[Mr Downtown]

Why can't you ride the bus to this Jewel? The front door is closer to Roosevelt than it is to the dairy case. They have these things called "shopping carts" that let you push your purchases almost to the bus stop. If you pushed your own cart from home, what's another 60 feet? If you've crossed Roosevelt Road's 120-foot right of way and then Ashland's 100-foot right of way, why would you feel that 200 feet of parking lot is a dealbreaker?

I find myself shopping at this Jewel almost as often as Roosevelt/Wabash because it's so much larger and therefore better stocked.

But, please, post a site plan you think would work better. Remember the developer's goal is to sign Jewel (no parking garages), then use them to pull tenants past the inline stores along Roosevelt and Ashland as well as around the L of the center. There might be a reason that 99.8 percent of all grocery-anchored neighborhood centers in North America have a variation on this site plan.

[honte]

^ 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.


... because you don't live here? ;)


^

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".

TUP, this whole thing is outrageous. This neighborhood is, uh, like 50 years out from NIMBYism at least. It has a population ... I don't know ... 30 strong at this point? I'll give you 40 on a good day. Second, the land behind (west of) this strip center is IMD - it's never going to have NIMBYs unless something far more major than NIMBYism changes this area. People west would be the primary ones against height, because they would be the ones losing their views. You'll notice that tall buildings west of the NIMBY areas usually don't get any complaints. To the East of this is the screwy ABLA area redeveloping, and the future of that area is anybody's guess, but I think they have bigger fish to fry than someone trying to redevelop a shopping mall.

There have been several shopping malls redeveloped in Chicago, but none this big, to my recollection. There are lots of reasons why this is the case. First, the oldest strip malls happened on the outskirts of the city, far away from the areas where high-density redevelopment is likely to happen today. Second, those strip malls in high-density areas are fairly new, so they are not yet ripe for someone to think about this. Third, you bet they are talking about these strip centers and their fate in several neighborhoods, including Lakeview and Wicker Park. I know for a fact that there have been discussions as to possibly improving that miserable thing at Ashland and Milwaukee (although it's possibly the coolest, most ghetto strip mall in Chicago). Why wouldn't there be? The neighborhood is 100% in favor of getting rid of it, so long as they keep some big box options and parking in there somehow. Meanwhile, the developer sees an opportunity to develop a taller-than-usual building in a very dense manner. Sounds like a perfect and unusual opportunity to me.

Last, your parking argument just doesn't have any traction. I don't care what form they built at this site on Ashland, even if it was 20 stories of big box lot line-to-lot line, they still would have had a proportional amount of parking. That's reality. So, the "where's the parking going" is a non-issue.

What we're discussing is so far in the future, it's pretty silly. By the time someone wants to build a real urban development on this land, there is no telling what people will demand or desire.

[Abner]

People might as well give up on Roosevelt and Ashland until something is done with the thirteen blocks of completely vacant land immediately south and west of the Jewel. That area is in serious running for the spookiest place in Chicago. Honte's right, a lot also depends on the future of the ABLA homes, which last I heard were mostly going to stay put. Even when Roosevelt Square is all done there is going to be a lot of land around.

[spyguy]

Truman College parking garage
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3342/sdfsdfee6.jpg

[honte]

^ Thanks for that.

I am not 100% clear where this is going. I thought somehow they were going to tuck it back past the elevated, where their existing parking is located... ?

[woodrow]

^^looking at google maps, that appears so. The footprint of the building almost mimics the current parking lots which abut the L. The image seems to be from the west (look to the buildings on the left in image). The tracks are behind the larger portion of the building / garage.

It looks like they will be saving a little of the greenspace. Wow - a campus-ish.

[the urban politician]

Big splash in the HP Herald today. Another irrelevant AlderNimby trying to assert their importance. And all the more reason why I've become bitterly against affordable housing set-asides and the so-called "right" of lower-income people to hang onto prime real estate. If you look further in the Herald, Ald Dowell also writes a belligerently emotional letter to U of C (discussing the low enrollment of African Americans at U of C, as if that has jack squat to do with the land acquisition at hand):

Dowell: University of Chicago buying up land west of Washington Park (http://www.hpherald.com/breakingnews.html)
Alderman Pat Dowell to University of Chicago: Respect our Community Alderman, university clash over acquisition plan
By Kate Hawley
Ald. Pat Dowell (3rd) said Friday that the University of Chicago has begun acquiring land just west of Washington Park - in an historic foray west of the Hyde Park neighborhood.
The university, which only in the last decade ventured south of Hyde Park into Woodlawn, has its eye on at least 15 privately owned parcels along Martin Luther King Jr. Drive and Garfield Boulevard (see map and list of addresses), according to Dowell.
The university wants the land "to satisfy their future development needs.
They believe that Garfield Boulevard is the gateway to the University of Chicago campus," she said.
Dowell said she's "disappointed" that the university has left the local community out of the loop about its plans, since the acquisitions could have a major impact on her ward.
The lots under negotiation fall in both the 3rd and the 20th wards. Dowell said she will reach out to other local aldermen as the university's acquisition plans move forward.
A university official confirmed that negotiations are underway but disputed Dowell's characterization of the university's dealings with her office.
"I can confirm that the university is in a variety of different stages in purchasing a modest amount of property in the Garfield Boulevard and King Drive intersection," said Sonya Malunda, assistant vice president and director of community affairs for the university. She declined to name the specific parcels, citing the ongoing negotiations.
"The university's planned acquisitions are just one piece of a larger puzzle," Malunda said. She did not give details about what that larger plan might comprise.
"The university would not initiate that conversation," she said, adding, "It is our hope that we can work with the city, the community and local alderman to craft a redevelopment vision."
Any comprehensive plan for the area would require the university to work closely with the city, which owns many vacant lots in the Washington Park neighborhood, she said.
According to Dowell, university officials told her in March that no negotiations to buy properties had begun, but when she met again with officials in June, negotiations had started for eight properties.
Dowell expressed anger that she and her community hadn't been included, accusing the university of "land banking" - holding property for development planned far down the line. That could prove detrimental to the 3rd Ward, long plagued with vacant and underused lots, she argued.
"Their eyes are bigger than their stomachs, Dowell said, of university officials. "They're being greedy."
And she said that if the university pays top dollar for the properties, it could have a destabilizing effect on land values in a neighborhood.
Malunda countered, "I can't see how the purchase of a handful of parcels will drive the market for Washington Park."
The broader goal of purchasing the land is to "help facilitate economic development west of the park, in partnership with others," she said. "We look forward to providing community benefits" as part of a redevelopment plan, she added.
Dowell said the university's dealings so far had left her unconvinced of its motives. "I will not use any of my power as an alderman to support the University of Chicago until they agree to work with my office and the community in a transparent and honest way," she said.
While aldermen can't stop private property from changing hands, they do have the power to approve or deny zoning changes that developers may need in order to proceed with a project.
Part of Dowell's anger appeared to stem from the university's track record of dealing with communities as it expands. In a June 26 letter to university president Robert Zimmer (see letter), she wrote, "Considering the history of the university's development initiatives, it is not difficult to understand why the African American community in Chicago's South Side would have a negative perception of them."
Malunda conceded that, "the university has had a mixed history with the community over five to six decades." But the tide has shifted, she argued.
"Over the last decade we've worked really hard to develop partnerships and programs that benefit the South Side," she said.



SUMMARY

The University of Chicago has its eye on the following properties, according to a "Land Acquisition Map" that university officials provided Dowell at a June meeting. Dowell said a few projects already had been purchased, and Cook County records show that transactions have been completed in recent weeks on three properties.

Likely already purchased:
356 E. Garfield Blvd.
344 E. Garfield Blvd.
301 E. 55th St.

Under negotiation:

226 E. 56th St.
323 E. 55th St.
325 E. 55th St.
331 E. 55th St.
371 E. 55th St. (western half of parcel)

Planned for future acquisition:
305 E. 55th St.
309 E. 55th St.
315 E. 55th St.
353 E. 55th St.
365 E. 55th St.
370 E. Garfield Blvd.
371 E. 55th St. (eastern half of parcel)

[honte]

^ I think her concerns are partly justified. But Dowell is a smart lady (huge improvement for that area) and has usually been accused of being too pro-development. I think you should check your facts before you accuse her of something she's not.

Are Aldermen allowed to say anything negative before getting thrown in the trash bin of NIMBYism? The only Aldermen who don't get panned on this forum are the ones who are completely useless and inactive. Her concern about land banking - totally justified, given the University's track record - seems to suggest that she wants that land developed sooner than later.

I am a huge fan of the U of C and obviously they anchor this part of the South Side, but really they run roughshod over the Hyde Park and Woodlawn communities. I would never purchase property within 5 blocks of the University because you just don't know and you won't know until it's over.

Plus, I would say that these properties are critical to the Olympic Stadium / Transporation plan if the city wins the games and if they keep the stadium in Wash. park.

[the urban politician]

^ And just to add, the Herald speculates that U of C is acquiring sites around the Garfield stop of the Green Line as part of a plan (with the Daley Administration's backing) to create a mighty "Olympic stop".

Good for the University, good for Chicago, if that's the case.

[the urban politician]

^ I think her concerns are partly justified. But Dowell is a smart lady (huge improvement for that area) and has usually been accused of being too pro-development. I think you should check your facts before you accuse her of something she's not.

Are Aldermen allowed to say anything negative before getting thrown in the trashbin of NIMBYism? The only Aldermen who don't get panned on this forum are the ones who are completely useless and inactive.

In what ways are her concerns justified? Does the university not have right to acquire land in a private transaction? Why do they have to "check with her office first"? I of course give you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps historically she has been pro-development (you'd know better than I). But look at her tone, and take a look at the letter she writes to them--what does their enrollment demographics at all have to do with their acquisition of land in the community? She just sounds angry, perhaps belittled that they didn't get her "permission" first; and that's why I find this Aldermanic system to be so dangerous.

[sammyg]

Her concerns are justified if the University plans on creating anything that resembles Dearborn Park - low-density, walled-off from the community, and because it's the UofC, nearly impossible to undo once it's done.

The UofC isn't the best neighbor, and with the possibility of the Olympics, Dowell is doing the right thing by making sure that the land around Washington Park gets used well, holding out for the best option.

It's like Grand Plaza - the location is going to be a great one, why not hold out for the best?

[Chicago Shawn]

On the Roosevelt/Ashland stripmall...
I live 4 blocks south from it, and yes I can't stand it, but it does provide much needed retial; although I do the vast majority of my shopping in the mexican grocers on 18th. I go with what is closest, as I do not drive. I get irritated by the fact that two city blocks were de-mapped, the 1300 blocks of both Paulina and Washbourne Streets and the lack of a pedestrian friendly design, such as the stamped brick crosswalk leading from Roosevelt runing right into a column suporting the arcade. I mean, its detials like this which prove that pedestrianism was something not even really considered at all. The strip does sit within PD 30, which is the IMD; so it could be redeveloped by tweeking and amending the PD, which with the IMD I see that as a very probable possibility; much more so than other stand alone PDs containing stripmalls. Also Ashland and Roosevelt in this area are brutial pseudo-expressways, and I do not see any hope for them becoming pedestrian freindly in the future. IMD basically turns its back on Ashland, and the other side has that discusting Circle Park urban renewal shlock with a iron fence baracding off all entry points aside from one on Ashland. In conclusion it could have been designed better, but given whats around it, well I am not sure it would have made much of a difference, because the surroundings (to the north) will probably stay that way for a while, perhaps longer than the lifespan of this stripmall. And agian because its within PD 30, I see redevelopment to something better as likely.

BTW, Mr D, a poilce station was chosen for the land to south. Thank God too, as a Costco would cement the future of that property as developing into auto hell (I didn't a Costco was even pitched).


On the UofC land aqusition...
I say fantastic. UofC will pay for far better architecture and more intesive use than I could have hoped for comming out of the private market. I don't trust Pat Dowell after her push for downzoning the land at MLK and 43rd, which was supposed to be a pilot TOD site that DPD was pushing for. Garfield and 55th is far too important for alderhack crap. This is our Olympic gateway, and even if the games don't come this corner needs to have intensive uses and good desing given its prominate location were one of our great boulivards meets one of our grand inland parks. Plus we also have the Green Line station adjacent to it, and its one that has seen recent upgrades. It would be great to see a return on that investment.

[honte]

In what ways are her concerns justified? Does the university not have right to acquire land in a private transaction? Why do they have to "check with her office first"? I of course give you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps historically she has been pro-development (you'd know better than I).

Obviously the University has whatever right to acquire land that they want - just like any other buyer. Unfortunately, they also feel that they have prerogative very different than any other buyer when it comes to doing what they think is acceptable with their land. Tear down historic buildings blocks at a time, turn real neighborhoods into dark hospital back alleys, attempt to "remake" already functional streetscapes in a mode that fits with their objective and without taking much community input, etc. In short, they are a development bully and Hyde Park looks to them fearfully as the indentured would to a brutal master. You used to live there; I'm sure you know about that. The City usually just rolls over to whatever request they make, which is why I'm glad Dowell is saying something.

Why should they check with her office first? Because one of the Alderman's roles is to steer development in her ward. They are not obligated to do this, but it would be a very good idea. And I think, overall, this practice is for the better even if sometimes totally foolish things result.

If they think people dislike and distrust them in Hyde Park and Woodlawn, just wait until they see Washington Park. At the least, they should be talking to DPD, which it sounds like they are and makes me feel better.





But look at her tone, and take a look at the letter she writes to them--what does their enrollment demographics at all have to do with their acquisition of land in the community? She just sounds angry, perhaps belittled that they didn't get her "permission" first; and that's why I find this Aldermanic system to be so dangerous.

Of course, those aspects sound absurd. I have to read the whole article, which I don't have time to do yet.

I am no fan at all of the Aldermanic system and I wish the whole gang were disbanded. But that's not going to happen any time soon...

Needless to say, I would like nothing more than to see a stunning gateway at this intersection, anchored by a 30+-story, starchitect-designed tower of quality comparable to what's been built at the U of C lately. I just hope their approach doesn't backfire.

[Abner]

I would add that the U of C has hardly had everyone's interests in mind regarding development. In fact, in most ways (as in, regarding things people would actually see as positive development, like new stores, etc.) they have been very anti-development in Hyde Park. At least in general opinion, this stems from the university's desire to keep its employees and students in the neighborhood while making it as boring and lifeless as possible so that everyone else stays out. Their recent moves to redevelop Harper Court and the Village Foods shopping center--regardless of opinions here on their merits--definitely don't help the university's reputation among the black community in the neighborhood. (Edited to add: neither do the hospital's recent attempts to get out of the business of providing health care for the community, desirable as that may be.) And whether you like the U of C's land policies or not, having a strong alderman in this case can be necessary to check the university's overwhelming power in the neighborhood.

Regarding land banking, the U of C has extremely deep pockets and a very long time horizon, and it certainly isn't interested in providing services for the current population of Washington Park. It's also currently engaged in the biggest expansion plans in its history, including getting rid of the last remaining bits of neighborhood in southwest Hyde Park and strengthening its presence south of the Midway. I'm a little surprised that they're already working on Washington Park when their grasp on north Woodlawn is still very tenuous. I wouldn't expect them to be making any small foray into an area so far from the safety of the university--expect something big.

[VivaLFuego]

The U of C acquiring and developing land around Garfield and King is the best hope we have for making that area an attractive gateway and not just a bombed-out pit. U of C's declared intention to invest in Woodlawn, between 60th and 63rd, has done wonders to stabilize that community in recent years.

If anything, I'd guess this is the result of specific discussions between the University, City Hall, and the Bid Committee (with encouragements by the latter), because everyone knows Washington Park (the neighborhood) needs to look a lot nicer if the Olympic Stadium is gonna be there with people arriving from King Drive buses and the Green Line.

There are valid historical reasons to skeptical of UofC's intentions of course, but as long as they keep communication channels open I hope things proceed and the neighborhood welcomes the investment in property there. People need to realize that the U of C, as an investor and employer, is the single most important entity holding the south side (or at least, Hyde Park) together. The U of C has an interest in making the area livable and nice, in fact it has a much stronger interest than any single individual or any community group. So I wouldn't worry about their intentions.

Regarding Dowell's wild flailing in public, there's very obviously a good deal going on here politically behind closed doors that we the public aren't privy to.

[alex1]

i think its interesting to study how DePaul expands to see how a university can grow in a tight urban context. They've done a pretty great job fitting into its environment. UC has built some amazing structures recently but it doesn't gel quite well overall.

I also think its important for a community to be involved with how local institutions grow and its even more important for universities to be good neighbors. This has been an ongoing problem in cities like Boston. UC is best advised to be stay open to community concerns.

I live in NewHaven now and it's astonishing how awful Yale's outreach with the community is. Might as well throw up a 10 foot electric wall and shoot anyone who comes within 20 feet of the school. Makes for an awful environment even if the school is stunningly beautiful.

[honte]

The U of C acquiring and developing land around Garfield and King is the best hope we have for making that area an attractive gateway and not just a bombed-out pit.

I get the impression that no one here respects Little Niko's. What's wrong with you people??? ;)

[Breezyfingers]

Another Jewel is part of the development at Kinzie and Desplaines
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3183/2760499781_246f1f0c58_o.jpg

[the urban politician]

I would add that the U of C has hardly had everyone's interests in mind regarding development. In fact, in most ways (as in, regarding things people would actually see as positive development, like new stores, etc.) they have been very anti-development in Hyde Park. At least in general opinion, this stems from the university's desire to keep its employees and students in the neighborhood while making it as boring and lifeless as possible so that everyone else stays out. Their recent moves to redevelop Harper Court and the Village Foods shopping center--regardless of opinions here on their merits--definitely don't help the university's reputation among the black community in the neighborhood. (Edited to add: neither do the hospital's recent attempts to get out of the business of providing health care for the community, desirable as that may be.) And whether you like the U of C's land policies or not, having a strong alderman in this case can be necessary to check the university's overwhelming power in the neighborhood.

^ In what way is it in U of C's interests to keep Hyde Park as "boring and lifeless as possible"? That's absurd, what evidence do you have of that?

In fact, part of the reason why I'm glad that U of C is acquiring such important property is because they are probably the only ones who can get something done. At the end of the day, Hyde Park's lack of retail & entertainment options are despite the presence of the University, not because of it. It wants a hotel, BAM neighbors block it. In the past several years, besides the University name one private developer who has built anything substantial in Hyde Park.

Our only other hope is Antheus Capital, who so far has bought and rehabbed large numbers of properties and made them useful again. Yet instead of applauding them, the local Hyde Park press virtually treats them with disdain. I'm crossing my fingers for the Studio Gang project.

[VivaLFuego]

^ In what way is it in U of C's interests to keep Hyde Park as "boring and lifeless as possible"? That's absurd, what evidence do you have of that?

At the end of the day, Hyde Park's lack of retail & entertainment options are despite the presence of the University, not because of it. It wants a hotel, BAM neighbors block it. In the past several years, besides the University name one private developer who has built anything substantial in Hyde Park.


Part of urban renewal (which was largely spearheaded by U of C, of course) was a very intentional effort to strip Hyde Park of its status as the entertainment/activity/nightlife destination of the south side. To a large extent, this mindset still persists, and I don't think it's entirely unfounded. One can make a defensible argument that Hyde Park has maintained its charm precisely because it is an island. I'm not sure I fully agree, but I don't fully disagree either.

I really hope that the next time Hyde Park is such a destination (after the Harper Court redevelopment, Village Center, etc.) that the results are much better, and it seems to be the direction things are headed, but there is some definite risk involved. It depends on which demographic groups stake out Hyde Park as the epicenter... would it the more benign yuppies, students, academics, and other professionals from throughout the south side? Or would simply import the problems of other neighborhoods to play out in dramatic fashion on the streets of Hyde Park? Time will tell, and I'm hopeful that the demographic shift of the south lakeshore implies future success, but the more recent developments in places like nearby South Shore (now a war zone) where many former public housing residents have resettled give me pause. Would the University be wrong to not want that sort of 'excitement' brought to 57th street? Better to be boring and lifeless than have gang fights and turf wars outside bars and restaurants.

That said, I agree with you that the University is the single largest force of positive progress in terms of real estate development and livability in the area, despite some definite hiccups along the way. Antheus Capital are also, so far, remarkably great new neighbors, having invested a great deal in improving some of the older rental housing stock (pilloried for modestly raising rents in return, of course :rolleyes:) and of course their awesome Gang proposals.

[munda]

the city has been a bit quite about future skyscrapers.....
no news on future projects??????
:(:(:(

[jpIllInoIs]

^ Dont worry Munda, if any skyscraper news happens the many talented slueths of SSP are on the job and ready to update!!

In general we are going to have a period of retrenchment in residential building. We do see some office highrises on the table (river point, 601 monroe). But this is an opportunity for other needs to be met. Having lived in Chicago during the boom of the 80's I see some correlations. while the office construciton had a big run up from early 80's to mid 90's (Pru2, 225 wacker, 333 wacker, scores more), hardly any rezy was built.

In this slow period the opportunity for hospitals, universities and government building is there to take advantage of lower demand for labor and materials. We now see that Lurie CMH is underway, eventually that will lead to the redev of the old Lincoln Park CMH compound, DePaul has to be salivating for that site. If Michael Reese sells their campus south McCormak Place then wont they need to rebuild a new hospital? In the loop we will certainly see another Dorm proposal surface soon. Also, there will be plenty of infill projects. Govt building on tap include a new Federal Center on S. State st.
Also repurposing will provide some interests, like the Hotel on So. LaSalle.

Will we see arqui, aqua2, W/A? maybe next decade, but GP3 has a good chance to be the next ground breaking skyscraper. we will have to look for our silver linings in new places.

[Chicagoguy]

^ Dont worry Munda, if any skyscraper news happens the many talented slueths of SSP are on the job and ready to update!!

In general we are going to have a period of retrenchment in residential building. We do see some office highrises on the table (river point, 601 monroe). But this is an opportunity for other needs to be met. Having lived in Chicago during the boom of the 80's I see some correlations. while the office construciton had a big run up from early 80's to mid 90's (Pru2, 225 wacker, 333 wacker, scores more), hardly any rezy was built.

In this slow period the opportunity for hospitals, universities and government building is there to take advantage of lower demand for labor and materials. We now see that Lurie CMH is underway, eventually that will lead to the redev of the old Lincoln Park CMH compound, DePaul has to be salivating for that site. If Michael Reese sells their campus south McCormak Place then wont they need to rebuild a new hospital? In the loop we will certainly see another Dorm proposal surface soon. Also, there will be plenty of infill projects. Govt building on tap include a new Federal Center on S. State st.
Also repurposing will provide some interests, like the Hotel on So. LaSalle.

Will we see arqui, aqua2, W/A? maybe next decade, but GP3 has a good chance to be the next ground breaking skyscraper. we will have to look for our silver linings in new places.

So there are plans for an aqua 2? I never heard that before. And there are still going to be groundbreaking going on...just not 5 at once like we have been used to. Lincoln Park 2520 just started construction I hear, plus there are still many projects in the south loop!

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ No, Aqua2 is completely fictional and only comes from people calling the site next to Aqua "Aqua II" even though there might not even be a highrise built there, let alone anything even remotely resembling Aqua...

i think its interesting to study how DePaul expands to see how a university can grow in a tight urban context. They've done a pretty great job fitting into its environment. UC has built some amazing structures recently but it doesn't gel quite well overall.

You wanna see an example of how a university can grow in an urban context, Check out Loyola's campuses. The Water Tower Campus is probably one of the densest University Campuses in the world, if not the densest, and melds right in with the neighborhood to the point which, if there were not signs saying "Loyola University" all over the place, one would think it was just any other street in the area.

The Lakeshore Campus is even better and melts right into the neighborhood. That is partly due to the fact that they literally buy chunks of the neighborhood and turn them into dorms, which is a bit of a questionable neighborly practice, but it still makes for the most integrated urban campus possible.

[ChiPsy]

You wanna see an example of how a university can grow in an urban context, Check out Loyola's campuses. The Water Tower Campus is probably one of the densest University Campuses in the world, if not the densest, and melds right in with the neighborhood to the point which, if there were not signs saying "Loyola University" all over the place, one would think it was just any other street in the area.

The Lakeshore Campus is even better and melts right into the neighborhood. That is partly due to the fact that they literally buy chunks of the neighborhood and turn them into dorms, which is a bit of a questionable neighborly practice, but it still makes for the most integrated urban campus possible.

Yes, and the redevelopment of the Lakeshore campus proper that's happening right now is mind-blowing -- especially when Damen Hall comes down (i.e., the next phase). This is a very exciting time for Loyola. :tup:

[honte]

^ What building is Damen Hall? Does anyone have photos?

[SevenSevenThree]

EDIT: Nevermind.

[VivaLFuego]

^ What building is Damen Hall? Does anyone have photos?

If I'm not mistaken, it's this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=6625+n.+sheridan,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=47.435825,71.191406&ie=UTF8&ll=42.001904,-87.657144&spn=0.010939,0.017381&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.998259,-87.657061&panoid=vMDfHtsybiDkzXaV6NAyAA&cbp=1,350.1857402253034,,1,-12.897268221135745

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=qzzwqq7pvpw1&style=b&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=11358072&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

More mid-century modern bites the dust :( Not a masterpiece, but not bad either.

[ChiPsy]

If I'm not mistaken, it's this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=6625+n.+sheridan,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=47.435825,71.191406&ie=UTF8&ll=42.001904,-87.657144&spn=0.010939,0.017381&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.998259,-87.657061&panoid=vMDfHtsybiDkzXaV6NAyAA&cbp=1,350.1857402253034,,1,-12.897268221135745

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=qzzwqq7pvpw1&style=b&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=11358072&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1


Yeah, that's the one. The problems with it are basically two: (1) It violated the original campus master plan by creating a wall regrettably separating Loyola from what's become the southern extension of its campus (and a psychological wall between Loyola and the city via Sheridan Road) and (2) it's designed in such a way that from all but perpendicular viewing angles it looks like a windowless concrete block.

The building that will replace it fits with the original campus design, taking roughly an oblique angle framing or "holding" the southern edge of the new campus quadrangle. The shape of that quad, btw, is already discernible amid the construction and it will be a gem.

[honte]

^ You're kidding, they're going to tear that whole thing down? All 10 stories of it? What an effing waste. :hell:

I suppose that Loyola's new PoMo-compromised library, blocking views of the lake and messing up its most historic buildings, really fits in with their original master plan too?

It's a B-grade building, but I'm with VivaL - it has merit and no sense in tearing it down. The architects were Graham, Anderson, Probst and White I believe.

[the urban politician]

The building that will replace it fits with the original campus design, taking roughly an oblique angle framing or "holding" the southern edge of the new campus quadrangle. The shape of that quad, btw, is already discernible amid the construction and it will be a gem.

Is the building that will replace it going to be taller, denser? If not, then screw it all :whip:

[the urban politician]

Panel OKs TIF money for Little Village project (http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30599)
By Eddie Baeb, Aug. 14, 2008

(Crain’s) — A city panel signed off on a $24.8-million subsidy for a mixed-use development in the Little Village neighborhood that’s to include a grocery store, movie theater and apartments.

The Chicago Community Development Commission voted Tuesday to approve the tax-increment financing (TIF) grant for the $132.7-million project on a 16-acre site at 4400 W. 26th St., near the border of Cicero. The subsidy now must be approved by the City Council.

http://www.primestor.com/images/LittleVillage.jpg

Little Village Re-development Project
26th Street and Kostner, Chicago, IL

The Little Village project is a 40 acre mixed-use development that includes residential, retail uses, and public areas.

The site is located at the western terminus of a 2-mile stretch of 26th Street, which is the commercial heart of the Latino community in Little Village and one of the most vibrant and dense communities in the Midwest. It generates the second highest sales tax revenue in the City of Chicago.

The development will consist of a neighborhood shopping center and several hundred new residential units, with a mix of affordability and density, along with open space amenities. The shopping center will feature striking architectural appointments, as well as plaza open space for neighborhood shoppers and community events.

Demographics
Population: 54,368 within a 1-mile radius.
Average Household Income: $45,373

[Pandemonious]

Pretty impressive development regardless of the actual architecture. The site is currently a giant gaping hole in the urban fabric. Seems like it will blend in fairly well with the existing density, and adds needed retail. Hopefully a trend continues in this area of filling in the giant vacant/shittily maintained sites along the train tracks there.

[VivaLFuego]

^Yeah, I think overall this is a positive development. It fills in a very large chunk of deadness. Obviously the retail layout isn't ideal, but it's not dreadful either. Looks like all of the retail can be accessed without having to navigate walking through a parking lot. Cross the tracks to the west and Cicero Ave is already a big box, six-lane arterial hell... even that huge two screen drive-in movie theater is set to become a Walmart, last I heard :( So this development is a pretty decent buffer and transition zone between the two development patterns.

My worry though, is if the new retail draws retail traffic from the main drag along 26th (one of the coolest commercial districts in the country) and weakens sales and leasing. Hopefully the new residences also just add more buying power to account for the increase in retail sales as well, and hopefully the new development just further enhances the corridor as one for destination shopping.

[the urban politician]

^ Make sure you guys click the link of the Crains article (it's much longer than what I posted). They will be renovating an old factory to include ground level retail, around 70 apts, and office space. And those 4 buildings labeled B, C, D, and E along with the blocks of homes depicted don't seem to be a part of the project receiving TIF funds, at least at this point.

[Abner]

My worry though, is if the new retail draws retail traffic from the main drag along 26th (one of the coolest commercial districts in the country) and weakens sales and leasing.

Do you think that's a concern given the likely price differences between this new space and existing space on 26th? I don't know of many chains that would take this new space that would compete directly with a lot of the stuff that's on 26th. The state of the retail there seems pretty healthy and stable.

[Abner]

^ In what way is it in U of C's interests to keep Hyde Park as "boring and lifeless as possible"? That's absurd, what evidence do you have of that?


What Viva said. There's no doubt that that was exactly the policy starting in the urban renewal days; the question is to what extent and in what ways that is changing within the university administration. The University certainly makes a lot more noise now about making Hyde Park a livable community, and it puts a lot of effort into getting faculty and staff to live in or around the neighborhood (including cash incentives).

But the University's vision of the future of the neighborhood might be different from yours, and it's certainly different from mine. For example, redevelopment of Harper Court threatens a lot of businesses (23 were there when the U bought it) that mostly cater to black Hyde Parkers and students, two groups the University has never given a damn about, since students (at least undergrads) are pretty much a captive audience that long ago learned to live with Hyde Park's dullness and incorporate it as part of campus culture, and the black population can give the administration a fuzzy feeling of inclusiveness but otherwise isn't really that important to it. Note that the University is NOT talking about new developments on actual vacant space like the McMobil site, St. Stephen's, 53rd and Cornell, etc.--it's targeting the center of affordable retail and business in Hyde Park. And when Harper Court goes, those businesses are going to leave the neighborhood or disappear, because there's certainly nowhere that cheap in Hyde Park.

But in the University's language, "cheap" equates to "failed" or "scary." I think the University's new vision for Hyde Park is an upper-income neighborhood that is safe and pleasant enough for faculty and well-paid staff, but not too alive with activity, and certainly nothing that draws too much interest from outside Hyde Park.

Of course, we are being asked to believe that the University has some kind of ability to make the Harper Court development happen despite the obvious failure of its Harper Theatre project right next door. Kind of ironic that they're trying to rescue us from the "blighted" Court when their own project is sitting empty.

[the urban politician]

^ I would argue that the University is in no way obliged to maintain businesses that "attract African Americans". If the University wants to build something that attracts retailers who charge higher prices, then let it be so.

It's a generalization to assume that the black population won't shop somewhere because of higher prices. Chicago and particularly Hyde Park has a very large middle and upper class African American population that has many times made it known that they'd like to see more of such businesses in their neighborhoods.

On another note, does anybody see a good opportunity for U of C to build a large hotel on Garfield west of Washington Park, near the Green Line stop? It seems perfect: easy access to downtown, easy access to the University, and (of course) potential access to the Olympic opening ceremonies. Now if we can just get that belligerent Pat Dowell to shut her trap up so that the University & Daley Administration can get something productive built at this site..

[Mr Downtown]

A Residence Inn next to the hospital might make some sense, but a hotel at 55th/Indiana is a bit, um, visionary. There's not even any (market-driven) hotels near McCormick Place.

[the urban politician]

^ Isn't that because occupancy in hotels very near McCormick would depend entirely on whether there is a convention in town or not?

The University, on the other hand, is perpetually present and obviously needs a hotel nearby. I realize this area isn't the best, but if the University is able to develop other lots nearby, coupled with the pie-in-the-sky Olympics dream, things could change.

[honte]

But the University's vision of the future of the neighborhood might be different from yours, and it's certainly different from mine. For example, redevelopment of Harper Court threatens a lot of businesses (23 were there when the U bought it) that mostly cater to black Hyde Parkers and students, two groups the University has never given a damn about, since students (at least undergrads) are pretty much a captive audience that long ago learned to live with Hyde Park's dullness and incorporate it as part of campus culture, and the black population can give the administration a fuzzy feeling of inclusiveness but otherwise isn't really that important to it. Note that the University is NOT talking about new developments on actual vacant space like the McMobil site, St. Stephen's, 53rd and Cornell, etc.--it's targeting the center of affordable retail and business in Hyde Park. And when Harper Court goes, those businesses are going to leave the neighborhood or disappear, because there's certainly nowhere that cheap in Hyde Park.

But in the University's language, "cheap" equates to "failed" or "scary." I think the University's new vision for Hyde Park is an upper-income neighborhood that is safe and pleasant enough for faculty and well-paid staff, but not too alive with activity, and certainly nothing that draws too much interest from outside Hyde Park.

Of course, we are being asked to believe that the University has some kind of ability to make the Harper Court development happen despite the obvious failure of its Harper Theatre project right next door. Kind of ironic that they're trying to rescue us from the "blighted" Court when their own project is sitting empty.

I'm really glad you mentioned Harper Court. I personally am 100% against tearing it down, for all of the reasons you state. The strongest argument is simply that efforts really should be focused elsewhere. The University should stick to education and leave neighborhood development to city planners and the natural course of action. Their sterilized, "ready-made neighborhood" version of Harper Court really struck a nerve. The density is nice, but honestly, it's not worth it. There are plenty of other parcels that could be used boost the density in that area.

I would also add that it has a unique retail experience that remains popular to this day. It is probably the only neighborhood shopping experience in Chicago that differs from the typical storefront concept, and yet remains highly urban. Harper Court also helps cement the area as a "mini downtown" instead of the rather unimpressive Chicago model of two basic shopping strips intersecting.

I will be very sad to see it go - spent a lot of time around there and never had a negative experience.

[Abner]

Honte, I have heard people say so many weird things about Harper Court (including at Hyde Park Progress, by the way) that I always wondered if there was something going on that I didn't know about. I never saw what was so offensive about the place other than that it serves the real Hyde Park and not the idealized version of it that the University and its developers envision. They point to bad management, as if that's a reason to tear it down. I've known people who have lived right next to it for years without any bad experiences, and I sure know that a lot of people happen to like Dixie Kitchen, Dr. Wax, the vet, etc., all of which are stable businesses. I say develop the city lot on Lake Park and the gaping hole at 53rd and Cornell before touching it. If we're all going to have street-facing retail be our new mantra regardless of individual circumstances, it would be better to just reconnect Harper than get rid of the whole thing.

TUP, the University obviously doesn't have an obligation to the people who live in Hyde Park, but how do you expect them to react when it systematically targets the services they use? How about this for a market study: The neighborhood is over a third black (the overwhelming majority of whom are working class or solid middle class) and has about 11,000 students. Median household income is around $45,000 and 25% of households earn more than $75,000 (according to www.hydeparkchicago.org). Does this sound like a neighborhood that needs to get rid of its affordable business space?

[Chicago Shawn]

Do you think that's a concern given the likely price differences between this new space and existing space on 26th? I don't know of many chains that would take this new space that would compete directly with a lot of the stuff that's on 26th. The state of the retail there seems pretty healthy and stable.

That is how I see it. This will be a bookend to the Mexican downtown that is 26th Street. Busineses don't go out of business on 26th, they out grow thier business. The retial spaces on that street have practicly no vacancies. 26th Street is the second highest grossing retial district in the state (if i'm not mistaken) after Michigan Avenue. The only two things I don't like about the project are of course the street facing surface lots and the fact that the "plaza" replaces the nicest part of the old factory building.

[Mr Downtown]

Harper Court details, from a photo essay I did on mid-century modernism in Hyde Park.

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/1416/harpercourtxv8.jpg

[jvalente]

Just wondering what's going on with the new Barney's store on Oak Street. Last time about two months ago it looked like it was pretty close to done. Any updates on this one?

[pip]

That is how I see it. This will be a bookend to the Mexican downtown that is 26th Street. Busineses don't go out of business on 26th, they out grow thier business. The retial spaces on that street have practicly no vacancies. 26th Street is the second highest grossing retial district in the state (if i'm not mistaken) after Michigan Avenue. The only two things I don't like about the project are of course the street facing surface lots and the fact that the "plaza" replaces the nicest part of the old factory building.


actually the second highest grossing in the whole midwest

[Breezyfingers]

A while back someone mentioned a new Fifth Third bank in the South Loop. It's startling to come across it in real life:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2020/2766812514_5bd4e04ebc_o.jpg

Reebie Lofts looks pretty good up close, but does anyone know what the story is with this weird, matching security-park across the street?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3182/2766812142_8e4b1dbf3a_o.jpg

Roosevelt Collection
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3071/2766812320_61d1275a71_o.jpg

[spyguy]

Reebie Lofts looks pretty good up close, but does anyone know what the story is with this weird, matching security-park across the street?


I think it's a private park for the building's residents.

[Breezyfingers]

It's weird that they wouldn't put it on top of the roof. I'd feel like an exhibit in there.

[Mr Downtown]

It has something to do with utility easements and subway maintenance. The developer was not permitted to vacate 14th Street even though they owned the property on both sides of it. What I don't remember is why they couldn't build a retail pavilion or townhouses or somesuch there. Maybe they just didn't want to, thinking a park/dogwalk would attract renters.

[VivaLFuego]

A while back someone mentioned a new Fifth Third bank in the South Loop. It's startling to come across it in real life:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2020/2766812514_5bd4e04ebc_o.jpg


Fifth Third also just butchered the SW corner of North/LaSalle with similar schlock.

[Marcu]

^ From what I hear, bank design is more concerned about security as cost. Apparrently, the one story crap they've been putting up is part of the security design. Maybe they want the cops to get through the roof in case of a hostage situation.

[honte]

Well, I learned yesterday that there is a building designed by Foster and Partners already under construction in the greater Chicago area. How did I not know about this!? Am I the only one who doesn't know?

I don't remember it ever being mentioned here either.

[BorisMolotov]

What building is this?

[wrabbit]

Well, I learned yesterday that there is a building designed by Foster and Partners already under construction in the greater Chicago area. How did I not know about this!? Am I the only one who doesn't know?

I don't remember it ever being mentioned here either.

Huh? A stealth Foster? Wow. Where?

[Loopy]

Hmmm. They must be co-architects with Halvorson or something. I give up.

[Chicago Shawn]

actually the second highest grossing in the whole midwest

Really? That can't be right unless that figure excludes malls, such as Mall of America. Do you know where that stat can be found?

[honte]

Hmmm. They must be co-architects with Halvorson or something. I give up.

Well, if I've stumped you guys, some of the very best, then I must not be alone. Foster is the architect through and through, but they do have an architect of record for the job. It's not big, but it's sure to be a major jewel in the Lake Michigan ring of world-class cultural sites.

I went there last night on a random midnight raid for inspiration and to clear my mind after a long week of exhausting work. Seeing the sign at the construction site, I thought I was delusional when I read who was doing the design.

Here is your clue, a photo I took while I was there: http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9446/1003094edsmoc9.jpg

[wrabbit]

^ I'm stumped. Nothing on Foster's website, either. On the lake? Chicagoland but not Chicago?

[wrabbit]

Harper Court details, from a photo essay I did on mid-century modernism in Hyde Park.

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/1416/harpercourtxv8.jpg

Beautiful pic.

[honte]

^ I'm stumped. Nothing on Foster's website, either. On the lake? Chicagoland but not Chicago?

OK, so I might be stretching the limits of Chicagoland a tiny bit... (Sorry, I want to build a little suspense since I consider this to be a major development in the architectural history of the region. I hope this is not obnoxious.)

[brian_b]

OK, so I might be stretching the limits of Chicagoland a tiny bit... (Sorry, I want to build a little suspense since I consider this to be a major development in the architectural history of the region. I hope this is not obnoxious.)

I'm going to guess Milwaukee then.

[Loopy]

Beautiful pic.
Great design too. John T. Black for Dubin and Dubin.

[honte]

I'm going to guess Milwaukee then.

Nope, too far away... but you're going the right direction. The photo doesn't help? I thought that would be a sure giveaway.

(So, the new Gary Pumping Station is out of the running, sorry if that was someone's next guess...)

[SkokieSwift]

A new Dixieland Greyhound Track in Kenosha???

[GregBear24]

I thought I remembered hearing something about the naval station or something around there?

[honte]

OK, you guys seem to need more hints!

Here you go: The Norman Foster project is being added to a campus of buildings that are already very well-known.

[spyguy]

Racine?

[Loopy]

Oh, I know... Johnson Wax Phase II.

[AdrianXSands]

Oh, I know... Johnson Wax Phase II.

no way... are you being serious?

btw, you live in my building right?

[honte]

Oh, I know... Johnson Wax Phase II.

Ding ding... what do you win? Sorry, I don't know.

http://www.scjohnson.com/family/fam_pre_pre_news.asp?art_id=252&show=2006

There is a render of the project at the job site. It's an oval-shaped, glass-clad building with a glass roof. An airplane hangs in the building.

Behind the glass element is a strange curvy wall that is quite obviously an homage to Wright. I don't know what I think about this - my first reaction is to dislike it. On one hand, it's very generous of Foster to attempt to work with the existing campus and not to upstage Wright's older buildings. On the other hand, risking sounding like an indignant Pritzker forcing Frank Gehry's hand, I really want to see "100% Foster."

I think the final building will be unique enough, however, that this in the long run will probably prove to have been the right decision.

Hopefully, we'll get a Kelleher or a Carley up to Racine soon and we'll have a Chicago Spire situation that brings a Foster tower downtown. I won't count the chickens at this stage though - I'm still celebrating the fact that Foster is finally doing some work in this area. Strange that the Cheezeheads are the ones bringing the international design talent here first, no?

With possible buildings by Hadid, UN Studio, Foster, Calatrava, Vinoly, Williams / Tsien, and also a handful of new Jahn things underway, we have a lot of world-class small buildings to anticipate on the horizon.

[AdrianXSands]

wait... what is UN studio doing? ...and what new jahn things are you talking about?

and about world-class architecture... it seems that with the two gang projects and the two vinoly projects and the TWBT project, hyde is quickly become a bit of an epicenter for all this world-classness. hot damn.

[Loopy]

Very good.

Thanks, Honte for bringing this important work to our attention.

Case solved.

Fin.

[honte]

^ My (twisted) pleasure. We should all thank the great, benevolent Johnson family. Seriously, enough letters of thanks might prompt them to do this again.

wait... what is UN studio doing? ...and what new jahn things are you talking about?

and about world-class architecture... it seems that with the two gang projects and the two vinoly projects and the TWBT project, hyde is quickly become a bit of an epicenter for all this world-classness. hot damn.

The UN Studio and Hadid pavilions are rumored for next year's Burnham Plan festivities.

The Jahn buildings are both also at U of C. One of them is already almost finished. There was also one out in Downers Grove, an office building. Does anyone know if that was built?

You are correct about Hyde Park. In fact, it's already the "Sleeping giant" of Chicago Modernism - most people have absolutely no idea how much of it is down there or the major names attached to it. It's one of the reasons I chose to live down there, probably the best collection of Modernism in the Midwest outside of a downtown area.

I'd be curious to compare notes with Mr. Downtown on Hyde Park some day. (hint PM hint)

[Loopy]

I think we're ready for another hint...:)

[wrabbit]

^ That Wright tower at Johnson - even unoccupied - is an astonishing building, as is the main floor of the HQ. Racine itself is also an interesting town to poke around in. Can't wait to see more renders of Foster's Honor Bldg - nothing up yet at the Foster + Partners website.

The Johnson Wax campus also contains their '64/'6 NYC World's Fair pavilion, which is Wright Lite.

Now if only they were less stingy, post 9/11, of giving out tours of the campus!

[wrabbit]

Piano's Art Institute bridge, Sunday 17 August:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/7a2d07a2.jpg

[spyguy]

Can't wait to see more renders of Foster's Honor Bldg - nothing up yet at the Foster + Partners website.

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/150/scjohnson3bzo8.jpg

[honte]

^ That's the one... thanks for finding it. The "Wrightian part" I referred to is in the back.

[the urban politician]

^ When it comes to finding stuff out of the blue, Spyguy's been at it since October '05 and hasn't looked back

[wrabbit]

Thank you, spyguy. Very slick, like a reliquary, with a Turrell-style oculus. I'm guessing that a cheesy inspirational movie (To Fly! LOL) will anchor the Wrightian part.

[honte]

^ Good analogy, Wrabbit... I am guessing some very sophisticated glass will be the real attention-grabber here.

[Chicagoguy]

Just wondering but has there or has there ever been anything planned for those massive parking lots surrounding the United Center? I think that is the biggest eyesore! Why not put some retail, highrise condos, and hotels around the United Center? I am sure they would get plenty of use, plus you have good public transit there!

[ChicagoChicago]

Just wondering but has there or has there ever been anything planned for those massive parking lots surrounding the United Center? I think that is the biggest eyesore! Why not put some retail, highrise condos, and hotels around the United Center? I am sure they would get plenty of use, plus you have good public transit there!How about putting a stop on the pink line at the United Center? Even if it's only open during events, it would make sense. There is no good way to get there as is.

[Chicagoguy]

How about putting a stop on the pink line at the United Center? Even if it's only open during events, it would make sense. There is no good way to get there as is.

I thought there was a stop not very far from the United Center? I agree though with you...there are stops at most all the major venues along lines so why not add a stop at the United Center? We need to start promoting and encouraging people to want to take public transit to games and events instead of driving!

[denizen467]

Nymex takeover wins approval
By Hal Weitzman in Chicago
Published: August 18 2008 23:27
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

The CME Group enhanced its position as the world’s largest financial exchange on Monday by winning member approval for its $7.6bn takeover of Nymex, the New York energy exchange, creating a company that will dominate the US derivatives sector with control of 98 per cent of listed futures.

The deal will cement Chicago’s fast-emerging role within the global exchange world. ...

[the urban politician]

Just wondering but has there or has there ever been anything planned for those massive parking lots surrounding the United Center? I think that is the biggest eyesore! Why not put some retail, highrise condos, and hotels around the United Center? I am sure they would get plenty of use, plus you have good public transit there!

A few pages back I posted about a multistory project planned for a parking lot near United Center in which the developer is asking for TIF funds. It certainly is a start

[Chicagoguy]

A few pages back I posted about a multistory project planned for a parking lot near United Center in which the developer is asking for TIF funds. It certainly is a start

O are you talking about the Little Village proposal you posted? I wasnt aware that was on one of the United Centers parking lots. There is just so much wasted space there. I say put a pink line stop in there and build a hotel, some condos with retail, more restaurants, bars, and other nightlife! It would help the area get built up!

[honte]

Nymex takeover wins approval
By Hal Weitzman in Chicago
Published: August 18 2008 23:27
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

The CME Group enhanced its position as the world’s largest financial exchange on Monday by winning member approval for its $7.6bn takeover of Nymex, the New York energy exchange, creating a company that will dominate the US derivatives sector with control of 98 per cent of listed futures.

The deal will cement Chicago’s fast-emerging role within the global exchange world. ...

:leek: I was getting worried there for a while.

[Mr Downtown]

I say put a pink line stop in there and build a hotel, some condos with retail, more restaurants, bars, and other nightlife!

Hotels, condos, restaurants, bars, and nightlife are generally built in places where there is expected to be some market, not just because there's vacant land.

[Chicagoguy]

Hotels, condos, restaurants, bars, and nightlife are generally built in places where there is expected to be some market, not just because there's vacant land.

Yea but with the United Center there and neighborhoods being so close I think it has the potential to have a market increase!

[emathias]

I thought there was a stop not very far from the United Center? I agree though with you...there are stops at most all the major venues along lines so why not add a stop at the United Center? We need to start promoting and encouraging people to want to take public transit to games and events instead of driving!

The Ashland stop on the Green/Pink lines is over 1/2 mile from the United Center (probably 3/4 of a mile from most seats), which is certainly walkable but just as certainly outside the boundaries of what most (even urban) modern Americans consider convenient. The Medical District stop on the Blue Line is a little closer, but not by much - a little over a block closer, once your unravel the actual walking paths. A stop at Madison on the Pink Line would drop people a block and a half from the front door, which translates into about 1/5 of a mile which is generally convenient for most people. It'd help with getting people to the United Center for Bulls and Blackhawks games, and for concerts and other attractions. There are also a few businesses near there that employees might benefit from a closer station as well as a few outlier residential buildings that would probably appreciate another choice in "L" stations.

It probably will take some city-sponsored density to kick-start that area, though, because currently the large vacant land tends to discourage people visually from wanting to venture into that area. A couple dense high-rises there would draw in people and services and maybe get the ball moving. I don't know who owns the parking lots, but if things were timed right, the sale of most of the lots could probably finance most the construction costs of additional parking which, along with a closer "L" stop, should keep the United Center viable for city and suburban patrons alike.

Without city action, I think Garfield Park will gentrify before this patch of urban land.

[Mr Downtown]

I don't know who owns the parking lots.
Isn't it the Wirtz family of companies? The ones who are developers and managers of large apartment buildings?

[Chicago Shawn]

Some the eastern lots are provately owned. The others listed as "official parking" I'm guesing are owned by the United Center or some type of joint venture. Don't hope for any significant density, that is one of the seven deadly sins for the assholes of WLCO, who I am sure would put up a fight.

[VivaLFuego]

How about putting a stop on the pink line at the United Center? Even if it's only open during events, it would make sense. There is no good way to get there as is.

#19, #20, IMD/Blue Line...

[emathias]

Anyone know what's up with the Staybridge Suites? It's (going to be) such a great-looking building if it ever gets finished.

BTW: they took down the crane today (prematurely) so it must be a pretty hard "on hold" period for them.

[the urban politician]

And this one has financing:

Local developers turn West Side lofts into apartments (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30644)
By: Eddie Baeb Aug. 19, 2008
(Crain’s) – Two Chicago developers are planning to convert a six-story loft building on the West Side into a 68-unit apartment building.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/images/news/30644.jpg

[Busy Bee]

About the 950 unit development in Hegewisch.... (which is awesome)

Originally Posted by Mojava View Post
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30647

"(Crain’s) – The Chicago Plan Commission on Thursday will consider proposals to build a 44-story apartment building in the East Loop, a 950-unit residential development on the Southeast Side and a controversial soccer field in Lincoln Park.

M&R Development LLC, a developer affiliated with Chicago-based apartment broker Moran & Co., has asked for the commission’s approval to build the apartment building at 73 E. Lake St., which would include as many as 321 units, according to an tentative agenda of the meeting."

What building is proposed for 73 E Lake St?


http://www.134thstreet.com/


http://www.134thstreet.com/images/ImageDevelopment1.jpg

http://www.134thstreet.com/images/ImageDevelopment2.jpg

http://www.134thstreet.com/images/ImageDevelopment3.jpg

http://www.134thstreet.com/images/134thLarge.jpg

[the urban politician]

^ Wow, that's pretty good density for that part of town. Is there a non-bus transit connection anywhere near there?

[Chicago Shawn]

Yeah its pretty awesome. What you can't see, is that a portion of 134th Street will have street level retail at the lot line with condos above. I think there is 30,000 square feet of retail overall.

I'll be honest, I am a little sad to see the mobile home park go away, it added diversity to the city's housing stock and helped make Hegewisch feel like a small town within the city; but this is a great improvement to the site.


TUP, there is a South Shore station not too far from there, but its not really walking distance to the average person, and the bus is a pretty good distance from there as well. People will be driving here, but with the retail space included some minor trips can be on foot without leaving the development.