And does anybody know what is going into their old location across the street. Thanks

[ardecila]

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/5755/wellsandscottwestelevatli4.jpg

With 4-story townhomes, why does the retail have to be 1-story? It should be 3-4 stories, with apartments above! The townhomes and the apartments could share a small parking structure in the back - not a multi-story garage, but a long garage with multiple stalls.

Also, the floorplates of the apartment building across the street make it seem like an interstate-exit hotel plopped onto a parking podium. I hope they don't try to give it a gabled roof....

[Mr Downtown]

No market in the US for upper-floor retail. Or anywhere outside Japan, I think.

[the urban politician]

^ I think he meant apartments above retail

[SolarWind]

July 15, 2008

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/6313/dsc0029ms7.jpg

[jjk1103]

.........I don't cover this forum regularly, so if this has been covered (sorry).........but, I was walking near Grant Park this afternoon and I noticed that the 1st major section of "residential windows" had been installed on the east facade of the "Park Monroe" .......it really mangles the look of the building......

[honte]

With 4-story townhomes, why does the retail have to be 1-story? It should be 3-4 stories, with apartments above! The townhomes and the apartments could share a small parking structure in the back - not a multi-story garage, but a long garage with multiple stalls.

Also, the floorplates of the apartment building across the street make it seem like an interstate-exit hotel plopped onto a parking podium. I hope they don't try to give it a gabled roof....

That design is total crap in every possible way... :hell:

[VivaLFuego]

That design is total crap in every possible way... :hell:

It seems clear there is no intention to save the cooler of the garage buildings (the one at the north end of the eastern side of the block). While the eastern side at least provides some good measure of density, I also agree with ardec that the west side should at least get something in the 3-story range. And those "townhouses" are basically several more of the gaudy malproportioned McMansions that have been popping up all over Lincoln Park; and with an additional twist of the corkscrew buried in our urban planner hearts, they all have frickin' garages with frickin' curb cuts opening onto the street, albeit on a fairly low traffic street.

My biggest consolation is that the entire development will be much better for Wells St, and the broader Old Town area, than a large car dealership. And that is indeed a good amount of consolation. It's just sad to witness missed large-scale development opportunities. I am hoping and assuming that someone will step in to dismantle and save the terra cotta facade for reuse somewhere else.

[the urban politician]

^ I'm confused: looking at the tiny renderings Spyguy was able to post, I didn't see anything resembling density--just a few townhomes and a 1 level retail structure. Is there a apt/condo building in this project that I wasn't aware of?

[VivaLFuego]

^ I'm confused: looking at the tiny renderings Spyguy was able to post, I didn't see anything resembling density--just a few townhomes and a 1 level retail structure. Is there a apt/condo building in this project that I wasn't aware of?

The portion on the east side of Wells would have a ~10 story tower set back from Wells with over 200 rental units - not surprisingly, I think the developer forgot to include an East Elevation, heh. Basically, I think the developer is trying to combine the allowable unit density of both sites to justify a mid-rise on the eastern portion, and putting the low-scale schlock on the west side to throw a bone to the tyrannical neighbors groups.

The zoning on these sites would allow for an FAR of 3.0 (so, probably a 5-story building with some open space behind) on the west side, and an FAR of 5.0 on the east(probably a ~7 story building, again with open space behind). And my guess is, a total of 200-250 units between them. Honestly, if the developer built to the maximum specifications of the zoning as-is the result might be better from a streetscape standpoint, but, whatever... it's replacing a car dealership anyway, so even mdeiocore residential/retail replacement is a probably step up from the current state. This does seem to be a mediocre compromise. A taller, slender tower would cast much less shadow, allow for the same unit density and higher value units. Instead, the very long squat tower will block light and views from the neighbors on the east side, and the west side is a waste of buildable land.

[VivaLFuego]

Inside has a blurb on the building being demo'd on the NE corner of Sheridan/Irving. Apparently it's owned by the hospital, and the original intention was to build an office building there, but for now it will either be parking or green space, which I assume means some quality transit-oriented....parking :tup:

[i_am_hydrogen]

Highly anticipated Modern Wing of the Art Institute of Chicago by Renzo Piano to open to the public next May

July 17, 2008

The Art Institute of Chicago is pleased to announce that the Modern Wing, designed by Renzo Piano, will open to the public on Saturday, May 16, 2009. The Nichols Bridgeway, a pedestrian bridge designed by Renzo Piano that connects the Modern Wing to Millennium Park, will open the same day. In celebration of the opening of the largest addition in the Art Institute's history, admission to the entire museum will be free through Friday, May 22, 2009. Opening Day will be preceded by a week of special activities for school children, staff, members, and donors.

"The opening of the Modern Wing is an historic moment for the Art Institute of Chicago--the culmination of a decade of work and dedication by everyone at the museum," said Tom Pritzker, Chairman of the Board of Trustees. "It also represents an historic moment for the city. The building will showcase as never before the breadth and depth of the Art Institute's collections of modern and contemporary art, which have not previously been seen to their fullest advantage due to limited gallery space in the existing museum buildings. The Modern Wing signals to the world the cultural calibre of the city of Chicago and reaffirms its place as a leading cultural destination."

http://www.canadianarchitect.com/issues/ISArticle.asp?id=87196&issue=07172008

[ChicagoChicago]

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

I haven't been able to find any update on the discussion of the SWC of Grant Park. I expect that the tracks will be covered one day, I’d just like it to happen while I’m still breathing.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Water Tower gets all dolled up, boosts sales
$35 million in updates, including new and renovated stores, is paying off for the mall, despite the weakening economy

By Sandra M. Jones | Chicago Tribune reporter
July 21, 2008

Goodbye Gap. Hello Glam.

Water Tower Place, the mall that pioneered suburban-style shopping in the city three decades ago, is getting a makeover as competition heats up along North Michigan Avenue.

General Growth Properties Inc., the Chicago-based mall operator that took over Water Tower Place three years ago, has been pouring $35 million into updating the Magnificent Mile icon.

All told, about half of the mall's 100 stores—or about 248,000 square feet of the 730,000-square-foot mall—are either new or have been remodeled. Among the newcomers, slated to be announced later this summer: Cusp from Neiman Marcus, a boutique from designer Betsey Johnson, an Adidas Sport Performance store, Tous Jewelers, Aeropostale and one of the few U.S. locations for Canada's trendy clothing boutique Aritzia.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-mon_water-tower-place-michigjul21,0,6682806.story

[the urban politician]

Inside has a blurb on the building being demo'd on the NE corner of Sheridan/Irving. Apparently it's owned by the hospital, and the original intention was to build an office building there, but for now it will either be parking or green space, which I assume means some quality transit-oriented....parking :tup:

^ Wow, that's just annoying. Isn't there a giant parking lot just east of that? That gas station on the SE corner combined with this shitty lot is going to create a wonderful little butt-ugly ghetto. I can't think of a better way to lower everyone's property values than this (serves the community right, I guess, since they probably were the ones who fought the office building proposal).

I don't know who that ward's Alderman is, but I would imagine that this jack ass is pretty much asleep at the wheel. Honestly, I wish Daley micromanaged these guys a bit more..

[pip]

^Shiller

[honte]

^^ Is the nice little high-rise development proposed for that gas station still moving forward?

I doubt the community protested the office building. They probably didn't even know it was coming. Thorek built a hugely ugly building similar (I would imagine) over on Broadway, and it seemed to move forward without any complication.

[Mr Downtown]

How exactly would the alderman prevent Thorek from tearing down a building it owns? And how would the alderman or the community have any influence over an office building that conformed to the site's zoning classification?

[honte]

^ I've seen both of those happen frequently. Never anything official, but the aldermen and community have considerable influence, as you know, especially if an institution expects to ask for some favors in the future. There are countless examples of this over the last 5 years.

[VivaLFuego]

How exactly would the alderman prevent Thorek from tearing down a building it owns? And how would the alderman or the community have any influence over an office building that conformed to the site's zoning classification?

In many cases, there is some sort of permit that can be held up and dangled over a property owner's head to ensure some level of conformity with political whimsy (aside of course from the Alderman's ability to punitively change the zoning a la Hairston and the Vivekenanda site in Hyde Park). Of course, these actions also represent a host of questions on the ethics/morals of government power. As honte points out, Chicago is rife with various slush funds controlled by various levels of government, which are used to encourage friendly and non-antagonistic relations between government powers, community groups, and the various business interests in the city. Large organizations that are planted here usually have an interest in playing ball so they can continue to feed at the trough.

That gas station on the SE corner combined with this shitty lot is going to create a wonderful little butt-ugly ghetto.

At one point, the Sheridan-Irving condo tower (something in the 12-14 story range) was supposed to replace that gas station, but that has sort of disappeared into the ether. However, I think it did get as far as receiving PD approval, so it could hopefully be resurrected and restarted on a dime.

I wouldn't mind a low-rise office building to the lot lines built on the NE corner (heck, anything to "enclose" a transit- and ped-oriented intersection), though of course it's a shame to lose the fairly attractive building that was on the site for no perceivable gain in development intensity or architectural quality. That said, the site has a high zoning classification (FAR 5.0, height limit of 80ft) so we could theoretically be looking at something in the 6-7 story range built by right.

Or, we get a parking lot. There's nothing like a tax-exempt organization - aside from maybe government itself - to foster dreadfully uneconomic land use decisions (see: numerous church/synagogue parking lots throughout the Near North Side, north lakefront)

[Breezyfingers]

Illinois Center
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/2699391816_8cd8d9d97f_o.jpg

[ardecila]

I understand they're going for a Federal Center type of effect with the bright red against the Miesian buildings, but it doesn't work as well as Federal Center because the red component isn't isolated, it's connected to the buildings.

The flat panels on the overhang are also irritating against the rhythmical patterns on the Michigan Plaza buildings - they should have used standing-seam, or an overlapping "scaly" pattern - something with some texture.

However, I guess it isn't all bad. The red overhang, instead of leading into one of the buildings, leads into a little annex-atrium that connects the two, so it is "separate" in a way.

[wrabbit]

^ Looks like a tongue.

[left of center]

^ i didnt see it before, but now, try as i might, i cant un-see it. its a tongue in my mind forever now. and you are to blame. i hate you ;)

[Busy Bee]

http://www.djolley.com/stones/images/RStongue.jpg

[denizen467]

^ Now REALLY stuck in my mind, too.

Would love to see Blair Kamin (fan of this forum) invoke the Rolling Stones metaphor to pan this addition in a future blog post of his.

[honte]

The stupid tongue really sucks - couldn't make less sense. Someone wants to be Will Alsop really badly, and it just ain't working.

In the next 30 years, Illinois Center will become much more appreciated. Hopefully some of the original scheme is intact by that time. Not saying that it's perfect, but red tongue does not lead the way to a good solution.

[cbotnyse]

The stupid tongue really sucks - couldn't make less sense. Someone wants to be Will Alsop really badly, and it just ain't working.

In the next 30 years, Illinois Center will become much more appreciated. Hopefully some of the original scheme is intact by that time. Not saying that it's perfect, but red tongue does not lead the way to a good solution.Hasn't it been around for 30 year already? so you're saying it will take 60 years for people to appreciate it? (I'm just trying to understand what you're saying)

I can take or leave the red tongue. It adds a little character and thats always a big plus for me.

99% of people walking by will notice the Simpson's in the window before they notice the entrance anyway.

[honte]

^ Illinois center takes a beating by the critics. I think when Modernism from Midcentury becomes "officially" historic, this complex will get reevaluated. This is only starting to happen now, with select modern works from the 1930s and 1940s getting consideration, and a few very rare and politically convenient exceptions such as the IBM Building, which is Chicago's youngest official landmark.

It typically takes about 50-60 years for the historians to get "permission" to evaluate architecture.

People here tend to forget Mies's involvement with the planning and overall design, although he died before it was finished. Illinois Center also has really suffered from not having anything to speak of on its east side. When Lakeshore East is fully built and ultra dense, I think what Illinois Center was trying to achieve will become more appreciated by the public. Of course, a lot of what makes Lakeshore East special was made possible by Illinois Center's planning and circulation scheme too.

[woodrow]

^ i didnt see it before, but now, try as i might, i cant un-see it. its a tongue in my mind forever now. and you are to blame. i hate you ;)


it's called a brain stain. will never leave you, as much as you try to forget. . . kinda like two girls, one cup. :yuck:

[ardecila]

Of course, a lot of what makes Lakeshore East special was made possible by Illinois Center's planning and circulation scheme too.

Despite the terrible inhumanity of Illinois Center's lower levels, they do serve as nice vehicular support for the buildings above. What bothers me the most, of course, is the pedway system, and how certain parts are closed off at night, severely restricting the effectiveness of the system.

I think it's notable that the very first thing Lakeshore East's planners did was to return to ground level in the center of the development, and then build ramps and stairs around the perimeter, rather than continuing the multilevel streets.

[honte]

^ I'm sure that was a measure of cost, not any particular need to associate with true dirt. If anything, it's awkward and inconvenient.

[dagobert]

Illinois Center
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/2699391816_8cd8d9d97f_o.jpg

cbotnyse thanks for pointing out the Simpsons. You are right, if the canopy wasn't painted red I'd notice the Simpsons before I could figure out where the entrance is too. :jester:

BTW, what is up with these Simpsons. Why are they in the window?

[denizen467]

^ Presumably because the Simpsons is carried by the Fox network.
This would be the only overt public evidence of Fox's presence at Michigan Plaza. Maybe they are starting to consider having a more public face, following the recent streetside studio machinations of the other 3 networks downtown. They certainly have a huge plaza to work with if they want to do the streetside thing. Up until now the only really overt evidence of Fox there has been the forest of giant dishes on the roof of 205 North Michigan (which of course you don't see anyway unless you're on the Sears or somewhere similar).

Edit: fun fact - there's also a webcam somewhere near those Simpsons figures - it's viewable on their website and looks out over the Michigan/Lake intersection.

[Saber925]

^ I'm sure that was a measure of cost, not any particular need to associate with true dirt.

True. As this article states, it would have cost $80 to 100 million to raise Lakeshore East 52 feet.

http://chicagocondosonline.blogspot.com/2008/07/magellans-lakeshore-east-half-way-home.html

[denizen467]

Anyone in the mood to get riled up today?

Here's Forbes' blurb on Chicago in its 7/24/08 list of the 10 most expensive US cities:

The Midwest's biggest business hub, Chicago is the only noncoastal city on our list. The thirdmost populous city in the U.S., the town serves as a stopover for executives between New York and Los Angeles. Chicago's costs come from housing demand and an ever-growing tourism industry. In 2007, 46.3 million people visited Chicago and spent $11.5 billion, according to the city's tourism commission.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/23/cities-america-expensive-forbeslife-cx_ls_0724expensive_us_slide_6.html?thisSpeed=20000

This is not about nyc-versus-chi - it's a wider issue about the general perception of Chicago in the minds of a large percentage of the (dimwitted portion of the) public.

[Alliance]

1. We have a coast.

2. F Forbes. We ain't an effing rest stop. People don't just go to Chicago to take a bathroom break.

[left of center]

^

we are a "town" now? last i checked, we were a bigger financial hub than Los Angeles, what with the CME and CBOT and CBOE and CSX and all... Forbes is retarded. i got nothing else to contribute to that.

[Patel]

Well if it makes anyone feel better they also called Boston and Houston a town too. I quess anything outside of NYC or LA are just towns to Forbes.:rolleyes:

Houston more expensive than DC?

[ChiPsy]

Houston more expensive than DC?

They VERY intelligently -- and for a welcome change -- included transportation costs in their cost-of-living calculations. When my wife and I moved down there, the first thing we confronted was the immediate need to buy two cars. And to fill them with gas. A lot.

I think the article pointed out that Houstonians spend over 20% of their income on transportation. That counterbalances the cheap suburban land, as it does throughout Texas.

(The contrasts with Chicago are obvious to everyone here so I won't bother articulating them despite the title of this thread.)

[the urban politician]

the town serves as a stopover for executives between New York and Los Angeles.

^ I think too many people are reading too much into this.

At least when it comes to the uber rich and famous (heavily concentrated on the coasts), Chicago is nothing more than a stopover. That doesn't take away from the fact that Chicago is one of the world's leading financial & business hubs, and I wouldn't infer that from the article.

And what's wrong with calling Chicago a "town"? That's a tradition that goes back to Frank Sinatra, and perhaps even further back..

[honte]

^ I'm sure Sinatra is exactly what the writer was thinking...

[BVictor1]

http://www.suntimes.com/technology/guy/1076113,CST-FIN-ecol27.article

U. of C. builds on Fermi foundation
SCI-TECH SCENE | New buildings to provide long-overdue ultramodern science space

July 27, 2008
BY SANDRA GUY Sun-Times Columnist

Doctors, scientists, physicists and researchers will enjoy technologically advanced workspaces once two new buildings take shape at the University of Chicago.

The latest advances in the Hyde Park university's grand renewal efforts are a $375 million Center for Physical and Computational Sciences and a $700 million New Hospital Pavilion for the University Medical Center.

The advances are long past due, university experts say.

"Since the last time the university built a building for astronomy and astrophysics, the Cubs have won the Series twice," said Rocky Kolb, chairman of the astronomy and astrophysics department. (The Cubs last won the World Series in 1908 and before that, 1907.)

The departments are spread out over five buildings, making it difficult for scientists who work collaboratively, Kolb said.

The Center for Physical and Computational Sciences will measure a half million square feet and take up the west side of Ellis Avenue between 56th and 57th streets. The center will provide space for four physical sciences institutes and the physics and computer science department, in addition to astronomy and astrophysics. Work on the building is slated to start in fall 2010 and be completed in spring 2013.

The eight-story center will stand on the spot where Enrico Fermi built a subatomic particle accelerator -- an early version of the accelerators operating today at Fermilab.

"We're literally and physically building on the foundation Fermi laid," Kolb said.

"Even in a world so incredibly wired, there is no substitute for people sitting together, looking at each other's data and looking at fellow researchers straight in the eye," Kolb said. "I think this will position Chicago to make the great discoveries of the 21st century."

A similarly ambitious effort is the futuristic New Hospital Pavilion that will become the hub of the university's medical community.

The University of Chicago Medical Center's New Hospital Pavilion will link by tunnel and bridge to Bernard Mitchell Hospital, the Duchossois Center for Advanced Medicine and Comer Children's Hospital. It will sit next to the Gordon Center for Integrative Sciences at 929 E. 57th St. and the Knapp Center for Biomedical Discovery, slated to open in 2009 at 900 E. 57th St.

The [B]10-story New Hospital Pavilion, at 1.2 million square feet, will bridge Maryland Avenue and extend from 57th and Drexel to 57th and Cottage Grove. Groundbreaking is slated for early 2009 with completion in summer 2012.

The pavilion is being built to allow not only for today's technology such as robotic-assisted surgeries, but for futuristic technology yet to be created. It will house the university's clinical programs in cancer, neuroscience, advanced surgery, gastrointestinal disease and high-tech imaging. It will include an outdoor cafe and retail space, laboratories, radiology, 240 patient rooms, and operating and recovery rooms.

The building's 18-foot ceiling heights, extra floor-loading capacity and large rooms, enabled by 102,000 square feet on each floor, let doctors do combination surgeries, such as a heart bypass and putting in stents in a single operation.

"We're planning this building for the next 50 years," said Jim Hietbrink, director of facility planning for the University of Chicago Medical Center.

The greatest needs are expected in equipment to diagnose and treat patients, rather than in hospital beds, according to health care forecasts.

The upgrades are essential, given that some of the existing operating rooms are 1977 vintage, said Mark Urquhart, vice president of facilities design and construction for the medical center.

"We're ensuring that we recruit the best and the brightest staff of physicians and make a leap forward in medical technology, innovation and teaching," Urquhart said.

[the urban politician]

^ Now all we need to do is add a few Studio Gang designed apt/condo towers to the mix, along with that 20+ story Fernando Leal project, and Hyde Park is doing quite alright...

[the urban politician]

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii283/sandyuspatriot/Chicago/VuedeSearsTowerBaseball-1.jpg

^ This was posted in the City photos section, looks like it's just north of University Village.

Is it just me, or does it look like they're tearing up those parking lots? Am I seeing this right? Does anybody have an idea what's going on here?

[honte]

^ I had quite a scare driving past UIC a few months ago - I saw something similar in front of a Netsch building and thought they were going to take it down or mess it up.

I think they're just doing some work on their steam lines or something... maybe one of the forumers attends school there and can let us know. But I do not think they are doing site prep for anything.

[the urban politician]

^ You know, those parking lots on east Halsted north of Roosevelt are such an ugly eyesore. Since UIC is trying to create a cohesive campus, it seems as if it would behoove them to build a continuous streetscape up and down Halsted. Those nasty parking ghettos would be prime spots for highrise/midrise apt buildings and dorms, while all the surface parking can be replaced by a 10 story garage.

I imagine that these dorms/apts would fuel the lackluster retail strip that they've built at University Village, especially if they are wise enough not to create any more ground level retail in the newer buildings.

Come to think of it, if they built such a campus instead of the uninspiring sea of parking lots that's there today, it would feel a) enclosed & safer, b) more ped friendly, and c) more attractive to parents & students alike.

[VivaLFuego]

^ I had quite a scare driving past UIC a few months ago - I saw something similar in front of a Netsch building and thought they were going to take it down or mess it up.

FYI, they are butchering a few of the classroom buildings... gutting the interiors and replacing the entire facade. I believe one is done (Grant Hall), and another (Lincoln Hall) is in progress. Pretty mediocre results, to my eye, but then I'm quite partial to the Netsch/SOM aesthetic, particularly the brutal concrete, of that period. I suppose some of the 'green' features are neat, though these could have been done without completely eliminating the original design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois_at_Chicago#Campus_Renovations

https://fimweb.fim.uic.edu/CampusMaps/UICVisitorMap_E_8.5x11.pdf

[honte]

^ Yeah, I've seen them. It's really a shame. If you read the blurb on the signage there, it's some BS about improving the buildings while being respectful of the Modern aesthetic. Translation: Replace the original with a facsimile. :yuck:

[left of center]

^ eh, i attended UIC and to me its really no big loss. Those buildings are just plain awful, with a few exceptions (Behavioral Sciences Building, Science and Engineering Laboratories, Arts and Architecture Building) but for the most part, the crumbling concrete and cubic squat windowless design of most the buildings really makes for a harsh and bland learning environment.

Sure, the new cladding isnt exactly stellar, but its many times better than whats existing. Atleast there are wider windows, less reminiscent of jail cells. ;)

[OhioGuy]

I don't know if this has been posted in this thread before (I did a search in this thread for Berteau and nothing came up), but I was walking up Lincoln Avenue from Irving Park this afternoon and I passed by a fenced off lot. There was a sign out front for a new development called Berteau Terrace.

http://www.macongroup.com/up_gallery/main/044590800_12095819234201.jpg

Berteau Terrace - North Center neighborhood

2056 W. Berteau Avenue (northeast corner of Berteau & Lincoln)

This unique condominium development will feature almost 7,000 square feet of commercial space at grade, 33 luxury condominium units, and 58 parking spots.

Construction is expected to begin in summer 2008.
Macon Group (http://www.macongroup.com/detail.php?pid=81&ty=6)

[jstush04]

^ I had quite a scare driving past UIC a few months ago - I saw something similar in front of a Netsch building and thought they were going to take it down or mess it up.

I think they're just doing some work on their steam lines or something... maybe one of the forumers attends school there and can let us know. But I do not think they are doing site prep for anything.

I attend there, and I asked about it. I was excited, cuz I thought they might be adding something nice (I dunno, some sort of cool outdoor plaza or something?) but they were only doing utility work. Dig up stuff, work on it, put it back, pretend like nothing happened, get new sidewalks while we're at it.

UIC does have a lot of big parking lots that I'm pretty excited about because the school keeps growing, and the potential is there for some pretty cool buildings.

The typical classroom buildings spread around campus, though? yeah, they are great and all, but Honte!! please don't be disappointed, because the interiors of the classroom buildings are the most retched, depressing places to be I can think of. I practically want to run out of them as soon as I get in. The upgraded building is wonderful in comparison, and I think it looks fine on the outside, arguably better than they looked before. And they are quite environmentally friendly, too :)

[honte]

^ I've spent a lot of time in those buildings too, although I never took any classes there. I don't think they are bad at all, especially when they upgrade the lighting and give them a little care, as is being done inside Behavioral Sciences and some others. The classroom interiors are not as important, although I think they are fine. I personally would have designed them to admit more natural light, but today is a different age and it's hard to compare the two.

Messing with the exteriors is something I would never endorse. They are important, unique, and perfectly serviceable designs from one of the masters of Modernism. I'm sorry that so many people seem to dislike them.

I do know a number of people who went to UIC and who love those buildings. It seems that they either turn people off or on - good architecture tends to do that.

[jstush04]

^ i like them in that they are cool. badass, if you will. I guess they could be better if they changed out ever pane of plastic glass and redid the floors and lighting. and got better seating, and more AV stuff. Would that be ruining the building if they got normal glass? but the thing is, it would probably cost just as much to get new glass than to just get floor-to-ceiling glass

you know, honte, it just depressing inside those buildings, and when i think of learning, i think of investment in the future. i think of hope and dreams. and when i think of hope and dreams, the dark, dreary dirtiness of being in one of those classrooms just makes me say the worst thing imaginable: "fuck "good" architecture"

can't I have it both ways? Can't I have nice on the inside AND nice on the outside? why is Netsch (sic?) considered so great if he gave no consideration for the inside? or is it just not good because of little upkeep? SIGH

either way, i'm out of there in a year

[VivaLFuego]

Yeah, having taken classes in these, I wouldn't have minded some interior updating, especially since most of the interiors were a mish-mash of several uncoordinated half-ass renovations anyway, so there was less consistency. Rehab including improving the utilities (lights, electrical) and some fresh paint and new flooring would have gone a long way. Replacing the window glass into something that lets more light in while still providing adequate insulation would also help, since those buildings are quite dark inside due to the coating on the glass that basically keeps out 90% of natural light.

I wouldn't have messed much with the exteriors, though. The replacements are pretty crappy, and the originals are very unique and part of a holistic site plan (which, admittedly, was already seriously compromised in the major renovation back in the 90s).

It's all moot though, since it's already obvious where UIC administration has cast its lot in regards to the original Netsch design of the campus. The administration hears about how dark, cold, and depressing this or that room/building is to students, so the reaction is to basically toss it all out and start anew. Hopefully BSB, the Admin building, and SEL survive fully intact, though the latter needs some serious interior renovation.

[Abner]

Honte, although I agree with you the vast majority of the time, to me, most of the UIC classroom buildings are Exhibit A in the old argument that good architecture has to be willing to respond to the needs and desires of inhabitants rather than try to win them over to some sort of ideological aesthetic. From my experience--completely anecdotal but personally convincing--the overwhelming majority of students whose classes are in those buildings find their classrooms oppressive, impersonal, and hostile. I don't at all buy the argument that natural light is a newfangled fancy, nor that the school should ask its students to permanently indulge, and attempt to appreciate, campus buildings that represent an aesthetic from a bygone era. There are reams of data on what sort of physical environment promotes learning, and the old classrooms are virtually the antithesis to what is considered best practice in educational building design. For that reason the buildings are a functional failure.

[honte]

^ Sure, they have shortcomings, like many great buildings. I'd like to see UIC invest in a very talented designer, charged with the goal of updating these structures while being respectful of their good features. Let's try that before we jump to conclusions that the whole kit and caboodle has to be tossed out. I think VivaL's synopsis is pretty thoughtful and probably correct.

In the Modern era, thousands of nice and usable buildings came down because they were "dark" and "dingy." Some - even many - of these probably should have come down. Many others just needed some updating and care. As we know today, many Victorian buildings are actually quite pleasant once they have been updated and spruced up.

Netsch and the SOM crew made mistakes at UIC. The dark-tinted glass, the dark colors on the interiors (lots of 1970s colors), little exterior light in some classrooms. The whole campus is a little on the harsh / cold side. I can't speak for them, but they were doing great things on a budget and also the neighborhood then was not what it is today... there was obviously a goal of attracting skittish suburbanites downtown, and I think blocking out the surroundings had something to do with that. When you investigate Walter's other buildings, you will see that he absolutely was concerned with interior spaces and achieved some truly incredible ones.

If you look at the classroom buildings they are reskinning, they actually have a very high percentage of glazed surfaces. I think as VivaL suggests, simply reglazing could go a long way toward energy efficiency and could probably make the interior spaces seem much nicer. Speaking of energy efficiency, well the concrete panels could be highly insulated in conjunction with very high efficiency glass - this would beat the pants off of the "environmental" all-glass facade they are putting up. If you ask me, the whole environmental efficiency thing is just an excuse for UIC to redo the buildings. Their solution really doesn't seem to be guided by environmental concerns at all. Sure, they increased the R Value of the glass.

This would not be 100% preservation, but it would be far superior to the cheap facsimile approach. At least they would still be Netsch buildings, even if altered somewhat.

I've been inside the renovated ones, and they really just feel like souless suburban office buildings to me, no character at all.

[VivaLFuego]

When you investigate Walter's other buildings, you will see that he absolutely was concerned with interior spaces and achieved some truly incredible ones.

http://www.preservationnation.org/assets/photos-images/preservation-magazine/2008/may-june/feature-airforce01.jpg

Too bad he couldn't rejigger this concept into something for UIC :cool:

Netsch was definitely one of the masters of modernism, and it is a pretty big deal to demolish or otherwise renovate his work. I wouldn't argue that all buildings by important architects must be preserved no matter what and at any cost (for example, I don't see the need to preserve the doomed "Mies Shack" at IIT), but I think a great deal more thought should be put into it than is apparently happening at UIC. The 90s reconfiguration of campus was, generally, done pretty well considering the constraints tasked to the architect, but the more recent developments like the Grant Hall renovation makes campus feel like a bland and generic office park, as honte said.

[honte]

^ Well said.

Actually, the Field Theory buildings at UIC were a direct outgrowth of Netsch's reevaluation of his own work at the Air Force Academy chapel. You can see similarities in the interior geometries, such as in the glorious center courts.

[Chicagoguy]

Does anyone have any updated information on the progress of The Admiral on the Lake and a building called The Andrew? I just read about the Andrew on North Sheridan in the Edgewater area, it looks like a really cool proposal! I had never even heard about this proposal before but it is on Emporis.

[VivaLFuego]

I just read about the Andrew on North Sheridan in the Edgewater area, it looks like a really cool proposal! I had never even heard about this proposal before but it is on Emporis.

It's a bit stalled at the moment. There is substantial community opposition (go figure) and I think Beitler was having some serious trouble in getting the numbers and legal constraints to work, since it would basically be a long-term ground lease on church-owned land. It's definitely not dead, though, but it's moving slowly.

[Chicagoguy]

It's a bit stalled at the moment. There is substantial community opposition (go figure) and I think Beitler was having some serious trouble in getting the numbers and legal constraints to work, since it would basically be a long-term ground lease on church-owned land. It's definitely not dead, though, but it's moving slowly.

How long has this been a proposal? Is this on the same property as the former BlueWater Proposal? I just found out that one was dead...I really thought that one would go up!

Do you know the cross streets and the proposed height for this building? What do you think that chances of it going up are?

[JMO_0121]

Does anyone know anything about a waterpark and a monorail being added to Navy Pier. I read this on wikipedia, and everyone knows we can't always trust that site. This would increase Navy Pier's size. If Children's museum moves,(hopefully not to Grant Park), what could be of Navy Pier?:shrug:

[VivaLFuego]

How long has this been a proposal? Is this on the same property as the former BlueWater Proposal? I just found out that one was dead...I really thought that one would go up!

Do you know the cross streets and the proposed height for this building? What do you think that chances of it going up are?

It's proposd for the parking lot owned by the church on the SE corner of Hollywood and Sheridan. It's possible but seems unlikely in the immediate future given the current market. Absorption at current prices is too slow to justify construction costs for any highrise condo project that hasn't already achieved significant pre-sales, at this point. It will also face significant neighborhood opposition, meaning in order to get approved the community will want to extort all sorts of things out of the developer such as reduced the unit count, floor area, forcing contributions to local parks and affordable housing, etc. etc. all of which will push a marginal project over the edge and make it unbuildable in a rough market.

[Chicagoguy]

It's proposd for the parking lot owned by the church on the SE corner of Hollywood and Sheridan. It's possible but seems unlikely in the immediate future given the current market. Absorption at current prices is too slow to justify construction costs for any highrise condo project that hasn't already achieved significant pre-sales, at this point. It will also face significant neighborhood opposition, meaning in order to get approved the community will want to extort all sorts of things out of the developer such as reduced the unit count, floor area, forcing contributions to local parks and affordable housing, etc. etc. all of which will push a marginal project over the edge and make it unbuildable in a rough market.

Ok I understand now. It would be nice to see this one get built though. It would be a great height from the look of it. Is there a sales center open for this building?

[honte]

^ NO

Jmo, that was some goofy plan for the Pier cooked up by consultants about 4 years ago. It could still be on the table - everything has been in limbo due to the Children's Museum ordeal.

[the urban politician]

According to pics posted here (http://www.uptownupdate.com/2008/07/wilson-yard-site-progress.html), some degree of site prep has begun for Wilson Yards

[denizen467]

Does anyone have any updated information on the progress of The Admiral on the Lake . . .

Is this different from the "NEW" Admiral at the Lake?

http://www.thenewadmiral.com

This is being advertised lately in (presumably among others) Skyline.

[k1052]

http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/the_theater_loop/2008/07/uptown-theatre.html?cid=124310680#comments

Uptown Theatre goes on the block

Want to buy Chicago's historic Uptown Theatre on Tuesday morning? It's relatively easy.

Head to the Judicial Sales Corporation, 1 S. Wacker Drive, with a certified check for 25 percent of your likely maximum bid. If you are the highest bidder, the gorgeous, 4,300-seat, 46,000-square foot entertainment palace designed by the legendary architectural team of Rapp and Rapp and located at 4814 N. Broadway will be yours.

You'll only need at least $40 million—the precise figures depend on whom you ask and what gets done—to bring the long-shuttered, 1925 venue back to life.

n the latest Byzantine twist in the saga of the colossal, landmark theater—followed by a passionate group of historians, neighborhood activists and arts supporters—the Uptown Theatre will be the object of a forced judicial sale Tuesday. Regardless of the buyer, it should remove a stumbling block in the theater's restoration.

It will clarify who owns the joint.

(For my last post on the Uptown, click here. Or keep reading, below.)

"The bottom line here is that the ownership issue will be completely cleared up," said Judy Frydland, an attorney for the City of Chicago, which will be closely monitoring the morning's developments. "Regardless of what has happened in the past, whoever is the highest bidder will own the building."

The current ownership of the Uptown is fiendishly complex. The legal title holder is the Standard Bank and Trust. The beneficiary of that trust is a corporation called Cercore Properties, owned by John Trezakis and Rudy Mulder. But Cercore Properties has been dissolved (although the formal title to the Uptown, says Frydland, does not reflect that fact).

Over the years, there have been various liens on the property. Some of those liens have, in turn, been assigned to various other parties, including one purchased, indirectly, by JAM Productions, a local rock and theater presenter, in an apparent attempt to secure an interest in the building and force some action. After various half-completed lawsuits, there was a judgment for foreclosure in recent days. Hence Tuesday's judicial sale.

Meanwhile, the City of Chicago has pursued various cases against the current owners in housing court. "We hope to get our money back tomorrow," Frydland said on Tuesday. "But we mostly hope that someone with vision will get the building and restore it."

"We don't have a preference for who buys the building," said Pete Scales, a spokesman for the City of Chicago's Department of Planning. "We hope it's an owner who will properly care for the building and bring a plan to restore it and reopen it.

So who might that be?

The most likely candidate is JAM. Jerry Mickelson, one of the principals, said his company planned to be there Tuesday. With check in hand.

"We've been pushing for this foreclosure sale for 15 months," said Mickelson on Monday. "We are the only potential buyers who have an investment in that neighborhood. I am a believer in Uptown and I always have been."

Mickelson also said that the restoration of the building would require a public commitment. "That's the only way the theater will be restored," Mickelson said. Such grants are common with historic theaters; the venues of the Loop theater district were renovated and developed with the help of public funds and incentives.

How much the Uptown will bring is hard to estimate. In 2002, when a nonprofit group tried (and failed) to buy the building, the bid was widely quoted as about $2.5 million. But things have changed. There are no comparables in the neighborhood and historic venues have sold for everything from a nominal one dollar to tens of millions.

"The main criterion is future revenue per seat," said Dick Roddewig, president of Clarion Associates and a real estate analyst. "But it is a very complicated assignment and a very risky purchase."

Like any real estate auction, the price will depend on the enthusiasm of the bidders. JAM, which presented concerts at the Uptown in the late 1970s, isn't likely to the only one at the table.

Live Nation, the California-based live entertainment company that competes aggressively with JAM, has expressed prior interest and is likely to bid. (A Live Nation spokesman could not be reached for comment on Monday). Live Nation has reportedly met with the office of Ald. Mary-Anne Smith (48th Ward), but a spokesman from Smith's office said Monday that they did not know any more details about the judicial sale.

It is also conceivable that other entities will show up and bid for the Uptown, which has landmark protection. Madison Square Garden Entertainment has kicked the Uptown's tires, but has since purchased the Chicago Theatre. The Lollapalooza promoters C3 are expanding aggressively in Chicago and have an eye on staging Olympic entertainment—a restoration of the Uptown would surely endear the group to City officials. But C3 already has a deal to book shows at Soldier Field and at the Congress Theatre. AEG Live, which just entered into a partnership with the Horseshoe Casino in Hammond, Ind., could conceivably have an interest, as could other parties.

All it takes is a check.

It seems counterintuitive, but in many ways the judicial sale is a consequence of renewed interest in the Uptown, flowing from the increasingly competitive marketplace for live entertainment in Chicago and the relative shortage of viable venues. The fortunes of the long-imperiled, down-at-heel Uptown look brighter now than at any point in the last two decades.

Finally the ownership is going to be cleared up and someone can actually start working on the building. I'm personally rooting for Live Nation since they have money, motivation, and need a venue of this size in the city.

[the urban politician]

^ I just hope they don't take it upon themselves to raze a nearby historic structure to create a parking behemoth next to the theatre...

[VivaLFuego]

^ I just hope they don't take it upon themselves to raze a nearby historic structure to create a parking behemoth next to the theatre...

I've been wondering about this too. There are already parking complaints with the Riviera and Aragon right there. Add in a ~4,500 seat venue, when all 3 are having shows, and it's parking pandemonium. I'm not sure what the best answer is. Maybe tell them to go use that huge stupid parking garage getting built at Wilson/Montrose :haha:

Actually...

I hope the city proceeds carefully with this, and, as you say, doesn't just willy nilly give up some decent contributing buildings to appease the almighty on-site parking gods.

[k1052]

^ I just hope they don't take it upon themselves to raze a nearby historic structure to create a parking behemoth next to the theatre...

I doubt the alderman would allow that. The tire store across the street and part of the surface lot behind it next to the rail line however could definitely be sacrificed to a parking structure.

I'd also be ok with the two buildings to the north of the lobby getting demo'd and a multiplex movie theater being added to the Uptown to make better use of the theatre and lobby in the large amount of down time between concert performances. It would also bring a steadier stream of people into the Lawrence/Broadway area.

[Chicagoguy]

Is this different from the "NEW" Admiral at the Lake?

http://www.thenewadmiral.com

This is being advertised lately in (presumably among others) Skyline.

No thats the one I was talking about! When are they planning to start construction on that project? It will be nice once completed and I love how they have the plans for some highrises on the northside along the lake and not just downtown

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30370

Jam buys Uptown Theatre for $3.2M
By Eddie Baeb, July 29, 2008

Without any drama, a venture led by concert promoter Jam Productions Ltd. bought the historic Uptown Theatre Tuesday for $3.2 million in a court-ordered foreclosure sale.

Jam principal Jerry Mickelson was the only bidder for the long-vacant theater at 4816 N. Broadway. The sale price was essentially a “credit bid” that covers repayment of about $1.8 million owed on a first mortgage and $1.4 million owed on a second mortgage that’s held by Mr. Mickelson’s group.

[Alliance]

Is this different from the "NEW" Admiral at the Lake?

http://www.thenewadmiral.com

This is being advertised lately in (presumably among others) Skyline.

What a piece of junk.

[k1052]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30370

Jam buys Uptown Theatre for $3.2M
By Eddie Baeb, July 29, 2008

Without any drama, a venture led by concert promoter Jam Productions Ltd. bought the historic Uptown Theatre Tuesday for $3.2 million in a court-ordered foreclosure sale.

Jam principal Jerry Mickelson was the only bidder for the long-vacant theater at 4816 N. Broadway. The sale price was essentially a “credit bid” that covers repayment of about $1.8 million owed on a first mortgage and $1.4 million owed on a second mortgage that’s held by Mr. Mickelson’s group.

Well Freed is involved so hopefully something will happen instead of Jam just sitting on it to keep competition out. There's a good amount of money (20M+) left in the TIF district its sitting in.

[lalucedm]

^ Aqua will also have some townhouses, I believe, so it'll be interesting to compare & contrast once they're all done. Honestly, I liked the Lowenberg ones better when their white sheeting was still exposed. So much of this kind of brick out there right now - flat, dark, ponderous. Not happy brick. And this is a city of great brick buildings.

"Not happy brick." Yes! I've been looking for a way to express why I hate the brick used in modern fake-Old-Chicago buildings so much, and that's totally it. For one, it tends to look overly-manufactured (because it is - all the bricks are identical) and for two, for some reason, every developer likes to use either this really generic red or really dark brick nowadays. Have you ever seen so much purple and black brick being installed? Very strange.

[k1052]

Uptown Theatre buyer calls city requirements ‘onerous’

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30387

Perhaps more daunting, Mr. Mickelson says, is a court order the city got that requires the new owner to put $5 million into an escrow account within 30 days of acquiring title. Then, the buyer must have a “compliance plan” within 90 days that’s to include a budget and financing plan for the renovations.

The new owner would have a total of two years and nine months to complete all the necessary repairs to take occupancy, according to the order issued May 12 in Cook County Circuit Court. The $5 million in escrow would be returned “if the new owners do what they’re supposed to do,” says a spokeswoman with the city’s legal department.

Wow, the city really isn't going to let Mickelson screw around on this.

[emathias]

I doubt the alderman would allow that. The tire store across the street and part of the surface lot behind it next to the rail line however could definitely be sacrificed to a parking structure.

...


*sigh*

Can't Chicago actually have a normal transit strategy? One that doesn't have citizens advocating parking next to transit stops in the middle of the densest parts of the city?

[k1052]

*sigh*

Can't Chicago actually have a normal transit strategy? One that doesn't have citizens advocating parking next to transit stops in the middle of the densest parts of the city?

When you're going to have venues that could possibly draw 20,000+ people over a couple hour timespan into two city blocks you're going to have to have SOME parking close to the venues. Unless you want to move St. Boniface or bulldoze residential you don't have a lot of options.

My preference would be for it to be integrated into a residential development but currently new mid/high rise condo projects in Chicago that normal people can afford are going over like lead balloons.

[wrabbit]

Scaffolding almost all down on the Ward Building:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/d78f25c9.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/5476d382.jpg

[Abner]

"Not happy brick." Yes! I've been looking for a way to express why I hate the brick used in modern fake-Old-Chicago buildings so much, and that's totally it. For one, it tends to look overly-manufactured (because it is - all the bricks are identical) and for two, for some reason, every developer likes to use either this really generic red or really dark brick nowadays. Have you ever seen so much purple and black brick being installed? Very strange.

Yeah, the changes that have occurred in brick manufacturing have not been kind to aesthetics. It's a combination of a bunch of things. Environmental standards (brick manufacturing used to be INCREDIBLY dirty) are part of it, but also there are changes in the composition of different materials, extreme standardization of material and processing that eliminates slight differences between individual bricks, and shorter firing times (roughly speaking, the longer a brick is fired the deeper the hue, so my understanding is that when bricks are fired for a shorter time they get that unpleasant orange color). I'm no expert on bricks, so maybe somebody here can correct this.

[SolarWind]

Not sure if it was mentioned yet, but railings have been added for Dick's Last Resort.

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6698/dsc0126nw1.jpg

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/4879/dscc0103jw8.jpg

[StatenIslander237]

Hey you all in Chicago, ever since I left in May, I'm curious...how's the progress on the Brown Line renovations? I'm guessing Diversey is now completely finished and open? When I left, Wellington, Paulina, Irving Park and Damen were closed. How's the progress on those? ..and how's the progress on Belmont and Fullerton moving along?

Thanks in advance.

[aaron38]

I've been wondering about this too. There are already parking complaints with the Riviera and Aragon right there. Add in a ~4,500 seat venue, when all 3 are having shows, and it's parking pandemonium. I'm not sure what the best answer is. Maybe tell them to go use that huge stupid parking garage getting built at Wilson/Montrose :haha:

I know suburbanites, they love to drive. But it's time to point out to them that all three of those theatres are within 500ft of the Lawrence station, and they shouldn't be driving right to the theatre. There's no need to provide additional parking when the red line is right there. Suburbanites can park at Howard.

[Chicago3rd]

I've been wondering about this too. There are already parking complaints with the Riviera and Aragon right there. Add in a ~4,500 seat venue, when all 3 are having shows, and it's parking pandemonium. I'm not sure what the best answer is. Maybe tell them to go use that huge stupid parking garage getting built at Wilson/Montrose :haha:

Actually...

I hope the city proceeds carefully with this, and, as you say, doesn't just willy nilly give up some decent contributing buildings to appease the almighty on-site parking gods.

Good points. Strange how all three of these operations at one time operated without huge parking garages....needed. Surely we can do it again? We know that Wrigley for the most part is full and profitable without a huge parking garage (even though they are going to be getting one now...at the expense of the neighborhood).

Man if they got 3 theaters up and running...making that area a successful entertainment hub.....that neighborhood would blossum.