[emathias]

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

From the center of where the shopping center will be, it's about 4/5 of a mile to the Hegewisch stop on the South Shore line. Kind of a long walk, but I'd guess there would be a fair number of kiss-and-riders from the development heading downtown.

[ardecila]

The Red Line extension, if built, will allow CTA planners to re-configure the bus routes on the Far South Side. You can bet that there will be a route down 134th to service this sizable development.

[VivaLFuego]

^ And further, even if many drive to the Park n Ride lot to commute downtown, it's still a lot less vehicle-miles than driving all the way to work.

Looks like a great development, I'll gladly take the slightly-hokey new urbanism over a trailer park, particularly at this lengthy distance from downtown. If only the rumored massive development near Pullman comes out more like this and not like the gated community the Alderman promises...


Can one of the development gurus comment on if 30K sq ft of retail seems appropriate for the mix of unit density and income strata of residents? Most of these new urbanist type deals end up with waaaay too much retail given the surrounding income/density due to the community meeting extortion process in which everyone says they want more retail and less housing (as if building retail spaces brings viable retail tenants)....hence all the vacant retail spaces in many of the various new downtown TODs near Metra stations, in the West Loop, etc.

But if this one was largely by-the-numbers between the developer and DPD from the get-go, I'll trust their judgment to size it right.

[the urban politician]

Sunday, August 17, 2008
Pat Dowell Hates on U of C for Buying Empty Buildings and Vacant Lots (http://hydeparkprogress.blogspot.com/2008/08/pat-dowell-hates-on-u-of-c-for-buying.html)


posted by chicago pop

Chicago 3rd Ward Alderman Pat Dowell just had a NIMBY coming-out party.

Or at least it looks like she is trying to get in the Club. And nothing helps score some NIMBY street cred better than hating on the University of Chicago.

But it's not just hating on the U of C that makes you a NIMBY -- if that were the case, we'd have to include hundreds of College students -- it's how you hate on the U of C that makes you a NIMBY.

To really get street cred as a NIMBY, you have to be stuck in the 60s, the way Pat Dowell accused her 3rd Ward Aldermanic predecessor Dorothy Tillman of being "stuck in the 80s" before walloping her in the 2007 city council elections.

You have to believe, like the greatest Hyde Park NIMBYs, that what happened in the period of Urban Renewal, racial turnover, Civil Rights, and inner city decay formed a template that will forever govern the operation of Chicago politics.

You have to think that the grass-roots organizations that were formed then, over 2 generations ago, if not before (whether the Hyde Park Co-Op, the Harper Court Foundation or The Woodlawn Organization), are still relevant and effective, and that the stories these organizations tell about themselves are accurate interpretations of history.

Most importantly, when you get a chance to build something useful on a vacant lot or empty building, you say "No thanks," and make arguments about why you should be able to control and obstruct the buying and selling of private property.

Dowell makes it very clear what she wants in her letter, sent to U of C President Robert Zimmer, Mayor Daley, and, um, the Hyde Park Herald (August 13, 2008).

She doesn't want the University buying land in her ward.

She says as much, referring to her "expressed reservations about the university purchasing land in the Third Ward at this time."

Dowell claims that the University is being high-handed by not bringing her in on its real estate plans, even though she has made it clear that she doesn't want the University in her neighborhood to begin with.

So why is she surprised she's not in the loop?

Even though NIMBY-ism clearly comes in a variety of colors, it still operates according to the same conservative and self-serving logic, in which paranoid speculations are cooked up on the basis of skewed understandings of changes that happened before a lot of us were born.

The 3rd Ward version of NIMBY-ism -- like one of Dorothy Tillman's hats, it can be taken off a hook and worn by anyone -- comes in a standard package that includes ritual incantations about the "history of the university's relationship with its neighboring communities."

We're all supposed to know what this means, we read about "the history" in the papers, University officials work through their guilt by endlessly admitting that there is a "history", when what this history really boils down to is one incident in Woodlawn that happened 50 years ago in utterly different historical circumstances, and with negative unintended consequences that have left that neighborhood worse off than if it hadn't experienced "the history" in the first place.

The story is this: in the early 1960s, the University of Chicago wanted to use federal urban renewal funds, with the support of municipal condemnations, to bulldoze and redevelop Woodlawn the way it had bulldozed parts of Hyde Park, which would have resulted in the displacement of low-income households the way it already had in Hyde Park.

Local folks mobilized to prevent this. It never happened. Local folks were happy, and then their neighborhood went to hell. Somewhere along the line, at the instigation of The Woodlawn Organization and now-convicted felon and former 20th Ward Alderman Arenda Troutman, they tore down the 63rd Street spur of the El, something increasingly regarded as one of the dumbest decisions in the history of mass transit.

Fast forward half a century: urban-renewed Hyde Park is a diverse community on the upswing, with its fabric more or less intact, anchored by the University of Chicago.

After The Woodlawn Organization achieved its goal of blocking University-led renewal of its eponymous neighborhood, however, it was unable to keep the area from descending into the very death spiral that the University had sought to forestall, losing population, businesses, and tax base over the next 30 years, as middle class blacks followed their white predecessors out the door.

That's a victory? Maybe not, but it provides a useful scapegoat.

^ Click link above for the entire post, pictures, and subsequent commentary

[brian_b]

From the center of where the shopping center will be, it's about 4/5 of a mile to the Hegewisch stop on the South Shore line. Kind of a long walk, but I'd guess there would be a fair number of kiss-and-riders from the development heading downtown.

There's a CTA bus that runs down Ave O to the Hegewish station, which is about 500 feet from the entrance to this development @ 134th St. So it shouldn't be too bad.

It really looks like a pretty good overall plan for the area. That Hegewish stop always seems to be pretty busy. The park and ride lots are always full too. Only 35 minutes to Millennium Park from that stop.

Edit - I just noticed that the single family homes that are part of this plan run from 2000 - 2400 sq feet. That's excellent - brings us back to homes that are appropriately sized for the average family.

[Via Chicago]

Like this wasnt his plan all along...

Could Tribune Tower go residential?
http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/1116437,CST-FIN-roeder20.article

...Sources said Zell, who has hired Eastdil Secured LLC to market the tower and a parking lot abutting it, is thinking big. They said Zell wants nothing better than to turn over all of Tribune Tower to a residential developer. Such an owner could use it as a Gothic ornament for new construction on the parking lot....

[Chicago Shawn]

Edit - I just noticed that the single family homes that are part of this plan run from 2000 - 2400 sq feet. That's excellent - brings us back to homes that are appropriately sized for the average family.

And they are priced from $229,000, which is friggen cheap for new construction, even by suburban standards. You would have to go way out to the exurbs to find a new construction SF home in a greenfield development cheaper than that for 2,000 sqaure feet.

[emathias]

And they are priced from $229,000, which is friggen cheap for new construction, even by suburban standards. You would have to go way out to the exurbs to find a new construction SF home in a greenfield development cheaper than that for 2,000 sqaure feet.

So I guess the next comment is: "I hope they're built well and not just crap."

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=46&SubSectionID=139&ArticleID=5696&TM=83739.05

M Development ruffling neighbors on Elm and Division
Felicia Dechter

..."They assured me that they were going to start tearing the building down in May," Spence said.

...Alderman Brendan Reilly, 42nd, wants to meet with M in the next two weeks to officially see what he called "reasonable and appropriate plans" for a two-to-three story retail structure, with possibly a café and some boutique retail. M president Jeffrey Shapack said his company is putting together their proposed plans for Reilly's review.

...Vacant since last year, not all neighbors are thrilled with the upcoming 21-story, 216-room Mondrian Chicago, although "it's better than a whorehouse," one person told me, referring to the Cedar. Shapack said construction begins this fall, and the hotel should open the first quarter of 2010.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9665/5696ajf3.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

...Alderman Brendan Reilly, 42nd, wants to meet with M in the next two weeks to officially see what he called "reasonable and appropriate plans" for a two-to-three story retail structure, with possibly a café and some boutique retail. M president Jeffrey Shapack said his company is putting together their proposed plans for Reilly's review.

You have got to be FUCKING KIDDING ME.

This site is zoned for an FAR of 7.0 you Alderhack.

And I don't swear willynilly...

[emathias]

You have got to be FUCKING KIDDING ME.

This site is zoned for an FAR of 7.0 you Alderhack.

And I don't swear willynilly...

I KNOW. I moved downtown to live in a CITY, not a small town. I grew up in town of 560 people, and our business district had 4-story buildings, for crying out loud. If Chicago aldermen think 2-3 stories is appropriate for central Chicago, then they should be tarred and feathered. Give me a city or I'll leave.

[the urban politician]

^ You know, perhaps it was the developer who decided to build a 2-3 story retail structure, since hmmm lets see, the residential market is in the TANK, the hotel market ain't far behind, and there sure as hell isn't a market for office space at this site.

I hate Alderstupidity as much as the next guy, but lets not all get carried away here & assume Reilly is evilly plotting behind all of these projects. And believe it or not, it's not the end of the world to have some shorter, boutiquish buildings in a dense urban area. In fact, I kind of like them.

[the urban politician]

I KNOW. I moved downtown to live in a CITY, not a small town. I grew up in town of 560 people, and our business district had 4-story buildings, for crying out loud. If Chicago aldermen think 2-3 stories is appropriate for central Chicago, then they should be tarred and feathered. Give me a city or I'll leave.

^ Oh please with the hyperbole. You already live in a CITY. What part about 120+ skyscrapers completed in under a decade DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND

Having a few boutiquish buildings (which can always be redeveloped toward a higher use in the future) built in this boom is, by far and large, without the faintest hint of a doubt, the absolute least of Chicago's problems right now

[honte]

And believe it or not, it's not the end of the world to have some shorter, boutiquish buildings in a dense urban area. In fact, I kind of like them.

Such as the ones already there??? That's what drives me crazy. I used to have a friend who lived in that building on the corner, and they had no intention of leaving - it was a perfectly nice place to live. But the landlord started letting it go and I believe stopped renewing leases.

Whatever the cause, if Reilly thinks short buildings are the way to go, he should advocate for preservation instead of dumbing-down. I'm getting really sick of his completely nonsensical position.

[Chicago Shawn]

"I don't go out after 8 p.m. or when it's dark," said Sally Loeser, a member of the Near North Neighbors. "With nothing happening at the site of the Cedar Hotel and nothing happening on the east side of the block between Elm and Division, that whole area looks terribly rundown, dirty and depressing."

You have to be kidding me. This is the type of paranoia that deserves veto power of development? Why the hell do we even spend our tax money on both a planning department and zoning department, when apparently this doesn't even matter; and you know M development will play ball because they have for active developments in the 42nd ward. So, because of political bull shit M couldn't build a 7 FAR building as of right if they want future development in the 42nd ward.

Here is another example of demolishing real history for fake history, and as far as the fucktard NIMBY complaints about out of context development, look at the 5 story building on this block that has been there for the last century. This is a fleecing of our tax money, as a 7 FAR on this prime real estate would bring in far more revenue at a time when the city is in a budget crises. Just renovate the old building instead, at least then we have something with character of the historic Gold Coast, since isn't that what this issue is all about?

I beg all 42nd ward residents on this forum to write letters to the alderman's office now if you are upset with this and/or the Esquire.

[emathias]

^ Oh please with the hyperbole. You already live in a CITY. What part about 120+ skyscrapers completed in under a decade DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND

Having a few boutiquish buildings (which can always be redeveloped toward a higher use in the future) built in this boom is, by far and large, without the faintest hint of a doubt, the absolute least of Chicago's problems right now

Given that Chicago has over 1000 buildings of 10+ stories, 120 new ones in a decade is actually only about the long-term average for the city. We talk about it being a "boom," but we're bigger than Toronto yet have 1/2 as many skyscrapers. It's not really a boom, then, it's simply been a return to normal growth. Acting as though it's some huge accomplishment to maintain the average is exactly the mindset that allows stagnate complacency to creep back in.

The hemming and hawing and interference by officials is the large part of what killed the central area distributor subway, which would be very useful right about now, because the delays drove the cost up. So now we don't have an essential piece of infrastructure. The same sort of delays can kill private development, too, which is even more crucial to the city.

I may have been a bit overboard, but the idea that 120 skyscrapers in a decade should be considered a lot is just, well, silly.

[Chicago Shawn]

I KNOW. I moved downtown to live in a CITY, not a small town. I grew up in town of 560 people, and our business district had 4-story buildings, for crying out loud. If Chicago aldermen think 2-3 stories is appropriate for central Chicago, then they should be tarred and feathered. Give me a city or I'll leave.

I know am I am tired of it. NYC is the same story, as is any city in the US seeing a rebirth, a growing population of suburban transplants who don't understand what city living is. I swear if McCain win the presidency and Chicago loses the Olympics, I then will be looking for work overseas will go someplace that embraces urbanity rather than just tolerates it.


TUP, the vast, vast majority of our building boom was approved under Naturas and Heithcock. I don't see signs pointing forward for this type of a boom to continue in the future, regardless of whether market conditions or hot or in the toilet. Its the same story in almost every location of the city, while our city has become a much better place to live we continue to fall short of truly being the best we can be, we continue to tear down our history for crap, we continue to undermine our transit system, we continue to have a Burnham mantra and embrace the revolutionary achievements, while our citizenry continues to bitch about how much money will be spent on our El-cheapo Olympic bid, and our village idoit NIMBYs continue to elect other village idiots to serve as their pandering politicians, so that our dismal course can continue.

[VivaLFuego]

^ I don't think you're going overboard, emathias. This is completely uncalled for. It is utterly incomprehensible that a "2 to 3 story building" could be considered remotely appropriate for that site, especially as honte points out considering there are already some attractive and serviceable 4 story buildings with a lot of character there. They could be a justifiable loss for an increase in use intensity, but for this? Utterly ridiculous. We're talking about basically the destruction of naturally affordable rental units; reducing population density, affordability, and diversity in the neighborhood. And for...what exactly? So "DeeDee Spence" can feel validated about her neighborhood activism?

I live in the 42nd ward because I want to live in the heart of it all, in one of the premier dense urban neighborhoods of the country if not the world. I am happy to give ground on whether or not zoning changes should be approved to build higher/denser than the allowable zoning, as this is a truly debatable point - but to limit development to less than half the density allowed by right under the zoning? It's indefensible. Any property owner, NIMBY or not, should be aware of the underlying zoning of their area and expect that to generally guide development, not just hope to use their political clout to control some alderhack and other people's private property to conform to their ill-supportable whims.

[Marcu]

^ Oh please with the hyperbole. You already live in a CITY. What part about 120+ skyscrapers completed in under a decade DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND

Having a few boutiquish buildings (which can always be redeveloped toward a higher use in the future) built in this boom is, by far and large, without the faintest hint of a doubt, the absolute least of Chicago's problems right now

emathias's criticism is right on. This isn't just about one parcel of land or about living in the densest neighborhood possible. It's these kinds of developments that eventually do lead to much more serious problems. Artificially imposed political restrictions on development such as these drive the cost of living in the city through the roof through a shortage of supply, which in turn pushes out the middle class (those that can't afford to pay and those without government assistance), which contributes to auto-centric sprawl 50 miles from the city center. It also leads to lower overall tax revenue and a higher tax burden on each individual. Take a look at what's been happening to cities around the world precisely for thing reason. A city has to be affordable for people just graduating college making 25-40k a year, because its these people that end up staying in the city, raising families in the city, and contributing both economically and politically to its growth. It can't just be a place for high level executives getting set to move to lake forest and section 8 recipients to be sustainable. Unfortunetly, too many American cities are becoming just that. Take a look at SF, NY, or Boston.

Everyone puts a price on living in an urban environment. Most city residents now are certainly willing to pay more to live in Chicago instead of say Schaumburg, but the mark up has its limits.

^ You know, perhaps it was the developer who decided to build a 2-3 story retail structure, since hmmm lets see, the residential market is in the TANK, the hotel market ain't far behind, and there sure as hell isn't a market for office space at this site.



If that was the case, the developer would've sat on it waiting for better market conditions.

[the urban politician]

Wow, I guess I've been educated.

But to be honest, I really think you all are overreacting.

Look at the 3 story building being demo'd. It was built perhaps 110 or 120 years ago?

The late 19th/early 20th centuries were the peak of American urbanity, yet pretty small buildings like this were still being built all over the place, despite the fact that the technology to build highrises already existed. Smaller units and lack of parking aside, these little 2-4 story structures are only going to hold so much density.

So just because a tall building is not being built in every single site where it is allowed is no reason to panic. NO reason. I think we all need to just chill out and remember that great cities are built layer after layer, generation after generation. It's not all going to happen at once.

Given that Chicago has over 1000 buildings of 10+ stories, 120 new ones in a decade is actually only about the long-term average for the city. We talk about it being a "boom," but we're bigger than Toronto yet have 1/2 as many skyscrapers. It's not really a boom, then, it's simply been a return to normal growth. Acting as though it's some huge accomplishment to maintain the average is exactly the mindset that allows stagnate complacency to creep back in.

The hemming and hawing and interference by officials is the large part of what killed the central area distributor subway, which would be very useful right about now, because the delays drove the cost up. So now we don't have an essential piece of infrastructure. The same sort of delays can kill private development, too, which is even more crucial to the city.

I may have been a bit overboard, but the idea that 120 skyscrapers in a decade should be considered a lot is just, well, silly.

^ I guess, except until recently the large bulk of that boom has been office towers. This is the first major highrise boom that consisted almost entirely of residential, and I would assume that most of us see that as a sign of wonderful change for this increasingly 24/7 city

[emathias]

...
I guess, except until recently the large bulk of that boom has been office towers. This is the first major highrise boom that consisted almost entirely of residential, and I would assume that most of us see that as a sign of wonderful change for this increasingly 24/7 city

Again, it's really not a boom. Almost all the towers have been downtown. Where are the new towers to complement the existing ones along the north lakefront, or in Hyde Park, or along the South Lakefront, or to accompany the ones on the NW side?

As far as so-called "booms" go, this one has really, objectively, not been so much of a boom as simply a return to a healthy rate of growth.

[VivaLFuego]

deleting my pessimistic rant

[Marcu]

^ At the same time, I see the suburbs becoming more and more dense. We are already seeing this to some extent with the rise of mixed use transit oriented developments. This type of pseudo-urbanism will serve as a good educational starting point for many suburban residents previously completely unfamiliar with urban living and it may eventually lead to true urban development in other parts of Chicagoland. Suburbs as far out as Kenosha, Elgin, and Palatine are building up their urban cores. This would've been unheard of 10 or 15 years ago. So as city neighborhoods shun development, the suburbs, ironically, may actually become the new frontier for urban construction. Slowly, the density gap between the city and the suburbs will close.

[honte]

Again, it's really not a boom. Almost all the towers have been downtown. Where are the new towers to complement the existing ones along the north lakefront, or in Hyde Park, or along the South Lakefront, or to accompany the ones on the NW side?

As far as so-called "booms" go, this one has really, objectively, not been so much of a boom as simply a return to a healthy rate of growth.

I really have to disagree. The number of towers built might be similar or less to that built at other times, but we've been building 50+ story buildings at an unprecedented rate. Perhaps if you are concerned only about unit counts, you are almost definitely right, but I think what's been happening here has been very unusual. You could also say that the number of luxury units has been unprecedented, which is a very positive indicator of the city's health and draw.

[cbotnyse]

There is a construction barge parked on the river between Michigan and Wabash, presumably for start of the riverwalk. I dont have my damn camera unfortunately, but believe me its there!

[the urban politician]

Bottom line: I stand by my assertion that you guys are overreacting.

Why people think that EVERY available site needs to be developed into its highest potential use right now doesn't make a lot of sense to me. These plots of land will outlive their owners, they will outlive the Alderman, and they will outlive you and I. Having a couple of 3-4 story retail buildings around for future development isn't necessarily a bad thing; after all, do you want every available parcel to go up during an era in which tan brown precast ala Grand Plaza & The Bernardin are in vogue?

[honte]

^ Are you disagreeing that it's moronic to tear down historic buildings and replace them with similarly-sized or less-dense structures? I don't think many of us are arguing against smaller buildings, but in this case if it's not a tower or an architectural masterpiece, I'm pissed. There's just no point to it except developer profit - doesn't benefit the city in any way.

[the urban politician]

^ Oh, I won't argue with you there. Tearing down a historic structure just to build something of the same density is obviously the behavior of lower primates. I'm just trying to quell everybody's concerns that this site is forever doomed to underutilization because it's not being developed to its full zoning right now.

[Mr Downtown]

Developers build what they can make money building today, not what 'scraperfans want them to build in some mythical world of urban economic theory. If M Development has retail tenants lined up, perhaps with obligatory move-in dates, they don't wait until the stars align for them to build a 10-story condo for which there's no market and which may be very difficult to make work on this site for a variety of perfectly rational reasons (ownership complications, multilevel retail spaces, black iron, loading docks, parking access). They develop this parcel (on which they're paying taxes and carrying costs) and move on to the next project.

[aaron38]

I saw a "Go out and buy a house" commercial from a real estate advocacy group. Don't remember seeing one of those before.
I've been trying to decide if that means that the real estate market has bottomed out and the industry is trying to dispell pessimism and spark the restart, or if they're still trying to level the decent.

[honte]

Developers build what they can make money building today, not what 'scraperfans want them to build in some mythical world of urban economic theory. If M Development has retail tenants lined up, perhaps with obligatory move-in dates, they don't wait until the stars align for them to build a 10-story condo for which there's no market and which may be very difficult to make work on this site for a variety of perfectly rational reasons (ownership complications, multilevel retail spaces, black iron, loading docks, parking access). They develop this parcel (on which they're paying taxes and carrying costs) and move on to the next project.

The picture you paint ignores a developer's civic responsibility. Development of a site in any particular fashion desired is not a legal right.

That's why we need people like Reilly to be a little smarter and a little more forceful. There's only so much he can do, but it appears he is doing nothing.

[Haworthia]

I saw a "Go out and buy a house" commercial from a real estate advocacy group. Don't remember seeing one of those before.
I've been trying to decide if that means that the real estate market has bottomed out and the industry is trying to dispell pessimism and spark the restart, or if they're still trying to level the decent.

My vote is level the decent. We haven't bottomed out. Housing prices are still falling. New housing starts are down. Foreclosures are still high. I don't see a turnaround until these things change. I doubt that will happen until at least a year from now, I put money on the beginning of 2010.

Also looking at how many downtown units are becoming available and how much people are buying, it will take until 2010 to soak all these up and that assumes no additional projects.

[Mr Downtown]

The picture you paint ignores a developer's civic responsibility. Development of a site in any particular fashion desired is not a legal right.

Of course it is, so long as it complies with zoning, landmark protection, and similar ordinances. See the Lucas decision.

Maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[VivaLFuego]

Developers build what they can make money building today, not what 'scraperfans want them to build in some mythical world of urban economic theory. If M Development has retail tenants lined up, perhaps with obligatory move-in dates, they don't wait until the stars align for them to build a 10-story condo for which there's no market and which may be very difficult to make work on this site for a variety of perfectly rational reasons (ownership complications, multilevel retail spaces, black iron, loading docks, parking access). They develop this parcel (on which they're paying taxes and carrying costs) and move on to the next project.

So why did M pay SCB for preliminary plans for a hotel tower? Note that it was Reilly who said "two-to-three stories" was "appropriate," not M, who wanted to build 20 stories on the Esquire site and subsequently something of similar scale here - and both were at least reasonable proposals under the DX-7 zoning of both sites.

I do fault M for being terrible at government and community relations thereby shooting themselves in the foot, but that's not a good enough reason to deny any development above some NIMBY-approved density level.

[Chicago Shawn]

^ Are you disagreeing that it's moronic to tear down historic buildings and replace them with similarly-sized or less-dense structures? I don't think many of us are arguing against smaller buildings, but in this case if it's not a tower or an architectural masterpiece, I'm pissed. There's just no point to it except developer profit - doesn't benefit the city in any way.

I agree with this statement, beacuse according to the Near North Neighbors group, this all about "context". What the hell is contextual about ripping down a historic building and replacing it with a less intensive use? I am so irritated by this. The building will be sacrificed because its old and "scary" enough to prevent pussy gold coasters from leaving the house after 8 PM. That kind of statement shows the true colors of these NIMBYs, they don't care about the histortic context; they want something they precive is safe, sterile and predictable, like the suburbs.

And Mr D, there were plans that SCB drew up for a hotel there, so I am not so sure M development is doing this plan purley on the basis of economics. I belive this is Plan B, shifing to neighborhood demands while sqeezing out a few pennies from what could have been dollars and allowing M Development to still be "welcomed" for future neighborhood investements. Or perhaps plan C is to land bank the property now through building a cheap disposable retial space, and then max out the zoning when the market conditions are better, that of course is contigent on the site not being forcibly downzoned in the future, which is eaiser to do when downzoning doesn't create a problem with a non-conforming structure, which won't be the case here with a 2 or 3 story structrure.

TUP, yeah, I over reacted a little bit; but the problem is, this is happing all to much now, and I really concerned about the future of development in this city and how it will affect affordability and our overall competiveness in a global economy. And, also how much this hinders Chicago's ability to achieve a greater sustainablity of the region for all the reasons that Marcu mention earlier.

[Mr Downtown]

And it's absolutely inconceivable that the hotel deal fell through in today's real estate environment? You kids act like you've never seen a recession before. In the early 90s, the Plaza Escada site on Michigan was a 10-story office building slated for a highrise (I can't remember if it was hotel or condo). When the market soured, US Equities built the three-story project they had tenants for, not something more grandiose just because it was a prominent site or because drawings had been done.

The Journal story simply reads
Alderman Brendan Reilly, 42nd, wants to meet with M in the next two weeks to officially see what he called "reasonable and appropriate plans" for a two-to-three story retail structure, with possibly a café and some boutique retail.

I don't see anywhere in there the idea that a seven-story project wouldn't be "reasonable and appropriate." We simply don't know exactly what was the full wording of the reporter's question and what was the full wording of Reilly's response.

[BVictor1]

And it's absolutely inconceivable that the hotel deal fell through in today's real estate environment? In the early 90s, the Plaza Escada site on Michigan was a 10-story office building slated for a highrise (I can't remember if it was hotel or condo). When the market soured, US Equities built the three-story project they had tenants for, not something more grandiose just because it was a prominent site or because drawings had been done. You kids act like you've never seen a recession before.

The Journal story simply reads
Alderman Brendan Reilly, 42nd, wants to meet with M in the next two weeks to officially see what he called "reasonable and appropriate plans" for a two-to-three story retail structure, with possibly a café and some boutique retail.

I don't see anywhere in there the idea that a seven-story project wouldn't be "reasonable and appropriate." We simply don't know exactly what was the full wording of the reporter's question and what was the full wording of Reilly's response.

Most of us really haven't because we were "kids" during the last recession and could care less. It's you people that are about over-the-hill that can relate to time such as these better...

[wrabbit]

What grates is the waste of it all, the needless expenditures of capital & resources, in tearing something down and rebuilding when adaptive reuse is possible - like buying a new car every time one of the headlights goes out, or playing with your food.

.....Development of a site in any particular fashion desired is not a legal right.....
Of course it is, so long as it complies with zoning, landmark protection, and similar ordinances. See the Lucas decision.

Maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Honte is saying that the developer's property rights are not absolute - that he must comply with zoning, landmark protection & similar ordinances, as you note in your response.

[Marcu]

Most of us really haven't because we were "kids" during the last recession and could care less. It's you people that are about over-the-hill that can relate to time such as these better...

couldn't care less :D

[emathias]

I thought you all might find this interesting.

Of the 1,000 tallest buildings in Chicago, here's the breakdown of when they were contstructed, by decade:

2000-2009 183
1990-1999 49
1980-1989 102
1970-1979 134
1960-1969 200
1950-1959 63
1940-1949 2
1930-1939 30
1920-1929 158
1910-1919 35
1900-1909 14
old-1899 11

Broken down by 5-year increments, it looks like this:

1900-1904 3
1905-1909 11
1910-1914 27
1915-1919 8
1920-1924 24
1925-1929 134
1930-1934 28
1935-1939 2
1940-1944 0
1945-1949 2
1950-1954 36
1955-1959 27
1960-1964 85
1965-1969 115
1970-1974 105
1975-1979 29
1980-1984 50
1985-1989 52
1990-1994 36
1995-1999 13
2000-2004 81
2005-2009 102

Finally, here are the top ten years for Chicago skyscraper construction:

1927 38
2008 33
1969 33
1928 33
1929 31
2009 25
1968 23
1965 23
1963 23
2003 22

[wrabbit]

^Wow. The 20's really did roar in Chicago. Must've been crazy.

[ih8spires]

There is a construction barge parked on the river between Michigan and Wabash, presumably for start of the riverwalk. I dont have my damn camera unfortunately, but believe me its there!

Thank God! At the beggining of the Summer, my condo assosiation office posted a notice on the bullitin board that said those walkways around Michigan and Wabash street would be built this Summer. Since there is only one more month until the start of Fall, I was getting frustrated that it wouldn't happen this Summer. Slowly but surely the River walk it taking shape:tup:

[VivaLFuego]

And it's absolutely inconceivable that the hotel deal fell through in today's real estate environment? You kids act like you've never seen a recession before. In the early 90s, the Plaza Escada site on Michigan was a 10-story office building slated for a highrise (I can't remember if it was hotel or condo). When the market soured, US Equities built the three-story project they had tenants for, not something more grandiose just because it was a prominent site or because drawings had been done.

The Journal story simply reads
Alderman Brendan Reilly, 42nd, wants to meet with M in the next two weeks to officially see what he called "reasonable and appropriate plans" for a two-to-three story retail structure, with possibly a café and some boutique retail.

I don't see anywhere in there the idea that a seven-story project wouldn't be "reasonable and appropriate." We simply don't know exactly what was the full wording of the reporter's question and what was the full wording of Reilly's response.

At this point, we can only speculate what M's actual intentions and/or desires were and are. Every indication suggests they've been trying to build rather dense but have been consistently shot down by Reilly. How long ago was it that they were gung-ho to build a 15-20 story hotel on Oak, a couple blocks away? A few weeks? That's some pretty quick market-souring. As long as we're speculating, is it also possible that they'd like to build something denser, but realize it ain't gonna happen with Reilly and thus will just develop with what they've got (some land, maybe a couple committed tenants) to wipe their hands clean of their previous optimism they could build something akin to the Cedar/Mondrian? Do we know what M paid for those parcels to begin with? What was the price per FAR-foot? That should give some indication of whether they intended to develop to substantially higher use.

emathias,
Thanks for the list.

[cbotnyse]

Thank God! At the beggining of the Summer, my condo assosiation office posted a notice on the bullitin board that said those walkways around Michigan and Wabash street would be built this Summer. Since there is only one more month until the start of Fall, I was getting frustrated that it wouldn't happen this Summer. Slowly but surely the River walk it taking shape:tup:http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/trump/DSC_0065.jpg

[ih8spires]

:previous: awesome!

[honte]

I thought you all might find this interesting.

Of the 1,000 tallest buildings in Chicago, here's the breakdown of when they were contstructed, by decade:

OK, that is interesting. Now, if you can do it for the top 200, 100, and 50 tallest I think you will see a trend that we are indeed building taller and more dense buildings than in the past = an increase. It would also be interesting to see those stats for square footage and unit counts, but I doubt you have access to those figures.

You get my drift though. I think we're doing quite well on the density scale, especially when you consider that 1) we are a mature, dense city already, 2) market trends still sadly point toward people moving away from the Midwest, 3) many people entirely wrote Chicago off in the 1970s-1980s, 4) we have the screwed-up NIMBY phenomenon raging, 5) Chicago has made no sizable additions to its infrastructure in the last decade or more.

[Mr Downtown]

What is the source for these statistics? I was particularly interested in the comparison between Chicago and Toronto.

[emathias]

What is the source for these statistics? I was particularly interested in the comparison between Chicago and Toronto.

They are a casting from Emporis data.

I'm not going to pull Toronto's data because, frankly, I'm not that interested in Toronto and it takes me a little while to clean up the data from the format I get it in.

But, here's one more Chicago table:

By 5-year period, from the current 1,000 tallest finished or u/c buildings, the total number of floors built. I don't have consistent enough square footage or units, but floors are available on nearly 100% of the buildings. In hindsight, I should have included demolished buildings in my pull, too, but I just didn't think of it until now.

1890-1894 125
1895-1899 54
1900-1904 74
1905-1909 221
1910-1914 503
1915-1919 101
1920-1924 466
1925-1929 2841
1930-1934 635
1935-1939 34
1940-1944 0
1945-1949 36
1950-1954 632
1955-1959 609
1960-1964 2049
1965-1969 2964
1970-1974 3119
1975-1979 889
1980-1984 1543
1985-1989 1802
1990-1994 1289
1995-1999 302
2000-2004 2190
2005-2009 3173

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Now that is impressive, it shows that not only are we building at the boom pace that Chicago seems to hit every 30 years or so, but we are building taller buildings than ever.

[VivaLFuego]

Wow at 1960-1974... that's what I'm talking about. And that was a boom that goes counter to tup's point about this boom being residential in contrast to previous booms being office...the boom in the 60s included a great deal of lakefront residential highrises that were vital in making those neighborhoods as dense and vibrant as they are today.

[Chicago Shawn]

Wow at 1960-1974... that's what I'm talking about. And that was a boom that goes counter to tup's point about this boom being residential in contrast to previous booms being office...the boom in the 60s included a great deal of lakefront residential highrises that were vital in making those neighborhoods as dense and vibrant as they are today.

Keep in mind that is just a listing of completed buildings not including the demolished CHA high-rises.

Here is a breakdown of demolished buildings 12 stories or more (by completion year):
Year......# of buildings...total of floor counts
1885-89: 6* 76*
1890-94: 24 363
1895-99: 5 73
1900-04: 4 59
1905-09: 8 129
1910-14: 9 143
1915-19: 4 62
1920-24: 8 119
1925-29: 15 257
1930-35: 2 35
1935-39: 0 ---
1940-44: 1 19
1945-49: 0 ---
1950-54: 3 43
1955-59: 23 325
1960-64: 53 821 (Robert Taylor :cool:)
1965-69: 0 ---
1970-74: 2 39
1975-2008: 0 Buildings

Under demolition:
1 at 17 stories, the VA hospital built in 1955

*Includes Home Insurance Building built to 10 stories in 1885, expanded to 12 in 1890.

[the urban politician]

Wow, 1935-1950 was a very slow time in Chicago. Obviously this coincides with the Depression and WWII...

[denizen467]

Keep in mind that is just a listing of completed buildings not including the demolished CHA high-rises.

Here is a breakdown of demolished buildings 12 stories or more (by completion year):
Year......# of buildings...total of floor counts
1885-89: 6* 76*
1890-94: 24 363
1895-99: 5 73
1900-04: 4 59
1905-09: 8 129
1910-14: 9 143
1915-19: 4 62
1920-24: 8 119
1925-29: 15 257
1930-35: 2 35
1935-39: 0 ---
1940-44: 1 19
1945-49: 0 ---
1950-54: 3 43
1955-59: 23 325
1960-64: 53 821 (Robert Taylor :cool:)
1965-69: 0 ---
1970-74: 2 39
1975-2008: 0 Buildings

Under demolition:
1 at 17 stories, the VA hospital built in 1955

*Includes Home Insurance Building built to 10 stories in 1885, expanded to 12 in 1890.

So every Chicago highrise built since 1965 is still standing, except for 2. I'm trying to think of what the 2 are (assuming they're not CHA). Was one of them on the river near Dearborn?

Also, about your Robert Taylor comment, presumably Cabrini-Green etcetera are also included here?

[Mr Downtown]

I'm thinking US Gypsum and McCormick Inn.

(Galter Carriage House was 1964.)

[denizen467]

Ahhh - of course, the original McCormick Hotel! I wasn't thinking sufficiently out of the box (or loop, pun intended). That's most certainly post 1964, since there was only a modest convention center there until Lakeside around (I think) 1969.

As for US Gypsum, I thought of that since it was a noteworthy demolition, but I do remember checking at the time and finding that it was quite an old tower, 1950s I think.

That leaves 1 mystery demo'd building. Speaking of Galter, what about the residential buildings that were nearly opposite it -- at East Pearson near LSD, replaced by Lagrange/Destefano? Were those over 12 and post 1964?

[honte]

^ Park Hyatt?

[BVictor1]

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/trump/DSC_0065.jpg

Can't remember if this was posted:

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1341560230.1219591646@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccccadeemijmeelcefecelldffhdfho.0&contentOID=537001216&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&blockName=Transportation%2FI+Want+To&context=dept&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Transportation&deptMainCategoryOID=
Michigan Avenue bridge Riverwalk project

Crews have begun work on a river-level walkway beneath the Michigan Avenue bridge--the first such connection for the Chicago River Riverwalk.



The walkway will extend about 17 feet out into the Chicago River, providing a continuous path beneath the bridge. Once complete, users will be able to walk alongside the river from Lake Michigan all the way to Wabash Avenue.



A second underbridge walkway is planned for beneath the Wabash bridge. That work is tentatively scheduled to begin this fall.

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/RWlookingsouthwest.JPG

Construction impacts

During construction, both the east and west sides of the Michigan bridge at the river level will have restricted access. Visitors to the McCormick Tribune Bridgehouse Museum will be able to enter the facility from Michigan Avenue; access to the west of the museum will be closed.

In August, the Michigan Avenue bridge will be closed temporarily during the overnight hours for several days. More information will be distributed and posted here once details are finalized.

The project is scheduled for completion by the end of 2008.

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/RWlookingeast.JPG


Of course it's not going to be completed in 2008 but at least the ball is rolling.

[Mr Downtown]

Park Hyatt 1962-1997
Chicago Police HQ 1963-2003
US Gypsum 1963-1994
Carriage House 1964-2007
McCormick Inn 1973-1993

So I don't know what the other post-1965 demo could be. Maybe we're forgetting a late-arriving CHA seniors building (presumably allowed by Gautreaux) that was part of the State Street corridor, ABLA, or Horner. Or could it be the Sperry & Hutchinson building in Hillside?

[Chicago Shawn]

Park Hyatt 1962-1997
Chicago Police HQ 1963-2003
US Gypsum 1963-1994
Carriage House 1964-2007
McCormick Inn 1973-1993

So I don't know what the other post-1965 demo could be. Maybe we're forgetting a late-arriving CHA seniors building (presumably allowed by Gautreaux) that was part of the State Street corridor, ABLA, or Horner. Or could it be the Sperry & Hutchinson building in Hillside?

It was the AHA (American Hospital Assoc) Building up on Pearson Street, taken down in 2001 for the LaGrange buildings on Lake Shore Park. The AHA Building was completed in 1970 and was 14 stories.

[jjk1103]

.......I know this is a little off topic, but ........does anyone know when the Carson's Store (Sullivan Center) rehab (at least the exterior) will be complete ?

[denizen467]

Thanks Shawn. Barely remember that AHA building.

I was looking for a photo of the old Park Hyatt, but there isn't one on Emporis. Google wasn't all that helpful either, since most hits refer to the new one. But buried in there finally was the following from the website anthemion-dot-com:

http://www.anthemion.com/chicago/oldparkhyatt.jpg

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer 8/24/08


http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/7712/dsc0006qj5.jpg


http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/5354/dsc0031pa4.jpg

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer 8/24/08


http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4012/dsc0046xp4.jpg


http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3732/dsc0048lj2.jpg

[Northwest]

Thanks for the pics EarlyBuyer! Will those parkhomes have a green roof? If not, what a missed opportunity. After all, they are "park homes", and given the low density land use, they really should be an extension of the park. Not to mention the thousands of units that look down upon these roofs... please, plant something.

[woodrow]

I believe the townhomes all have roof decks. So, not green, but I am sure most of the owners will decorate / landscape.

[EarlyBuyer]

:previous:

I believe woodrow is right, roof-top decks as opposed to a green roof.

[SolarWind]

August 25, 2008

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/197/chicagoriverbargetf7.jpg

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/1386/dsc0228np6.jpg

[the urban politician]

I posted about this before but now we have a rendering:

Last updated: August 25, 2008 11:53am
Bold Begins $10M Apts Over Stove Factory (http://www.globest.com/news/1230_1230/chicago/173318-1.html)
By Cari Brokamp News

http://www.globest.com/newspics/chi_boldlandhlofts.jpg
Bold L&H Lofts

CHICAGO-Bold Development has begun a $10 million redevelopment of a historic East Garfield Park property to bring 114,000 sf in 68 apartment units to the building. The six-story 2620 W. Washington Blvd. building was purchased by Bold last month for $3.7 million. The building, which was designed in the 1920s by architect Paul Gerhardt, is up for landmark status on both city and national levels, according to Bold president Steve Olsher.

[VivaLFuego]

^ I don't really see that as worthy of national landmark consideration, but ok. If preservation tax credits are helping the project happen in lieu of being turned into a vacant lot, I'm all for it.

[Chicagoguy]

August 25, 2008

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/197/chicagoriverbargetf7.jpg

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/1386/dsc0228np6.jpg

So what exactly are they doing here? What will the final product look like once complete?

[cbotnyse]

So what exactly are they doing here? What will the final product look like once complete?its for the riverwalk.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/RWlookingeast.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/RWlookingsouthwest.jpg

[Chicagoguy]

its for the riverwalk.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/RWlookingeast.jpg

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/RWlookingsouthwest.jpg

Ok I like it...thats going to look nice once its done. When is it planned for completion?

[cbotnyse]

Ok I like it...thats going to look nice once its done. When is it planned for completion?that portion by the end of this year. http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockName=Transportation%2fCurrent+Construction+Projects%2fI+Want+To&deptMainCategoryOID=-536883911&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Transportation&topChannelName=Dept&contentOID=537001216&Failed_Reason=Invalid+timestamp,+engine+has+been+restarted&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do&context=dept

more to come under State St bridge too... http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockName=City+of+Chicago%2fChicago+Riverwalk%2fContent&deptMainCategoryOID=-536901213&entityName=Chicago+Riverwalk&topChannelName=SubAgency&contentOID=536987458&Failed_Reason=Invalid+timestamp,+engine+has+been+restarted&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do&context=dept

[jjk1103]

August 25, 2008

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/197/chicagoriverbargetf7.jpg

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/1386/dsc0228np6.jpg

.......you know .....if they just parked that barge (and a few more) there permanently...they would have the river walk built !! :D :D :D

[ethereal_reality]

^^^cute. :)

[headcase]

.......I know this is a little off topic, but ........does anyone know when the Carson's Store (Sullivan Center) rehab (at least the exterior) will be complete ?

A little bird told me ....

"According to architects working on the project, the restoration of the cast iron ornament at the base of Sullivan Center (former Carson Pirie Scott store) should be completed in mid-2009. Harboe Architects is supervising the restoration process."

[ummagumma]

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

This is what a professor at Loyola told me...and a late response at that with respect to Damen Hall.

The building that will replace it will be 4 or 5 stories and will share architectural features similar to the Cudahy Library and Information Commons.

I am told the reason is to make it 'fit' better with a lot of the buildings that already exist on campus. Damen Hall also apparently as a lot of issues in terms of quality which is prompting the tear down. Also, since they now have the former Mundelin College building, the plan is to shift any left over classes from Damen to there.

Either way there is a lot of things being built in and around Loyola right now, including a pretty sizable mixed use TOD near the station.

[Marcu]

Speaking of Loyola, what does everyone think of the building that's going up next to the Loyola el stop on the west side of Sheridan? http://www.morganatloyolastation.com/. Mediocre design but a great transit oriented location.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/images/random/morganloyola.jpg

[Nowhereman1280]

Its all right, but between that and the Grandville, the Loyola area is starting to look mighty dense from my view at Sheridan and Foster.

^ 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.

Trust me Honte, it really does need to go. Not only is the whole inside of the building outdated, but the exterior has major structural flaws that have been patched with metal plates and concrete patches for probably 20 years. Also, the building has major circulation issues (traffic wise) that would require the complete gutting and reconstruction of all of the floors. The inside right now is only served by escalators and one elevator. The escalators are actually now in violation of the fire code since they are an open stair well all the way up 10 floors with no fire door isolation. On top of all that, the 10 floor structure is a horrible shape for classrooms, it causes massive congestion as hundreds of students try and switch floors all at once, there is no solution to that.

Re Info Commons, it doesn't actually do any damage to original library or Chapel. It connects to the library through the previous mutation from the same 60's campus expansion that brought us Damen Hall. The covered Walkway only connects to the Chapel through a doorway that was rebuilt in the 60's as well and didn't require any alteration to the building itself at all. As far as Lakefront views, if you have ever been in the info commons you might agree that it was completely worth it. Its actually one of my favorite buildings in the city. It has little swing out window vents on the lake side that it uses to draw in cool lake air to cool the building and you can hear the waves crash as you study. Also, it has a roof deck where you can go out and enjoy the lake from outside. I really like the IC as does every student at LUC that I have talked to about it.


The building that will replace it will be 4 or 5 stories and will share architectural features similar to the Cudahy Library and Information Commons.

I am told the reason is to make it 'fit' better with a lot of the buildings that already exist on campus. Damen Hall also apparently as a lot of issues in terms of quality which is prompting the tear down. Also, since they now have the former Mundelin College building, the plan is to shift any left over classes from Damen to there.

The Damen replacement is not going to be in the Deco style of the Library, IC, and Chapel, it is going to be in the older, red brick style of Dumbach Hall and Cudahy Science building. It will basically be a copy of Dumbach hall, balancing that half of the campus between three red brick olde style buildings and 3 limestone deco style buildings.

All of the Classroom space in Damen is moving into the newly renovated Mundelein building.

Also, re the new quad. They were laying sod today on the quad, word is it is supposed to be ready by the end of September. Its looking really good. Can't wait for the East Quad, between the line of red buildings and the IC, to be ready next spring. Loyola will be a whole new school when all this is done... We'll finally have a real campus for once!

[jjk1103]

A little bird told me ....

"According to architects working on the project, the restoration of the cast iron ornament at the base of Sullivan Center (former Carson Pirie Scott store) should be completed in mid-2009. Harboe Architects is supervising the restoration process."

....thanks, so, Carsons and 108 will finish up at about the same time (within a couple of months anyway)

[StormFire]

Riverwalk Question - at Michigan Ave. are they doing only the South side or both sides?

[cbotnyse]

^^ do you mean a connection around the Wrigley building? I've heard Trump wanted to do that, but haven't heard anything else about it.

[Busy Bee]

I would be against that. That section as is creates a very interesting urban space, and I think would be less unique if it followed the side of Wrigley.

[Saber925]

Riverwalk Question - at Michigan Ave. are they doing only the South side or both sides?

The riverwalk construction is only on the south side of the river.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Long-delayed MetraMarket gets construction loan

By Andrew Schroedter, Aug. 28, 2008

(Crain’s) — Developer U.S. Equities Realty LLC has secured a $25-million construction loan for MetraMarket, a long-delayed restaurant and retail emporium within the Ogilvie Transportation Center.

In a sign of the times, with the credit crunch pushing U.S. lenders to the sidelines, German bank Eurohypo A.G. stepped up to provide funding to Chicago-based U.S. Equities for the project's first phase, about 60,000 square feet.

Construction could begin within the next few weeks and the stores could open next summer, U.S. Equities said in a release.

MetraMarket is to consist of 100,000 square feet of rentable space underneath a stretch of tracks, and just north of the transportation center in an area bounded by Washington, Lake, Canal and Clinton streets. The street-level shops and stores were conceived as a retail gateway linking the Central and West Loop districts...

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30790

[Breezyfingers]

New subway stop at Grand and State
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3030/2806853528_d69b014e86_o.jpg

Those of us who work at 515 State are pretty much penned in at this point.

[BVictor1]

Speaking of Loyola, what does everyone think of the building that's going up next to the Loyola el stop on the west side of Sheridan? http://www.morganatloyolastation.com/. Mediocre design but a great transit oriented location.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/images/random/morganloyola.jpg

Well, it replaces and IHOP that had a crap parking lot so it's better than what was there but not as good as it could have been.

[Eventually...Chicago]

^^^still it is a LEED building and quality vernacular architecture. That area needs alot more of this before i'll start to worry about the trophy buildings. The building stock there is so old and tired, it is great to see one of the (if not the most) diverse parts of the city get some new life. Projects like these are conduits for new businesses and residents to join the area even though they may be architectural typical.

[aaron38]

Is the Grand/State entrance still open? My parents are staying in Streeterville this weekend, and that's what I told them to take to get to Wrigley.

[Eventually...Chicago]

^^^ i doubt it. i think you can find out a www.transitchicago.com

[cbotnyse]

Is the Grand/State entrance still open? My parents are staying in Streeterville this weekend, and that's what I told them to take to get to Wrigley.It is yes. Just use the north side of Grand.

[wrabbit]

Art Institute, Friday 8/29:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/2008-08-30hdr1.jpg

[cbotnyse]

^^holy shit!!! they are moving that outside permanently? what a masterpiece that is.

[BVictor1]

^^holy shit!!! they are moving that outside permanently? what a masterpiece that is.

You're joking I hope???

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/arts/chi-prototypes-0831aug31,0,3364411.story
ARCHITECTURE

City taps top architects for prototype revision
By Blair Kamin | Chicago Tribune critic
August 31, 2008

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/images/2008/08/29/school.jpg
I have never been a fan of Chicago's "prototype" building program, which builds look-alike public libraries, police and fire stations, as well as schools, around the city. The program may save money by eliminating the need to reinvent the wheel on every new project, but architecturally, the results have been mixed at best.

If the police stations achieve a passable mix of toughness and openness, the small branch libraries are horrendous—squat boxes that look as if they were shaped to double as shelters in the event of nuclear attack.

The problem isn't so much that the bad prototypes are cookie-cutter architecture, design's version of Dolly the sheep. It's that their basic DNA is so uninspired. Prototypes can work. But they have to be good prototypes.



Local talent
Now, the city is taking new steps in that direction. Instead of relying upon middling or hack firms, it has tapped some of Chicago's top architectural talent for these projects— John Ronan for a prototype high school, Laurence Booth for a prototype field house; Ken Schroeder for a prototype elementary school. It's even re-evaluating some of the earlier prototype duds.

This is good news. The prototypes often serve as visual anchors of their neighborhoods. They set the tone for what's around them. And they function as gathering places for people who live nearby. "These buildings are really civic centers," said Erin Lavin Cabonargi, the executive director of the Public Building Commission of Chicago, the agency charged with constructing them.

Named by Mayor Richard Daley in February to run the PBC, Cabonargi is a key figure in this shift. Unlike some of her predecessors, who were better schooled in political back-scratching than design, she's an alumna of the respected Chicago architectural firm OWP/P and worked for the Chicago Public Schools, where she led a program to build 24 schools. She eyeballs a detail on the front of one of the city's prototype fire stations and observes that it isn't "resolved"—meaning, essentially, that it's awkward. When you have people like this in charge, you have a chance to do better.

Ronan's promising prototype for a public high school shows what a difference the new approach can make.

Meant for a single city block, which means that roads and sewers won't have to be torn up for a school that sprawls across a larger site, the design calls for a steel-framed structure consisting of three inter-connected wings and housing 1,200 students. The wings are based on the themes of body (gym and other athletic facilities), mind (classrooms and administration offices) and spirit (library, art and music facilities).

Ronan treats the wings as sliding bars that form a welcoming entry courtyard.

The building isn't just plopped on the site, as some of the earlier prototype elementary schools were. It purposefully shapes the open spaces around it, such as a serene reading garden.

To draw light inside, Ronan places clerestory windows atop generously proportioned corridors. Tall, narrow windows will bring light into classrooms.

To save space and money, the architect borrows a trick from his much-lauded Gary Comer Youth Center on the South Side. He combines the auditorium and gym into a single room by using retractable seating.

Like that building, this design could transform its simple rectilinear forms into a bold, sculptural image that conveys a proud civic identity.

"The idea is to make the kids feel important," Ronan said. It's not like "you're going to the mall."



2 schools planned
The design will initially be used for two schools planned to open in fall 2010, one that will replace the old South Shore High School, the other that will relieve overcrowding at Kelly, Curie and Gage Park High Schools.

True, the projected cost of the schools—the bill for South Shore could be as much as $90 million, double the $45 million the city spent for posh Northside College Prep in 1999—has raised eyebrows. And some community groups have raised the parity issue, complaining Northside College Prep has a separate gym and auditorium instead of combining such facilities.

But by setting a strong standard, the project seems likely to quell such disputes. And, to his credit, Ronan is trying to make the schools anything but clones. He uses different facade materials—different shades of glazed brick at Kelly, Curie and Gage Park; a darker ground masonry at South Shore. Like other city projects, this one will have green roofs.

Even if Ronan's original plan got worn down a bit by entrenched forces at the Chicago Public Schools, the concept looks strong enough to survive as good architecture—and to raise the design bar for prototypes citywide. "Would I rather do 13 different schools?" he asked rhetorically. "Yes. But having been through this, I can see why they do it."

bkamin@tribune.com

[sentinel]

Art Institute, Friday 8/29:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/2008-08-30pano1b.jpg

I was privileged enough to be given a site tour of this building on 8/22 (I will be posting pictures relatively soon) and was told that Turner will be turning over the building to the AIC on October 25, by which the building will essentially be done (core-shell and basic interior finishes) - the AIC then contracts their own interiors and curatorial consultants/contractors which will start working on installations and such all the way until the grand opening on May 16, 2009.

It's truly a gorgeous building inside with some genius architectural/engineering components..

[honte]

^ Can you comment on these engineering components?

________

Glad to see Ronan getting work, but can anyone explain what's wrong with South Shore High to the point that it needs to be torn down? It's a very fine building and it's not even 35 years old.

[BVictor1]

^ Can you comment on these engineering components?

________

Glad to see Ronan getting work, but can anyone explain what's wrong with South Shore High to the point that it needs to be torn down? It's a very fine building and it's not even 35 years old.

I think things are falling aparta dnt hey want to increase capacity.

And the building ain't all that:



(photos by Lee Bey)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/2420504225_ed3583f1f6.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2051/2396635112_8289a0e2fc.jpg?v=0


The older of the 2 building complex will remain

[the urban politician]

^ Ain't all that? I love it! I'm not even an architectural connoeisseur (I thrashed the spelling of that word, I know) to realize that this is a brutalist structure whose presence gives Chicago a kind of character that newer, sunbelt cities simply don't have. Why tear it down?

[Chicago Shawn]

^Yeah, I second that. I also love it, and I would really have to hear a good reason to to belive this is worthy of being torn down and replaced with the same type of use. This is a very wasteful practice of both materials and energy. That aside, I do really like the proptype design and I agree witrh Kamin thgat this is a cut above earlier cookie-cutter civic buildings.

[sentinel]

^ Can you comment on these engineering components?

Well I'll give you one distinct example that stood out to me:

The main entrance hallway, dubbed "Main Street" by the Turner crew, which bisects the main galleries from the admin. areas and the path/area leading to Nichols bridge - that whole entry corridor is actually not a rigid, built component (think of it more as a covered or fully enclosed walkway with massive skylights similar to the Vittorio Emanuele galleria in Milan) so in order for that building 'piece' to maintain some amount of rigidity so that it minimizes lateral shear from the two buildings on either side, there is a "V"-shaped structural cabling system that runs the length of the corridor, just below the skylights and is anchored by 100lb weights on either side that are embedded into the walls and will be covered over with drywall and plaster. It was pretty cool because some of the anchors were still exposed while the majority were already covered over with the finished wall system - I took a photo of one of the exposed weights and will post soon. I've actually seen the schematic rendering view of this that I think were posted on the AIC's website or on Piano's firm site, and it looks very much like the finished product.