[k1052]

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.

Arguments about parking near these venues aside, maybe the CTA would even be so kind as to add a 3rd fare turnstile (gasp) to Lawrence if/when the Uptown reopens. A station that isn't a shed from Home Depot and some chain link fence might be nice too...

[Marcu]

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.

It would be nice if they could at the very least integrate all the parking into one facility instead of the sea of surface lots around 2 el station that are there now.

[Taft]

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.

From my experiences:

They are running 8 car trains on the brown line at rush hour now (yeah!). Diversey is open, but not finished (only one entrance/exit is open and work is ongoing). Wellington is not only completely closed, but to my eye the station is gone. I know it's coming back, but it is strange to be under the tracks there and not see any staircases or anything.

Hopefully others can fill you in on other stations and more "behind the scenes" info (like track progress).

Taft

[emathias]

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?
...

Dude, not to be a prick or anything, but basic info like that can EASILY be found right on the official CTA Brown Line project web site.

CTA Brown Line (http://ctabrownline.com/)

[emathias]

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.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be parking there, it just shouldn't be literally right next to a transit station. 90% of the time, there won't be shows going on, there won't be an extra 20k people in the area and there should be transit-friendly development next to the stations to support that 90% usage.

There's a surface parking lot directly behind the Uptown that could support a parking garage. There's also space near Ainsle and Broadway that could support parking. Allowing parking garages immediately next to neighborhood rail stations utterly defeats any goal toward transit-oriented development. There are also a few opportunities a block or so away that could be used. Let's face it - it's really not a very car-friendly area to begin with, but destroying the historic function of a neighborhood to preserve one historic building seems ludicrously out of whack with a true spirit of preservation - a real case of "can't see the forest for the tree".

Not to mention, if it really will cost $40+ million of (partly) public money to restore the theatre, and they determined they had to put parking right next to the rail station, what is the real cost of preservation? Tack that onto the decades long loss of tax revenue and of the feel that such a large dead building left in the area.

Was it worth it to save the Uptown?

[honte]

^ Have you ever been inside? Yes, it was absolutely worth saving. This is no ordinary tree in the forest. It's also a mess inside after years of neglect... I think the $40M figure is probably in the right ballpark, if they intend to do it right.

I see your point concerning the parking situation. I just saw the new highrise "Howard Street Station" last night, and while I don't like the architecture, that's how neighborhood development should be done! Howard feels pretty awesome and urban now, except for of course the mega strip mall and the stupid gaps in the streetwall caused by city demolition.

[k1052]

I'm not saying there shouldn't be parking there, it just shouldn't be literally right next to a transit station. 90% of the time, there won't be shows going on, there won't be an extra 20k people in the area and there should be transit-friendly development next to the stations to support that 90% usage.

There's a surface parking lot directly behind the Uptown that could support a parking garage. There's also space near Ainsle and Broadway that could support parking. Allowing parking garages immediately next to neighborhood rail stations utterly defeats any goal toward transit-oriented development. There are also a few opportunities a block or so away that could be used. Let's face it - it's really not a very car-friendly area to begin with, but destroying the historic function of a neighborhood to preserve one historic building seems ludicrously out of whack with a true spirit of preservation - a real case of "can't see the forest for the tree".

Not to mention, if it really will cost $40+ million of (partly) public money to restore the theatre, and they determined they had to put parking right next to the rail station, what is the real cost of preservation? Tack that onto the decades long loss of tax revenue and of the feel that such a large dead building left in the area.

Was it worth it to save the Uptown?

The parking lot behind the Uptown appears too small to site a parking structure on, unless you buy up some of the houses directly north and raze them for more usable land.

The area has had a parking problem with its venues for a long time. The Uptown reopening will definitely add to that. Ideally, more entertainment businesses will be attracted to the Broadway/Lawrence area which will bring in steadier/larger amounts of people. You're going to need more parking close to that intersection one way or another.

As far as if it is worth it...the Uptown is utterly irreplaceable in many respects. Theatres of this size simply aren't constructed in urban areas anymore, not to mention how historically important it is. It would be an architectural crime of huge proportions to let it be torn down. Most likely it would become the Uptown version of Block 37 if that was allowed, left fallow for decades before a mediocre development is tossed up.

[OhioGuy]

Dude, not to be a prick or anything, but basic info like that can EASILY be found right on the official CTA Brown Line project web site.

CTA Brown Line (http://ctabrownline.com/)

Ummm, then don't be? Seriously, sometimes it's nice to get first-hand reports/updates from people riding the line rather than just relying on the general info on project websites. Otherwise people might as well stop posting updates on the Spire since they have an official website.

And as for the brown line, I was just on the line last weekend. The Damen and Irving Park stations are coming along. I noticed that the exterior expanded walls behind the older historic Damen station house are finished. I'm not sure how long they've been done, but it's still nice to see. I'm not sure what Paulina is looking like. All I know is that I sat in place for nearly 10 minutes last weekend between Irving Park and Addison because of single track operation ahead (and incidently I overheard someone talking about the brown line while I was on the red line this afternoon... I could hear they were mighty pissed about how long they have to sit in place because of the single track work).

(though having posted all of that, it might be more warranted for the Chicago transit thread than this one)

[wrabbit]

^ Have you ever been inside? Yes, it was absolutely worth saving. This is no ordinary tree in the forest. It's also a mess inside after years of neglect... I think the $40M figure is probably in the right ballpark, if they intend to do it right......

Here's an interior shot of the Uptown (I posted it once before, a while ago); the bright patch at the center is a small restoration - the rest is untouched. Incredibly colorful:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/513415016_c4f547c27c.jpg

[OhioGuy]

^^^ Oh how amazing it would be to see it completely restored.

[the urban politician]

^ Couldn't agree more. Jaw-dropping...

[honte]

^ What the photo doesn't show is the scale of that space... it must be around 50 feet tall. (It's been a long while since I've been inside, but that's how I remember it at least.)

The building is also more than just a theatre proper and a lobby. There are several small chambers there, equally lavish... these were separate club rooms for men and women to go about their business, smoking rooms, etc. It's an entire experience.

If Jam can pull this off, they will be architectural heroes who accomplish something that has eluded us for decades. They could be the Garret Kellehers of Chicago's cultural scene.

[the urban politician]

^ What the photo doesn't show is the scale of that space... it must be around 50 feet tall. (It's been a long while since I've been inside, but that's how I remember it at least.)

The building is also more than just a theatre proper and a lobby. There are several small chambers there, equally lavish... these were separate club rooms for men and women to go about their business, smoking rooms, etc. It's an entire experience.

If Jam can pull this off, they will be architectural heroes who accomplish something that has eluded us for decades. They could be the Garret Kellehers of Chicago's cultural scene.

^ Honte, speaking of restoring historic theatres, do you have any info, thoughts to share about this particular restoration:

Going for the gold (http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=49&SubSectionID=142&ArticleID=5502&TM=84012.89)
Green jazz club takes shape in Rogers Park

By LORRAINE SWANSON
Editor
When Andy McGhee, son, Devin, and partner Bill Kerpan first entertained the idea of converting a 1912 vaudeville and silent movie house into a music venue and 'gastro' pub in the heart of Rogers Park, they never thought of going green

[honte]

^ I don't know many specifics about it, other than what's in the article. I think the Green aspects of what they are doing are fantastic, of course.

I did speak to some people who were upset about perceived gentrification in Rogers Park. I also talked to some people who were upset that the interiors of the building were gutted for this rehab. However, I don't know what state those interiors were in nor do I know how important they were. Sorry.

The facade seems to look good in the render, although if you look closely at the historic photo on their web site, you can see that they couldn't resist dolling it up somewhat at the ground floor. The original storefronts and recessed entry were much more elegant than the new ones (but the storefronts in the photo do appear to have been a Deco / Moderne renovation themselves). I wish they had restored that canopy too - it was pretty elegant.

Something is better than nothing - much better, actually. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a historic facade uncovered by crews doing work... then to see them say, "Wow, that's kind of nice," shrug, and continue to rip that off too.

With the limited amount of knowledge I have so far, I'd give the owners an A+ and their architect a B- in the historic restoration department.

[cbotnyse]

The demographic inversion of the American city

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=264510ca-2170-49cd-bad5-a0be122ac1a9&p=1

great read.

[the urban politician]

To highlight Honte's points, here are original theatre and a rendering of the renovation:

http://themorse.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=448&g2_serialNumber=3

http://themorse.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=640&g2_serialNumber=3

I agree that the canopy's a loss, but I'm actually kind of fond of it being replaced with a marquee, something the original theatre did not appear to have

[emathias]

The parking lot behind the Uptown appears too small to site a parking structure on, unless you buy up some of the houses directly north and raze them for more usable land.
...

It's really not much smaller than the garages at the corners of Lake and Clark, or Lake and Dearborn, or Monroe and Wells, or Wells and Randolph, or Wells and Lake. A little smaller than some of those places, but not all of them, and certainly no smaller than the podium garages under many of the newer small midrises around River North. And if you really had to, getting at least the first three houses there probably wouldn't come at too high a price. It's a good spot for parking because, being next to a cemetary, there is not really any chance of there being new destinations developed very near there.

[k1052]

It's really not much smaller than the garages at the corners of Lake and Clark, or Lake and Dearborn, or Monroe and Wells, or Wells and Randolph, or Wells and Lake. A little smaller than some of those places, but not all of them, and certainly no smaller than the podium garages under many of the newer small midrises around River North. And if you really had to, getting at least the first three houses there probably wouldn't come at too high a price. It's a good spot for parking because, being next to a cemetary, there is not really any chance of there being new destinations developed very near there.

That plot of land appears a good deal smaller than those loop garages, but it's hard to tell without accurate measurements.

[EarlyBuyer]

Photo's taken by EarlyBuyer 8/2/08


http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2993/dsc0214fb2.jpg


http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/5116/dsc0211ly4.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

I did speak to some people who were upset about perceived gentrification in Rogers Park.

Side note, but I've heard this a fair amount too in the context of this theater, various condo conversions/construction, and restaurant openings, and it really tees me off. It wasn't very long ago that Rogers Park was one of the nicest and highest income areas in the city - until the 1980s really. This is verifiable through census data or any variety of first hand accounts. Rogers Park and Edgewater Beach were "hot" communities seeing lots of investment as of the 1960s.

[Abner]

The Regenstein library expansion is also now in site prep, I think.

[i_am_hydrogen]

^Renderings of that project, in case some forgot:
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/549/080512libraryjahn1printrn4.jpg
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/6796/080512libraryjahn2printmf3.jpg
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/6606/080512libraryjahn3printpq7.jpg
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/5203/080512libraryjahn4printol3.jpg
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/7615/080512libraryjahn5printeg3.jpg
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/562/080512libraryjahn6printti6.jpg

[the urban politician]

It's hard to tell by the renderings, but will one be able to enter the library through the Regenstein expansion?

[BWChicago]

^ I don't know many specifics about it, other than what's in the article. I think the Green aspects of what they are doing are fantastic, of course.

I did speak to some people who were upset about perceived gentrification in Rogers Park. I also talked to some people who were upset that the interiors of the building were gutted for this rehab. However, I don't know what state those interiors were in nor do I know how important they were. Sorry.

The facade seems to look good in the render, although if you look closely at the historic photo on their web site, you can see that they couldn't resist dolling it up somewhat at the ground floor. The original storefronts and recessed entry were much more elegant than the new ones (but the storefronts in the photo do appear to have been a Deco / Moderne renovation themselves). I wish they had restored that canopy too - it was pretty elegant.

Something is better than nothing - much better, actually. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a historic facade uncovered by crews doing work... then to see them say, "Wow, that's kind of nice," shrug, and continue to rip that off too.

With the limited amount of knowledge I have so far, I'd give the owners an A+ and their architect a B- in the historic restoration department.

Here are photos just before the renovation:
http://www.mekong.net/random/photo272.htm

I was in there, too, just before demolition began; Andy was kind enough to show me around. The plaster was massively water damaged and the roof was really bad; in fact for the renovation, the roof was entirely removed. The plasterwork could have been recast and reinstalled, but it was all just stock plaster from a catalog (this was a very standard nickelodeon; in fact, the terra cotta is identical to the Village North; Grossman & Proskauer seemed to have a few plans that they just regurgitated. There is an extremely similar theater off the 52nd Green Line stop, and the Lakeshore, Bertha [Lincoln Square], and Village North theaters are essentially variations on the same design) in the first place, and as a jazz club, it will be pretty dark inside; it made more sense just to start from scratch. There were some heavily water-damaged murals from a 30s redecoration, and Andy was trying to find a reuse for those.

The original lobby and storefronts were tiny, and there is also the issue of vertical circulation, so that is why things were reconfigured like that. The original ground floor facade had been obliterated, as well. The original marquee was also nice, but standard and plain; the new Marquee will make it visible from the Red Line, since Morse isn't really a street that gets a lot of just-passing-through traffic. I think the designers have done a great job; it's remarkable that someone had the vision and the tenacity to make this happen here.

[wrabbit]

My dad played football for Hyde Park High right about where the Regenstein annex is going. This is, I believe, above the old Manhattan Project?

[honte]

^ And below it! Maybe this underground library thing is a secret mission by the University to do environmental remediation without anyone catching on? ;)

(I can't remember the specifics of the nuclear reaction... I think the sculpture now is where the squash courts once were, so this is not exactly in the same place.)

BW, thanks for your reply - always insightful.

I'm still not crazy about that marquee, and while the ground floor circulation / code issues obviously needed to be addressed, I think their solution leaves something to be desired. Still, I agree 100% that it's a gutsy and visionary project and I am glad it's happening.

___

Edit: According to my scholarly sources (Wikipedia) it was a racquets court, not squash. I didn't know what "racquets" was, so I again consulted Wikipedia, and now I am caught in an endless loop of self-doubt.

Random Chicago architecture and design trivia question: Does anyone know who designed the base and site of the Henry Moore sculpture? It's not hard to guess.

[wrabbit]

Circular, concrete paver w/radiating spokes (I just got the visual pun - radiation!) - Goldberg?

[wrabbit]

Regenstein puts me in mind of the USA pavilion at Expo '70 (Osaka) (pic courtesy Columbia University):

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/f60666cf.gif

This was an inflated structure - not really that similar to the Regenstein, but there are similarities in form & footprint.

-----

I have one very small issue with this and other buildings that rely on complicated mechanical systems in order to function for their intended purposes (in the case of the Regenstein, to store & retrieve the material) - they more or less stop functioning when the power goes out.

[honte]

Good guess Wrabbit, but nope.

[VivaLFuego]

Good guess Wrabbit, but nope.

Saarinen? Or someone slightly less prominent?

[honte]

^ That's a very good guess, because Saarinen's involvement with the U of C was much more widespread than most people realize. However, no.

I would put the designer nearly on par with Saarinen.

[Via Chicago]

If Jam can pull this off, they will be architectural heroes who accomplish something that has eluded us for decades. They could be the Garret Kellehers of Chicago's cultural scene.

Yea, but they also own the Riviera, and I'm not even sure they've put a fresh coat of paint on that thing

[Loopy]

Random Chicago architecture and design trivia question: Does anyone know who designed the base and site of the Henry Moore sculpture? It's not hard to guess.

Walter Netsch, of course. :)

[honte]

^ I had a feeling you would be the one to get it. :tup:

Ironically (sadly), with the exception of the Inland Steel building, the little plaza that Netsch did there is his only landmark-designated work in Illinois. I have a feeling the Landmarks Commission probably isn't aware of his involvement at the site.

(I say "designated" and not "protected" because the landmarking is a site designation, not a building designation - which means they might allow the site monument to be altered so long as nothing is built there. Let's hope it never comes to that.)

[Abner]

I have one very small issue with this and other buildings that rely on complicated mechanical systems in order to function for their intended purposes (in the case of the Regenstein, to store & retrieve the material) - they more or less stop functioning when the power goes out.

Well, the whole place is underground anyway, so I'm guessing that using it during a power outage was never a priority. I think this high-tech, high-density storage method is the only way the University can guarantee that it will have its entire collection on campus for the foreseeable future. I sure hope the fancy glass works as planned, though. I could see it being a really unpleasant study area if it doesn't.

TUP, the only entrance to the addition will be through the Regenstein so that they won't have to have another set of security equipment and personnel. There's a lot of information about the building here:
http://mansueto.lib.uchicago.edu/

[Chicagoguy]

Just curious as to some updates on some of the smaller projects going in in Chicago. Does anyone know of anymore news about what is going to happen with that theater on Oak Street? Last I heard they were going to make it retail and possible have some condos above?

Also is there any new updates on the new Barneys building? And when might retail open at the base of the Elysian? I know the retail usually opens before the buidling is complete...just curious on there smallers projects going on!

[VivaLFuego]

Just curious as to some updates on some of the smaller projects going in in Chicago. Does anyone know of anymore news about what is going to happen with that theater on Oak Street? Last I heard they were going to make it retail and possible have some condos above?

Also is there any new updates on the new Barneys building? And when might retail open at the base of the Elysian? I know the retail usually opens before the buidling is complete...just curious on there smallers projects going on!

The Esquire Theater on Oak will be demolished and replaced with 3-story retail structures, gifting Chicago the double-whammy of demolishing a structure by a noteworthy architect and replacing it with a building that is half the density (and half the tax revenue) allowable under the site's zoning. All hail Reilly, King of Pander :tup:

[Chicagoguy]

The Esquire Theater on Oak will be demolished and replaced with 3-story retail structures, gifting Chicago the double-whammy of demolishing a structure by a noteworthy architect and replacing it with a building that is half the density (and half the tax revenue) allowable under the site's zoning. All hail Reilly, King of Pander :tup:

Thanks for the update. I know originally they planned for a 10 story, 100 room, 5 star hotel to go there. But the neighborhood strongly was against it.

[emathias]

Thanks for the update. I know originally they planned for a 10 story, 100 room, 5 star hotel to go there. But the neighborhood strongly was against it.

Constituents (of whom I am one) who write him about the property get a form letter listing reasons he was against the hotel.

Most of the reasons are dumb - like that "good design" calls for the tallest buildings on a block to be on the corners (maybe true, but hardly a big enough reason to quash a hotel on that street).

There was one reasonable reason, though, and that was that the alley behind was already overcrowded by existing businesses and the hotel on the Bellevue side of the block. On an average block, you might offer the owner the option of something else or adding an alley entrance, but I don't think it would have been any better for the street to add an alley cut in the middle of the block there.

I don't know if the alley issue was really all that big, or if there could have been some other remedy for the alley issue, but it was the one issue that struck me as potentially a valid reason to prevent a hotel on that particular block.

[ardecila]

Is a curb-cut really that big of a tradeoff for the additional density that this could bring?

[VivaLFuego]

I too got that letter, as well as another incomprehensible letter about saving the Village Theater by somehow equating it and grouping it with the adjacent Germania Club building.


Most of the reasons are dumb - like that "good design" calls for the tallest buildings on a block to be on the corners (maybe true, but hardly a big enough reason to quash a hotel on that street).

Except that it's not true, nor is it contextual in Chicago, nor is it even a coherent argument in the context of that particular block with a 20-story apartment building mid block.


There was one reasonable reason, though, and that was that the alley behind was already overcrowded by existing businesses and the hotel on the Bellevue side of the block. On an average block, you might offer the owner the option of something else or adding an alley entrance, but I don't think it would have been any better for the street to add an alley cut in the middle of the block there.


Or, you could just remove 5 metered parking spaces from the north side of the street and have a 15 minute standing zone and taxi stand to serve the hotel. Deliveries/services would still occur from the rear alley. For the few stubborn hotel patrons who insist on bringing their car, the hotel can contract with a nearby garage to provide commensurately-priced valet service.

I just blew your mind.

[Mr Downtown]

I think this high-tech, high-density storage method is the only way the University can guarantee that it will have its entire collection on campus for the foreseeable future.

Because they were shortsighted 10 years ago when they built the Palevsky residential complex. The original Netsch building was designed for expansion.

I'm all for open collections, but I seem to be the only person who thinks it's a spectacularly bad idea to put books below the water table.

[Abner]

Because they were shortsighted 10 years ago when they built the Palevsky residential complex. The original Netsch building was designed for expansion.

I'm all for open collections, but I seem to be the only person who thinks it's a spectacularly bad idea to put books below the water table.

Nobody likes Palevsky and they put it in the wrong place, but it would have been pretty hard for the administration to make a case for building the addition as originally designed. Aside from aesthetic concerns (a popular sentiment is that the Reg is very nice, but one is really enough), storage technology has come a long way since Netsch's design. The expansion will actually have the same storage capacity as the entire Regenstein at a fraction of the size and a lower long-run cost than a more conventional building.

Underground storage and an automated storage and retrieval system make it easier to keep the special collections and other fragile materials at a constant cool temperature and proper humidity. I'm certainly not qualified to judge their preparation for water damage, but this is what the FAQ says:

" Q: How is the underground collection storage space being protected from water damage?

A: Numerous protective measures will be implemented:

* All pumps will be backed up by spares.
* The perimeter foundation wall system will be a double layer system providing two layers of protection against ground water infiltration.
* The first layer, the outer slurry wall, will have a minimal number of joints subject to seepage.
* The second layer, constructed of precast concrete panels, provides a fully sealed vapor barrier.
* Two sets of triple pumps on the emergency generator will discharge any seepage into the storm water system."

I'm more worried about the above-ground section than below. I think it's shortsighted to make such low-intensity (above ground) use of one of the last open sites at the center of campus, and I wonder if it has something to do with the administration's intent to concentrate on expanding south of the Midway.

[emathias]

...
I just blew your mind.

WTF was that for? Alleys only have so much capacity, and that alley is more cramped than some. I'm not saying it's an insurmountable problem, but compared to the other issues in the letter it's the one issue that could at least have some basis in reality and probably generated the most real community resistance. A curb cut could help the hotel guests, but wouldn't do anything to address concerns by residents that they were already being blocked into the alley by delivery trucks. Are you really so arrogant you think your "solution" hadn't occurred to me or anyone else for that matter? Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't, but it does jack to account for the questions raised about the actual use level of the alley. Just because the rest of Reilly's comments are absurd doesn't mean that we can assue there isn't a real alley issue.

[VivaLFuego]

WTF was that for? Alleys only have so much capacity, and that alley is more cramped than some. I'm not saying it's an insurmountable problem, but compared to the other issues in the letter it's the one issue that could at least have some basis in reality and probably generated the most real community resistance. A curb cut could help the hotel guests, but wouldn't do anything to address concerns by residents that they were already being blocked into the alley by delivery trucks. Are you really so arrogant you think your "solution" hadn't occurred to me or anyone else for that matter? Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't, but it does jack to account for the questions raised about the actual use level of the alley. Just because the rest of Reilly's comments are absurd doesn't mean that we can assue there isn't a real alley issue.

If this were the busiest, non-functioning gridlocked alley in the city we're talking about, maybe I'd care. It's a red herring argument. And I get facetious when Reilly gets credit for any level of non-hackery; don't take it too personally. There are numerous counterexamples with nearly exactly the traffic/loading configuration I described, and you don't hear residents beating down the hatches to get the hotels demolished. It's a tight alley at the entrance points, definitely only room for one vehicle, but there are plenty of ways to accommodate the neighbors (e.g. a delivery schedule, a very wide loading dock behind/underneath the highrise structure for vehicles to get out of the alley ROW, etc.). Listening to the Gold Coast NIMBYs, one wonders how hotels possibly function, and how their neighbors survive, in old European city centers.

Do you think Reilly even considered the option? I don't; this was a nonstarter from the beginning for its supposed "density," regardless of any numerical proof to the contrary of the false NIMBY claims.

Some have said "at least Reilly seems to have an eye for preservation." This travesty of a development should prove that notion depressingly false. He has an eye for pandering. If he opposed the redevelopment on the ground of architectural significance, and sought for the existing structure to be substantially reused for retail, I wouldn't be complaining because at least there would be something of a coherent and defensible rhyme/reason for his decisions.

But... there's not. Further, if "the rest" of his comments are undeniably "absurd," then even the few that seem plausible on the surface must also be preliminarily treated as suspect. If this was all on the level, then at worst some of his reasons could be debatable with room for honest disagreement (e.g. whether or not the Esquire is historically significant, the size and configuration of required loading areas, etc.), rather than being patently false.

Anyway, I'm done discussing it. Sorry you were offended...

[the urban politician]

8/6/2008 10:00:00 PM
Developer sees green building with TIF (http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=5602&TM=37053.69)
But West Haven project faces hurdles

By Micah Maidenberg
Editor

A developer active in West Haven residential development is planning to apply for $3.5 million in monies from the Central West tax increment financing district to offset costs associated with the seven-story building he would like to construct at Damen and Madison.

John Luce would use the monies to purchase parking lots needed to complete the parcel for the building, to add green features to it and create a jobs program for neighborhood residents.

The building, as Luce described it at recent meeting of the Homeowners of Westtown, would be seven stories tall, and offer office space (since the residential market is down), retail and possibly a sports bar or restaurant. It would replace a brick structure at 2000 W. Madison that currently houses a Chinese restaurant and a liquor store called Main Street Wine and Spirits.

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=5595&TM=42011.53

ComEd begins demolition of substationPreservationists say historic buildings should be reused

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER
Editor


At the turn of the 20th Century electricity was still a luxury, reserved for the wealthiest Chicagoans-most still relied on candles or gaslight to illuminate their homes when darkness fell.

A smorgasbord of fly-by-night electric companies wired light to the homes of those living within a half-mile of steam-powered engines that were often set up in a neighbor's barn or backyard. Safety standards governing the power businesses were non-existent, and house fires and accidental electrocution were not uncommon.

Between 1900 and 1930, Commonwealth Edison began putting the small producers out of business by building one of the first modern power grids in the country. One of the first substation buildings that ushered in the modern era of electricity in Chicago was constructed at 1510 W. Division St. in Wicker Park.

After more than a century of operation, the substation building, designed by the famed architecture firm Shepley, Rutan and Coolidge-renowned for their work on the Chicago Art Institute and Chicago Cultural Center-will be torn down later this month....


...Meanwhile, construction crews have begun preliminary work on demolishing the building.

http://www.chicagojournal.com/SiteImages/Article/5595a.jpg
Substations built at the turn of the century often featured outstanding architecture and large electric signs prompting consumers to switch from smaller producers to Commonwealth Edison. Courtesy of SCOTT RAPPE

http://www.chicagojournal.com/SiteImages/Article/5595b.jpg
The historic substation at 1510 W. Division brought cheap, safe electricity to Wicker Park beginning in 1901. The building will be demolished in the coming weeks. Courtesy of Benjamin Leeck

[Patel]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-thu-notebook-uofi-medical-08aug07,0,6166418.story


University of Chicago Medical Center preps for addition
Teaching hospital amasses funds for new pavilion

INSIDE HEALTH CARE BY BRUCE JAPSEN
August 7, 2008

The University of Chicago Medical Center, preparing to build a $700 million hospital pavilion, has amassed ample cash to pay for the project, according to a financial analysis of the South Side teaching hospital.

...

[Patel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/realestate/commercial/06lasalle.html?ref=business


August 6, 2008
Renovation Brings New Vigor to Chicago’s LaSalle Street
By ROBERT SHAROFF


CHICAGO — For most of the last century, a seven-block stretch of LaSalle Street, in the central business district known as the Loop, has served as the heart of this city’s financial community.

The north end of the street is dominated by City Hall and the flying-saucer-like James R. Thompson Center; the south features the headquarters of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and the Chicago Board of Trade.

“LaSalle is Chicago’s Wall Street,” said Tim Samuelson, the city’s cultural historian. “It’s the one street downtown where tall, imposingly designed buildings create the kind of canyon effect you find in New York and other cities.”

...





http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/06/business/06lasalle-inline2-190.jpg
William ZBaren for The New York Times
A former bank building, above, is being converted to office and retail space with a 610-room J. W. Marriott Hotel.

[Taft]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but this actually sounds like a good development. Less parking in the immediate vicinity, more retail, etc. Don't know why neighbors would oppose this except for blatant NIMBY-ism. Which is ironic considering the live next to freakin' Wrigley field...

Taft



Battle Ahead in Wrigleyville?

(Crain’s) — The planned 400-space parking garage next to Wrigley Field appears to be have been scuttled, a move likely to cause friction between Tribune Co. CEO Sam Zell and the residents of Wrigleyville.

...

Full Story (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30504)

[i_am_hydrogen]

Judge clears way for O'Hare-area demolition

By Art Barnum and Gerry Smith | Chicago Tribune reporters
1:44 PM CDT, August 7, 2008

A DuPage County judge Thursday gave the City of Chicago permission to begin demolition of more than 500 properties in Bensenville that it has purchased to make way for the O'Hare runway expansion.

Before the judge ruled, Bensenville attorney Joseph Karaganis said he expected the village to go to court to try to stay the decision until it could be appealed.

In the past, Chicago officials said they would begin seeking bids on the demolition project as soon as they got the green light.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ohare-demolition-web-aug08,0,5503091.story

[honte]

“LaSalle is Chicago’s Wall Street,” said Tim Samuelson, the city’s cultural historian. “It’s the one street downtown where tall, imposingly designed buildings create the kind of canyon effect you find in New York and other cities.”


What the hell is he talking about? You'd think the "city's cultural historian" would be a little moe accurate and a little more representative of what Chicago has. What other cities have more / better canyons? Hong Kong? :yuck:

[denizen467]

^ There is an important theme I'd like to raise in response. Although this Tim Samuelson guy may have said something that clearly undersells Chicago or was somewhat incorrect, something else also is likely.

The New York Times has a chronic bias against Chicago and regularly takes advantage of opportunities to belittle the city. Sometimes it does this by focusing on negatives - either blowing them out of proportion or just failing to present them in context. I know I've seen several examples just in the last year, on issues like crime, the weather, public housing, the Cubs' championship drought, etc. (I could dig these out if I really wanted to make a list).

Other times, it begrudgingly prints positives, but either minimizes them or drowns them out with other negatives. The above article has some examples of this. Look at the last sentence of the article: "Still, downtown Chicago is not so massive geographically that firms won't go where the bargains are." So the very last thought that NYT leaves readers with is a gratuitous belittlement - although it's not 100% inaccurate, if compared with Manhattan, they did go out of their way to write this sentence and, in addition, to have it as the final thought of the article. And to add punch to it, it's a quote of an actual person involved, which has more emphasis than the NYT business reporter just writing the same statement himself.

Therefore, my thought about Tim Samuelson's statement is that he may well have said very many things about LaSalle Street in his interview with NYT, but that one was the one that NYT decided to print.

I know it may look like I'm overanalyzing this one article, but if you pay attention over a year, two years, five years, the general behavior becomes clear. One blatant recent example was last year when CME and CBOT agreed to merge. For the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and other national and international newspapers, this was massive front page news. But it was a minor blip for the NYT - obviously New Yorkers were jealously guarding their image in the world as its unchallenged financial capital, when in fact Chicago is destroying NY as far as derivatives go.

Incidentally, the opposite is even more true. When there is bad news that befalls NYC, the NYT is expert at downplaying it. Remember all the construction crane collapses in NYC over the past several months? These were summarized as really being the fault of one or two bribe-taking crane inspectors. If it were Chicago, it'd be an entire article on how Chicago is a corrupt and incompetent city. (The local papers like NY Daily News or Newsday wouldn't be as bad, because they're not on the national stage.)

Or NYT portrays failures as uncontrollable forces combining to defeat a valiant effort. When NYC failed in its 2012 Olympics bid, it wasn't that NYC got beaten by superior cities - instead, it was that a long-fought, intractable political and budgetary impasse prevented the West Side stadium getting committed in time. If the same happened in Chicago, it'd be "That fumbling, corrupt city government just couldn't get its act together," or "Those midwesterners just couldn't get those el trains running on time." Same facts, different spin.

This is not a NY-versus-Chicago diatribe; it's about how Chicago gets portrayed in the nation's most prominent print media outlet, which happens to be in that city. I'll stop here since this might not be the best forum page to discuss this.

[DCCliff]

:previous:
Yes, we should stop. But not before I say to both previous posters that I astonished that they picked up on exactly the same pattern and inuendo that I did - - and indeed have experienced in the NYT for as long as memory serves. So now I'm sure it's not just me or a misinterpretation. Three's a crowd!

[wrabbit]

What the hell is he talking about? You'd think the "city's cultural historian" would be a little moe accurate and a little more representative of what Chicago has. What other cities have more / better canyons? Hong Kong? :yuck:

LOL - that got stuck in my craw, too.

---

You wanna see some regional chauvinism, take a look at the NYC press coverage of Tracy Letts, Steppenwolf & "August: Osage County" - wow, those rubes in Chicago are doing more than touring productions of Wicked. Happens about once or twice a year. Same with the restaurant scene. But I don't think that this is a conscious antipathy, just the usual big-city insularity.

[the urban politician]

^ It's provincialism, plain & simple. New Yorkers are far from immune to it. I see it every day.

And that comment about LaSalle St being the "only" canyon in Chicago caught my attention as well. That statement is so far beyond stupid that it borders on simian.

[Patel]

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/an_expanding_obama_hq_in_chica.html

An expanding Obama HQ in Chicago

Posted August 8, 2008 6:10 AM

by John McCormick

With the existing 33,000 square feet on the 11th floor of a Chicago office building starting to feel like a crowded sweatshop, the campaign headquarters for Sen. Barack Obama is expanding.

On Thursday, the Democratic presidential campaign started moving into an additional 12,000 square feet of space in the same building at 233 N. Michigan Ave., according to campaign spokeswoman Moira Mack. The new space will be used for various activities, including an expanded, seven-day-a-week call center for volunteers.

Mack would not say how many employees are now in Chicago, but a visit to the headquarters earlier this week showed hundreds of people crowded elbow-to-elbow at virtually every available spot of desk space.

[Mr Downtown]

I believe what got lost in Tim's quote was the idea that LaSalle is Chicago's only "box canyon"--with a closed vista at one end. It's also the city's only street where no buildings have setbacks. Of course, this couldn't possibly be a case of an idea being expressed inelegantly or recorded incompletely. It must have been done to comply with that yellowing 1966 memo from Arthur Ochs Sulzberger saying "belittle Chicago at every opportunity."

[Chicago3rd]

What the hell is he talking about? You'd think the "city's cultural historian" would be a little moe accurate and a little more representative of what Chicago has. What other cities have more / better canyons? Hong Kong? :yuck:

And I thought we had more than one street canyon street downtown with imposing buildings on each side like Dearborn and Randolph.....?

“It’s the one street downtown where tall, imposingly designed buildings create the kind of canyon effect you find in New York and other cities.”

[killaviews]

I wouldn't deny that the NYTimes occasionally takes a shot at Chicago, but this article is certainly not one of them. People are way overanalyzing. It was a good article. It is in the Commercial real estate section - not art and design. If I was an investor or developer reading this article I'm walking away with the impression that LaSalle and Chicago are safe bets.

Even with the occasional second-city jab, The NYTimes continues to write better articles about Chicago then the Tribune.

[honte]

I believe what got lost in Tim's quote was the idea that LaSalle is Chicago's only "box canyon"--with a closed vista at one end. Of course, this couldn't possibly be a case of an idea being expressed inelegantly or recorded incompletely. It must have been done to comply with that 1966 memo from Arthur Ochs Sulzberger saying "belittle Chicago at every opportunity."

Because every street in New York and other cities is a "box canyon," right? I doubt it. Tim's a great guy, but I think he was probably trying to be polite and to give New York and the New York Times a kind of compliment. In doing so, he gave the Times more ammunition to make Chicago look like the capital of "flyover country."

(By the way, I agree with the earlier posts that the major press has done a number on Chicago by intentionally misrepresenting it - I've been paying attention to that for years. It might stupid, but these petty issues compound to have very real implications on the city's wellbeing. It's not just the Times, but national TV media, screenwriters, etc.)

[Alliance]

Meh, I think it is a jab. But its not surprising...or new, and not worth a tizzy. But, Chicagoan's need to stop giving the NYT ammo.

I can't wait for the coverage of our bid :rolleyes:

[AdrianXSands]

I can't wait for the coverage of our bid :rolleyes:

dude, we're not gonna get the olympics, so i don't know what you're getting at there...

[Alliance]

dude, we're not gonna get the olympics, so i don't know what you're getting at there...

BID does not equal GAMES, so i don't know what you're getting at there...

[Taft]

I believe what got lost in Tim's quote was the idea that LaSalle is Chicago's only "box canyon"--with a closed vista at one end. It's also the city's only street where no buildings have setbacks. Of course, this couldn't possibly be a case of an idea being expressed inelegantly or recorded incompletely. It must have been done to comply with that yellowing 1966 memo from Arthur Ochs Sulzberger saying "belittle Chicago at every opportunity."

Except it just isn't true that this is the city's only "box canyon." For that matter, it isn't the CBD's only box canyon.

How about Wabash which Trump now dominates from both north and south? Or Washington, which has the Gehry designed bandshell on the East end of the loop and the metra tracks with an attractive clock facade attached on the West end? Or Dearborn, which has the Dearborn Station building at it's south end? Or Franklin, which has the Merchandise mart at its North end?

Then you go to the rest of the city, and while there are certainly less highrises, there are a lot of smaller box canyons due to our many "spoke" streets.

It is just an uninformed statement.

Taft

[wrabbit]

^ Well, I've been grabbing bits & pieces of the opening ceremonies online before NBC gets them taken down - I feel kinda sorry for London, cuz this is going to be one tough act to follow. Beijing is a game changer. Not sure yet what this will mean for Chicago's bid.

[wrabbit]

From Kamin's Skyline blog:


Bridging the problems at Buckingham Fountain and Lake Shore Drive
By Blair Kamin
8 August 2008

.....Ever alert for an opportunity to improve Grant Park, the resourceful O’Neill has been quietly talking with the British Consulate General in Chicago about marking the anniversary in a big way.

His idea is to build on the example of the BP Bridge: First, find a British company to sponsor a bridge or underpass between Buckingham Fountain and Queen’s Landing. Then, get a Pritzker Prize-winning architect (say, London’s Richard Rogers) to design it. The upcoming $25 million renovation of the fountain, due to begin after Labor Day, gives the proposal added relevance.....

Full article at: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2008/08/bridging-the-pr.html#more

[emathias]

I wouldn't deny that the NYTimes occasionally takes a shot at Chicago, but this article is certainly not one of them. People are way overanalyzing. It was a good article. It is in the Commercial real estate section - not art and design. If I was an investor or developer reading this article I'm walking away with the impression that LaSalle and Chicago are safe bets.

Even with the occasional second-city jab, The NYTimes continues to write better articles about Chicago then the Tribune.

I agree - this article was largely positive and the "negatives" people have pointed out are not even slights - mild factual mistakes is about as far as they go and I'm not even sure that's really the case.

Overall it's a positive article.

[jjk1103]

I wouldn't deny that the NYTimes occasionally takes a shot at Chicago, but this article is certainly not one of them. People are way overanalyzing. It was a good article. It is in the Commercial real estate section - not art and design. If I was an investor or developer reading this article I'm walking away with the impression that LaSalle and Chicago are safe bets.

Even with the occasional second-city jab, The NYTimes continues to write better articles about Chicago then the Tribune.

....I totally agree !!!! ........the Chicago Tribune is the WORST at trashing Chicago.......the NYT can't even begin to compare with the way the Tribune tears this city down !!! .....day after day after day

[Nowhereman1280]

Except it just isn't true that this is the city's only "box canyon." For that matter, it isn't the CBD's only box canyon.

Yeah, I was gonna say, the Construction of Trump Tower alone added 3 such "box canyons" all of which thrash anything found in NY when it comes to sheer impressiveness. West along the river towards Trump and both directions along Wabash are all more impressive than the best "Box Canyons" of New York considering TT is soon to be taller than any building in all of New York. I believe the tallest terminal building in NY is the Metlife/PanAm or whatever it currently is, building, which is a couple hundred feet shorter than Trump not even including the spire...

Or how about the Box Canyon down North Michigan Av. which is terminated by a heap of Mies buildings?

There are even Canyons like that as far north and Lincoln Park where Clark/Broadway is terminated by the Hancock Building to the South.

And another one that blows anything in NY out of the water, How about the double box canyon called Quincy Street which is terminated by the Sears on one end and terminated by one of the Mies Federal buildings and post office on the other and is anchored in the middle by the Rookery, just a wee bit better than anything in New York... The Corner of Quincy and Lasalle is a triple box with terminal ends in three directions and several outstanding architectural landmarks as well as an insane view of the tallest building in the country...

[honte]

^ Sounds like we have a new "cultural historian" on our hands... ;)

[Mr Downtown]

This endless critical parsing of the words used rather than the sentiment expressed reminds me--in an unpleasant way--of the tactics used by right-wing talk show hosts like Hannity.

Does anyone here dispute that LaSalle at, say, Adams has a completely different feel from any other street in Chicago? A unique character that is more like the Wall Street area of Manhattan than like any other place in Chicago? What word other than "canyon" would you use to describe that?

[wrabbit]

^ LaSalle also narrows at several points as it approaches the CBOT, which enhances the canyon effect.

[honte]

^ Mr. Downtown, you're changing the scenario to something else entirely. No one disputed his words. We are disputing the implication of how he assembled them and the subcontext of how it was printed. If he had said what you wrote, I think we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?articleId=30394

Plan B for Chicago Tech Park: shops
By: Eddie Baeb August 11, 2008

...The Illinois Medical District Commission later this month is expected to announce it has selected HSA Commercial Real Estate, a Chicago firm best known for its retail work, to develop the 13-acre site at Ogden and Damen avenues, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The plan, which could include as much as 200,000 square feet of retail anchored by a Roundy's grocery store...

Sources familiar with HSA's plan say the developer is likely to build the retail center — probably along Ogden — as well as a large parking garage the commission wants and a medical office building. HSA would have firms that specialize in hotels and student housing build those components, as well as possibly a proton therapy facility for cancer patients. HSA CEO Robert Smietana declines to comment.

According to the request for proposals issued by the district in October, the 2020 Ogden development could have buildings at least 15 stories tall and totaling as much as 1.5 million square feet, which would make it a major hub for the burgeoning area.

[wrabbit]

^ Hmmm - doesn't sound very promising. Aren't they Old Navy-style big boxers?

[Marcu]

That area can use any additional retail it can get

[Taft]

This endless critical parsing of the words used rather than the sentiment expressed reminds me--in an unpleasant way--of the tactics used by right-wing talk show hosts like Hannity.

Does anyone here dispute that LaSalle at, say, Adams has a completely different feel from any other street in Chicago? A unique character that is more like the Wall Street area of Manhattan than like any other place in Chicago? What word other than "canyon" would you use to describe that?

Funny, 'cause I aspire to be the next Bill O'Reilly...

j/k

LaSalle does have a different character than the other "canyons" that Nowhere and I brought up. But does the fact that the other canyons aren't made up of early 1900's architecture and topped off with an art deco gem make the other canyons any less unique and special? I don't think so.

I think that the author equates "box canyon" with "box canyon that looks like NY's box canyons." In Chicago, I do think that is an offense or slight, insofar as it ignores the many, many other fantastic urban canyons that we have.

Overall, I do think the piece was very "pro-Chicago." But it did get some things wrong that only skyscraper/urban junkies in Chicago would notice. Surprise, surprise: we noticed.

Taft

[emathias]

Except it just isn't true that this is the city's only "box canyon." For that matter, it isn't the CBD's only box canyon.

How about Wabash which Trump now dominates from both north and south? Or Washington, which has the Gehry designed bandshell on the East end of the loop and the metra tracks with an attractive clock facade attached on the West end? Or Dearborn, which has the Dearborn Station building at it's south end? Or Franklin, which has the Merchandise mart at its North end?
...

I think some of you are significantly stretching the definition of a "box canyon" in order to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

North Wabash is nice and all, but saying that the Trump forms a "box canyon" for the portion of Wabash south of the River is silly. Visually it's pleasing, but it's hardly a box canyon when you have a significant natural element breaking the two pieces apart. Looking south toward the Trump from North Wabash also is stretching the idea of a box canyon since Wabash isn't really a very well formed canyon in that stretch. You have breaks in the streetwall or low buildsings on every block in that stretch, which isn't really my definition of a canyon. Furthermore, Wabash is never broken through that entire stretch, it merely moves around the Trump. A box canyon should have the termination of a street - or at the very least totally offset alignments.

A bandshell that has a park in between it and the street terminus can't really make a "box canyon," especially when the bandshell is, what, only the equivalent of about 5-6 stories tall? And while the train overpass in the West Loop is visually pleasing, I don't think it really qualifies as a "box canyon" either since Washington continues on under it and, again, it's only the equivalent of about 3 stories tall.

Someone else mentioned Quincy. That's at least closer, but even then Quincy isn't really any more than an oversized alley on any stretch and it's closed off now next to the Fed and is really IS an alley east of there. If we're stretching for alleys to compete with "box canyons" then we start to look like pathetic, desperate little kids running around saying "me too, me too, I have that!"

Chicago isn't a pathetic little kid, and can be secure that it has tremendous architecture and history of its own. We need to stop trying to convince ourselves and the world of how we're like New York and instead be honest about what it is we have to offer - some that is like New York, much that isn't, some that's lesser than other cities, much that's better. But trying to shoe-horn in definitions to awkwardly fit what exists makes us look provincial and childish and, yes, all too worthy of the "Second City" moniker.

Buck up, and be men about these things instead of acting defensive and whiny.

[honte]

I think some of you are significantly stretching the definition of a "box canyon" in order to make a mountain out of a mole hill.


The original quotation said nothing about "box canyon."

I agree with your second-to-last paragraph. The whole point of this conversation is that the people who represent this city need to read that paragraph, take it to heart, and act on it.

[lalucedm]

Tim Samuelson has been an integral part of this city for a long time - back in the 60s and 70s, he was involved with John Vinci and Richard Nickel in their historic campaigns to save the many ancient skyscrapers that were lost to "progress" - so if anyone has an accurate idea of Chicago's urban topography, it's him. So whatever misinterpretation/misrepresentation happened, it was the NYT reporter's fault, methinks.

[Chicago_Forever]

I think some of you are significantly stretching the definition of a "box canyon" in order to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

North Wabash is nice and all, but saying that the Trump forms a "box canyon" for the portion of Wabash south of the River is silly. Visually it's pleasing, but it's hardly a box canyon when you have a significant natural element breaking the two pieces apart. Looking south toward the Trump from North Wabash also is stretching the idea of a box canyon since Wabash isn't really a very well formed canyon in that stretch. You have breaks in the streetwall or low buildsings on every block in that stretch, which isn't really my definition of a canyon. Furthermore, Wabash is never broken through that entire stretch, it merely moves around the Trump. A box canyon should have the termination of a street - or at the very least totally offset alignments.

A bandshell that has a park in between it and the street terminus can't really make a "box canyon," especially when the bandshell is, what, only the equivalent of about 5-6 stories tall? And while the train overpass in the West Loop is visually pleasing, I don't think it really qualifies as a "box canyon" either since Washington continues on under it and, again, it's only the equivalent of about 3 stories tall.

Someone else mentioned Quincy. That's at least closer, but even then Quincy isn't really any more than an oversized alley on any stretch and it's closed off now next to the Fed and is really IS an alley east of there. If we're stretching for alleys to compete with "box canyons" then we start to look like pathetic, desperate little kids running around saying "me too, me too, I have that!"

Chicago isn't a pathetic little kid, and can be secure that it has tremendous architecture and history of its own. We need to stop trying to convince ourselves and the world of how we're like New York and instead be honest about what it is we have to offer - some that is like New York, much that isn't, some that's lesser than other cities, much that's better. But trying to shoe-horn in definitions to awkwardly fit what exists makes us look provincial and childish and, yes, all too worthy of the "Second City" moniker.

Buck up, and be men about these things instead of acting defensive and whiny.


I totally agree with you emathias but I also agree with some of the other posters who recognized these little undercover jabs in the article. I've seen them in other articles as well and I usually just laugh them off because sometimes they're so obviously based on insecurity. New york will always try to down Chicago in order to look good and that only reminds me how great Chicago really is. Anyway, there's no need to sit here trying to prove anything to nobody because no one in their right mind could deny what the true intentions of the article were. The overall article was positive but not without letting you know that Chicago is still not good enough when in fact it is.

[denizen467]

Of course, this couldn't possibly be a case of an idea being expressed inelegantly or recorded incompletely. It must have been done to comply with that yellowing 1966 memo from Arthur Ochs Sulzberger saying "belittle Chicago at every opportunity."

Your wry (LOL, actually, and almost as good as your Keebler-Elves-under-the-Dan-Ryan-next-to-IIT from last month) simplification about some 1966 directive obscures how close to the mark you really may be. Most of the editorial proclivities of the NYT, or of any newspaper for that matter, would be a matter of sporadic and ongoing discussion in editors' meetings, and just become an ingrained and unspoken part of the company culture -- rather than requiring some explicit instruction put onto paper.
The NYT, along with NY landowners and business owners among countless others there, have a vested economic (and political) interest in maintaining NYC as the center of the universe. So, though I readily recognize that Chicago cannot match up to NYC in a thousand different ways (and am happy with what Chicago has as strengths), I also know to call foul when someone's egregiously piling-on.

As far as this article goes, it's not a major example of NYT bias, just a possible example of it. That is why, to make my point, I had to go on to elaborate how many of us have carefully watched and seen a definite pattern over many years (a recent smoking gun of which was the CME-CBOT merger, as I described), to show that the Tim Samuelson article may well be an instance of it.

(Some more, for those interested: I would posit that another line to consider is the O'Donnell quote, where they show how Presidents and COOs in Chicago say things like "There's a lot of [] buildings...". This grammatical flounder grates on the ears and sticks out like a sore thumb in the business section, like it's being spoken in some da-bears-da-bulls accent - and jumps out at you since they put it at the beginning of a paragraph. Basic journalistic courtesy says you edit out embarrassing mistakes when quoting leaders - if the same had been said by someone they actually respected, they easily could have written: There are "a lot of large landmark buildings" on LaSalle, said John O'Donnell...) Ok, I'm done.

[ethereal_reality]

FYI
There is a large article on Adrian Smith in today's New York Times.
It's Dubai heavy but also mentions Chicago several times throughout
the article.

At one point it states.."his new firm occupies a former executive dining club
on the top floor of a 1957 building in Chicago's Loop. The space
bears all the hallmarks of exuberant postwar corporate Modernism,
including walls of dark green marble, aluminum sheathed columns
and gurgling bronze fountains."

In the NYT 'slideshow' (photo 5 of 8) you catch a glimpse of
this space. I'm pretty sure this is the Inland Steel Building.
Is that correct?

[the urban politician]

8/6/2008 10:00:00 PM
Developer sees green building with TIF (http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=5602&TM=37053.69)
But West Haven project faces hurdles

By Micah Maidenberg
Editor

A developer active in West Haven residential development is planning to apply for $3.5 million in monies from the Central West tax increment financing district to offset costs associated with the seven-story building he would like to construct at Damen and Madison.

John Luce would use the monies to purchase parking lots needed to complete the parcel for the building, to add green features to it and create a jobs program for neighborhood residents.

The building, as Luce described it at recent meeting of the Homeowners of Westtown, would be seven stories tall, and offer office space (since the residential market is down), retail and possibly a sports bar or restaurant. It would replace a brick structure at 2000 W. Madison that currently houses a Chinese restaurant and a liquor store called Main Street Wine and Spirits.

^ I apologize for the corny-ness of quoting myself, but I actually think there is an issue brought up in this article that has significant implications into how the city should use tax dollars to revitalize neighborhoods in the future.

When does the city reach the tipping point of pushing for redevelopment of privately owned surface parking lots in up & coming neighborhoods, as it appears that a lot of businesses, etc have a vested interest to preserve surface parking at the expense of further development? In the case above, the cost of acquiring a profitable parking lot near United Center to build an economically productive 7 story building which would benefit the area leads the developer to seek out TIF money. This development would in turn spur other development nearby, ultimately benefitting the neighborhood & the city.

It kind of pits the interest of the city in redeveloping its neighborhoods against the interest of individual businesses (or in this case, a sports franchise)--if we fail to challenge the surface parking land values may remain low to the point of not justifying denser development & thus no economic incentive exists to change the status quo; if we redevelop the surface parking land values will rise pressuring parking operators to also build vertically--hence parking garages & more land availability for other uses.

Do you guys see TIF dollars as an appropriate way to "kick start" this process in certain neighborhoods? Penny for anyone's thoughts..

[wrabbit]

FYI
There is a large article on Adrian Smith in today's New York Times.
It's Dubai heavy but also mentions Chicago several times throughout
the article.....

Thanks for the heads-up on the NYT article. Brief mention of the possible reskin on Sears. Article quotes Smith as saying he expects something taller than Burj Dubai to go up within 5 years. Glosses over the SOM Chicago/NYC power struggle; no mention of Childs. But still interesting, with a slide show. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/arts/design/10bern.html?ref=arts

BTW, Smith/Gill is at 111 W Monroe, that other SOM tower from the late '50's.

[Tom In Chicago]

There is a large article on Adrian Smith in today's New York Times.

At one point it states.."his new firm occupies a former executive dining club
on the top floor of a 1957 building in Chicago's Loop. The space
bears all the hallmarks of exuberant postwar corporate Modernism,
including walls of dark green marble, aluminum sheathed columns
and gurgling bronze fountains."

In the NYT 'slideshow' (photo 5 of 8) you catch a glimpse of
this space. I'm pretty sure this is the Inland Steel Building.
Is that correct?

No. . . Smith Gill are located at 111 West Monroe. . .

. . .

[the urban politician]

E. Garfield Park warehouse proposed as city landmark (http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1107838891.1218416684@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccceadeelgjjkfjcefecelldffhdfif.0&contentOID=537004535&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&blockName=Planning+And+Development%2FI+Want+To&context=dept&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Planning+And+Development&deptMainCategoryOID=)

Designation would protect Lindemann & Hoverson Company Showroom and Warehouse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission on Chicago Landmarks granted preliminary landmark status for a significant multi-story mercantile warehouse, the Lindemann & Hoverson Company Showroom and Warehouse Building, located in East Garfield Park.

The Lindemann & Hoverson Company Showroom and Warehouse Building, constructed in 1924, as a sales showroom and warehouse for Milwaukee-based A. J. Lindemann & H. C. Hoverson Company, which specialized in the manufacture of a wide range of heating devices and kitchen appliances.

Designed by noted Chicago architect Paul Gerhardt, Sr., the building contains a first-floor showroom that displayed the company's product line, while the upper floors provided warehouse storage.

Gerhardt, whose design career spanned over 50 years, was a pioneer in the design of reinforced-concrete industrial buildings, including the Cook County Hospital and a number of monumental Chicago public schools.

Combining typical 1920s-era flat slab, reinforced-concrete with finely-detailed pressed brick and terra-cotta exterior, the handsome six-story structure features an impressive two-story terra cotta base with fluted pilasters, four stacked floors in red pressed brick and a terra-cotta cornice at the top.

The Lindemann & Hoverson Company occupied this location for 17 years until 1941. International Register Company occupied the building until 1958 and then operated as a storage facility for a succession of companies until recent years.

The vote today begins the process of public hearings, owner outreach and further study. A vote by the full City Council is needed for landmark approval.

[aaron38]

It kind of pits the interest of the city in redeveloping its neighborhoods against the interest of individual businesses (or in this case, a sports franchise)--if we fail to challenge the surface parking land values may remain low to the point of not justifying denser development & thus no economic incentive exists to change the status quo

Do you guys see TIF dollars as an appropriate way to "kick start" this process in certain neighborhoods? Penny for anyone's thoughts..

That's what the burbs have done. Palatine's downtown redevelopment was all spured by a TIF redevelopment of a METRA parking lot. Palatine's Metra station used to be surrounded by acres of surface lot. Palatine used TIF to build a parking garage and office/retail complex on one part of the lots (where Durty Nellies is), and then divided the rest of the parking lot up to developers to build condos and rowhomes.
That got Palatine jumping enough that several more condo projects followed as land values rose, and there's another one in pre-sales right now. The last surface lot will fall to the next proposal.


if we redevelop the surface parking land values will rise pressuring parking operators to also build vertically--hence parking garages & more land availability for other uses

In Chicago I hope it would work slightly differently from this. Replacing one lot with high density residential should help to make a walkable neighborhood where the existing businesses aren't dependent on people driving in. That process then snowballs as more lots are developed.
I would use TIF funds as Palatine did, to move the existing businesses into the new first floor retail, freeing up their current low density spots for redevelopment.


On a different topic, what is being built at Addison/Halstead, just west of the police station? It's a very large lot that was being cleared, sign said B-2 zoning, which is big, right?

[Mr Downtown]

what is being built at Addison/Halsted, just west of the police station?

A bigger police station.

[the urban politician]

This was posted elsewhere in regards to 2020 Ogden, a large mixed-use development planned by the IMD at Damen & Ogden:

I agree with MrD in that the transit access is by most measures, at least "decent." Nonetheless there would need to be a sizable parking component. As long as it isn't a bunch of pedestrian-hostile stripmalls and office towers surrounded by seas of parking (*cough the criminal Roosevelt & Ashland suburban schlock cough*), this should be fine. 1.5 million square feet on that parcel suggests significant density.

^ I was curious what you were referring to until I finally did a google streetview of the Roosevelt & Ashland area. AAAGH!! GASP!! Those were my immediate responses. Are you kidding me? Why the hell did they build that and when did that crime against humanity go up?

This must be a State of Illinois thing, because I would be seriously surprised if the city would sign off on such a horror (unless it was built over 5 yrs ago). I am gradually getting the impression that the city of Chicago has simply given up on a hell of a lot of areas. It seems like the city only cares about urban design along a thin strip of urban lakefront land, and developers can do whatever the hell they want elsewhere.

But hello? Don't you want to function like a city? Look at how much the city spends on its bus & rail system only to undermine it with utterly insane and belligerently stupid crapola like that. Sigh, rant over...I'm going to stop google streetviewing areas of Chicago outside of downtown & the north lakefront--too demoralizing.

[honte]

^ Honestly, I don't mind that strip mall much. It was a huge improvement over the massive vacant land there at the time. I know it sounds horrible, but honestly, before that was built, this area just seemed like an inhuman, deserted, bombed-out demilitarized zone between two invisible parties. Add to that the massive clearance from the ABLA project and you had one hell of a development challenge. The area consisted of vacant land for blocks, and a few scattered buildings so run down that even preservationists would just shake their heads. All you could think when you went through here was, "Wow, something must be terribly wrong with this place... let's leave."

The strip mall has increased the "safety factor" for new development considerably. Sometimes moves like this are necessary, if unsavory. Unfortunately, most of the near west side has developed a very insular, suburban atmosphere due to pockets of troubled housing projects scattered throughout. Hoping that it will instantly recover into a bustling, gentrified, ultra-urban and transit-oriented part of the city just isn't realistic.

Personally, I am much more frustrated by the City's allowance of very private and suburban-style housing communities, which truly go against city living and are a major impediment to urbanization. There are many examples of this in this area, and it doesn't seem to be abating. Has anyone checked out the massive new development over around California yet? I haven't done so, but I expect it to be more of the same.

The quality of development in Chicago typically falls to the Aldermen. If they are willing to invest the time and money to campaign for something, then the DPD might listen. Community groups also help (sorry guys) a lot on some issues, depending of course on their priorities. For instance, you will notice a good deal more promising development in Lakeview than Bridgeport.

[Mr Downtown]

I would be seriously surprised if the city would sign off on such a horror

Because the Near West Side doesn't deserve to have a real supermarket? Or shouldn't have one until, 30 years from now, the area has densified so much that Treasure Island will take a 24,000 sf space in the bottom of a residential tower and try to make the economics work? That's known as "making the perfect the enemy of the good." In your field, do you treat the patient as you find him now, or as you hope he would be after three years of
sobriety, healthy eating, and aerobic exercise?

The Roosevelt/Ashland center was built on Medical District land to help the Roosevelt Square redevelopment. They're currently arguing about whether a Costco or one of the city's monstrous new police stations should go on the land south of it. If you want to see what the market actually supports in that area, well, just look at the east side of Ashland through there. Or at Roosevelt Road, with not a single retailer west of the Ryan.

[aaron38]

The area consisted of vacant land for blocks, and a few scattered buildings so run down that even preservationists would just shake their heads....

The strip mall has increased the "safety factor" for new development considerably. Sometimes moves like this are necessary, if unsavory.

So leaving the land empty wasn't an option? Is it impossible to go directly from vacant land to high density urban development? Empty farmland is what makes suburban sprawl so easy, so empty land for the city to "sprawl" into should make development attractive to move from east to west.

It seems counter-intuitive to allow low density to sprawl first before you come back through and redevelop. Like Dearborn Park. If that had been left an empty lot, would south loop highrises not have happened, because you had to get someone living there first, to get the land values up out of the dirt?

[VivaLFuego]

The quality of development in Chicago typically falls to the Aldermen. If they are willing to invest the time and money to campaign for something, then the DPD might listen. Community groups also help (sorry guys) a lot on some issues, depending of course on their priorities. For instance, you will notice a good deal more promising development in Lakeview than Bridgeport.

DPD and Zoning do give advice on almost any proposed development to the aldermen (whether they listen or not is another question), and something at Roosevelt and Ashland, this close to downtown and a major urban employment district (IMD) should have raised some flags about a less awful urban design. Couldn't the supermarket at least have been built flush with Roosevelt?

Roosevelt Road west of Halsted is basically a nonstop disaster of midrise suburban-style offices surrounded by seas of parking. I don't mind streets like Cicero being fundamentally suburban in nature, but I agree with tup about the seriousness of allowing this in land so close to downtown and the "urban" parts of town. The more of this auto-only stuff is allowed close to downtown, the more it amplifies the pressure for the rest of the city to develop in an auto-friendly manner as well. Where's the line? I'm not sure exactly, but I know Roosevelt/Ashland (or Division/Sedgwick for that matter) are on the "urban" side.

Community groups do often help, like the Bucktown group killing the proposed parking garage at 1611 N. Damen, but it's sort of the exception that proves the rule when they do - the professionals at DPD would have weighed in against a parking garage in a pedestrian zone anyway, in that Bucktown example.

And yes, the existence of "development" pressure (e.g. Lakeview v. Bridgeport) does provide the luxury of more discerning design, but I think it's a false choice between "urban" and "strip-mall big box suburban." Especially when the site is so large as at Roosevelt/Ashland, this could have been much more "urban" while still providing ample visible parking with only minimal impact on overall cost. Retailers whining about their parking not being visible enough do not have a valid argument in the context of such an urban site.

[Mr Downtown]

Like Dearborn Park. If that had been left an empty lot, would south loop highrises not have happened, because you had to get someone living there first, to get the land values up out of the dirt?

I think that's a fair reading of history. It's not so much the land values as the perception of a huge chunk of the city as uninhabitable. Townhouses, grocery stores, and schools fertilize the soil.

And Dearborn Park bashers forget that it included two highrises and four midrises. But they sold so slowly compared to the townhouses that a third highrise was cancelled and the site developed as the Garden Homes. When it came to Phase II, Dearborn Park Corporation just let it all go to townhouse developers. Construction had actually begun on a midrise (foundations were put in SEC Clark/Roosevelt) before the developer backed out. Townhouses were built there instead.

[honte]

So leaving the land empty wasn't an option? Is it impossible to go directly from vacant land to high density urban development? Empty farmland is what makes suburban sprawl so easy, so empty land for the city to "sprawl" into should make development attractive to move from east to west.

Sure, it was an option... but not one that anyone the area probably would have liked to see.

Strip malls are built cheaply and tend to have a short lifespan - I'd give this one probably 30 years tops before it needs some kind of work (either renovation or just redevelop it as something better). In a sense, they are "landbanking" this site for future use - just like an owner downtown with a parking lot or a guy in West Town with vacant land, but in the short term it's productive instead of a development-deterring and neighborhood-eroding vacant lot. That's not a whole lot to sacrifice in my opinion.

Besides, what's more urban: an active, occupied strip mall, or tumbleweeds?

As Mr. Downtown said, I believe that small steps are sometimes needed to kickstart things. Seeing life and healthy community activity on that corner now can have a very positive effect on people's perceptions of the area and future developments tomorrow.

[VivaLFuego]

The Roosevelt/Ashland center was built on Medical District land to help the Roosevelt Square redevelopment. They're currently arguing about whether a Costco or one of the city's monstrous new police stations should go on the land south of it. If you want to see what the market actually supports in that area, well, just look at the east side of Ashland through there. Or at Roosevelt Road, with not a single retailer west of the Ryan.

Offhand, I'd posit that the economics of developing a large parcel are much different than devloping a single lot. I'd also suggest that it's possible to provide the neighborhood with a grocery store on MD land using TIF funds without further butchering any hope for a remotely pedestrian-friendly neighborhood sometime in the future.

I think that's a fair reading of history. It's not so much the land values as the perception of a huge chunk of the city as uninhabitable. Townhouses, grocery stores, and schools fertilize the soil.

And Dearborn Park bashers forget that it included two highrises and four midrises. But they sold so slowly compared to the townhouses that a third highrise was cancelled and the site developed as the Garden Homes. When it came to Phase II, Dearborn Park Corporation just let it all go to townhouse developers. Construction had actually begun on a midrise (foundations were put in SEC Clark/Roosevelt) before the developer backed out. Townhouses were built there instead.

Yeah, I find DPII much more offensive than DPI. DPI at the end of the day actually has pretty good unit density because of the mid-rises and highrises.


Strip malls are built cheaply and tend to have a short lifespan - I'd give this one probably 30 years tops before it needs some kind of work (either renovation or just redevelop it as something better).

Unfortunately, this goes back to something tup previously brought up. In 30 years, say the neighborhood is very healthy. This landowner will cling to his desirable and newly-scarce off-street parking and just rehabilitate the existing strip mall and repave the parking lot. This is what already happens with the garbage strip malls that have recently been rehabbed in places like Lakeview (Diversey/Halsted), Wicker Park (the huge K-Mart and Jewel) or even Gold Coast (Jewel at Clark/Division). The land values need to get stratospheric (e.g. downtown) or the incentives impossible to refuse (TIF) before that strip mall goes.

[Mr Downtown]

it's possible to provide the neighborhood with a grocery store . . . without further butchering any hope for a remotely pedestrian-friendly neighborhood sometime in the future.

What site plan do you think would have worked better? One corner of the Jewel comes within about 40 feet of Roosevelt, and along Ashland are pad sites where future banks and restaurants and cell phone stores will hold the streetwall along Ashland.

If you're suggesting structured parking, think for a moment about the perceived security of this site. What chance do you think there would be for the Italian grandmas from Taylor Street to patronize this store if they had to walk through a parking garage to get inside?

[the urban politician]

Strip malls are built cheaply and tend to have a short lifespan - I'd give this one probably 30 years tops before it needs some kind of work (either renovation or just redevelop it as something better). In a sense, they are "landbanking" this site for future use - just like an owner downtown with a parking lot or a guy in West Town with vacant land, but in the short term it's productive instead of a development-deterring and neighborhood-eroding vacant lot. That's not a whole lot to sacrifice in my opinion.

^ Oh, come on. Where in Chicago have you seen a neighborhood strip mall get "landbanked" and then redeveloped into a higher use. In the rare case it's happened, it's probably the exception rather than the norm. Even in Chicago's best neighborhoods I see strip malls here and there, but I sure as hell haven't seen any go away.

And there is one element in existence that screws your prediction all up--good old fashioned NIMBYism. "They're going to tear down that shopping center and build a what? And what about all that parking? Where's the parking going to go?"

Every time the city builds suburban crap--be it that strip center, or Dearborn Park, or large swaths of parking--it's building another Village of Bensenville ready to take on anybody with everything to protect what they perceive to be "theirs".

Because the Near West Side doesn't deserve to have a real supermarket? Or shouldn't have one until, 30 years from now, the area has densified so much that Treasure Island will take a 24,000 sf space in the bottom of a residential tower and try to make the economics work?

^ Yeah, because a "real" supermarket absolutely has to be as hostile to the pedestrian as humanly possible. After all, how dare we have a retail center that people can safely walk or ride the bus to? :rolleyes: