[denizen467]

Sorry if I'm not keeping up, but I thought someone said that was algae on the fountain?
Yeah, somebody did say that, with seeming conviction. BVic, I don't get the rust story, neither from a causation standpoint (flying from the bridge to the fountain?!?) nor from a science standpoint (so much rust on glass??). Maybe it was a tall tale (no pun intended) by whoever told you?

[Steely Dan]

^ well i attended the same GPAC meeting with victor where Mark Sexton of Kreuk & Sexton (they worked on the design for the fountain with Plensa) told that anecdote. so if it was just a "tall tale", it was coming from someone pretty high up on the proverbial totem pole.

[Haworthia]

Yes, it's rusted where the welds are located. The bridge uit to be painted.

This is the same rust that you saw in images of the Crown Fountain. The metal particles landed in the fountain after the erection of the bridge and it caused the rust in the water and on the backside of the glass block in the fountain.

Thanks for the response. I have mixed feelings about this bridge to start with. If they left the bridge as is, that would seal it for me. Glad to hear that that is not the finished product.

[BVictor1]

Sorry if I'm not keeping up, but I thought someone said that was algae on the fountain?

Someone did say that, but I found out otherwise.

I went to a symposium last week and it was stated that it's rust particled from the bridge.

[denizen467]

^ It's maybe what, 50 yards between the two? (See a satellite photo - the bridge is being built to the east of the IC tracks.) There would additionally have to be rust all over the grass - and the pavement would probably be stained too - and I haven't heard any reports of that.

How did they say it at the meeting - were they unequivocally saying that all or most of the discoloration came from the bridge rust - or were they kind of just speculating that "we think some of the rust may have affected the Plensa fountains" - or was it maybe even a side comment not meant with conviction?

On the other hand, maybe Loopy was totally just speculating (I found some of the initial discussion on 11/2) when he declared...

It's algae. Algae turns dark brown when it is dry and dormant.

Loopy? Also, Tom seemed to have some additional backstory info when he introduced the topic on 11/2:

Not sure if anyone's noticed this, but since this summer the Plenza fountains at Millenium Park have been in dire need of cleaning. . . well now that fountain season is over they're doing just that. . . using massive amounts of CLR, pressure washers and good ole' fashioned elbow grease, it will take a week to complete one tower. . .

[honte]

^ To me, it seemed far too consistent to be rust and your hypothesis that it would have been all over the place makes a lot of sense.

This sounds to me like a convenient way for the Park District to pass the blame and shed the mockery when they forgot to chlorinate the water or didn't maintain the fountain as needed, etc.

[Loopy]

My claim is based both on my experience as a Facility Manager responsible for many fountains over the years and the fact that I have noticed the annual cycle on the Crown Fountain.

They get completely scummed up with algae, inside and out, by the end of every season. Then they turn brown after they're shut off...then some guys come and clean them.

[VivaLFuego]

Found this at Haylock's website... "Jefferson Village"
Judging by the rendering, I -think- this is for the south side of Lawrence between about Laramie and Lipps. The zoning map shows no approved PD for this, and the zoning would allow an FAR of 2.2, so I'm not sure if this project is even active or just a long-dead concept - all the more so because Ald. Levar is not exactly known for his affinity for density or transit-friendly design. Anyone know? Chicago Shawn?

http://www.haylockdesign.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Jefferson-Village.jpg

Keeping my fingers crossed that some day, the Jefferson Park transportation nexus might actually be served by something resembling the residential density it deserves...

[the urban politician]

^ Ahhh yes, fat fuck Levar

http://www.charybdisarts.com/Images/facesoflevar.jpg

[Taft]

^^ Ha!

Taft

[jstush04]

woo! I saw him in parade that went past my house last year. He looks a lot bigger in person, trust me

The guy who owns that bike store where that building would stand is one of the biggest assholes I've ever met. And he found a perfect match of a wife. I just can't understand how they have stayed in business so long with the attitude they have. With that being said, his fortitude must be quite mighty, as he absolutely refuses to leave, even after every building was torn down around him. It's the movie, the Castle.

I've seen but not heard that they made up a new plan that consisted of two taller buildings (something like 7 and 9 or 9 and 11 stories) that would be placed on either side of the building, to keep the density the same. But maybe they've finally come to an agreement and will start up this development. Maybe people aren't buying as many expensive bikes in these hard times, and the guy is finally willing to accept the money to move

[Chicago Shawn]

^Its a dead project. The rendering you posted Viva was of the older proposal. Lavar wouldn't support the project in part because of the bike store fiasco. The developer (MEGA) however, has had a friendly relationship with Lavar in the past, and Lavar's ward offices were even located in one of MEGA's developments, Veteran's Plaza (the big, brown brick 10 story office building attached to a strip mall). MEGA in the past had been building a plethora of ugly little strip malls up and down Milwaukee Avenue, but has in recent years turned to constructing fairly decent mixed use development.

The plan latter changed to building a six story building and a 10 story building with a plaza in the middle, then no plaza at all and just sandwiching the hold out bike shop between the two buildings. It was actually a good plan. The height allowed for generous setbacks on Lawrence Avenue for a much wider sidewalk, and a setback along the alley to the south for some buffer space for the neighbors. The parking was to be all under ground, for both the condos and some even set aside for the retail. The community FREAKED OUT, and I was one of the many people who sat through a community meeting that ran for about 3 hours. Sam Assafa tried to do a presentation on TOD benefits but couldn't even get through it without being interrupted multiple times by screaming NIMBYs. I was a lamb set out to slaughter when I supported the project in front of the angry mob.

The NIMBYs complained about the height, traffic, sympathized with the bike shop, traffic, parking, blocked sunlight, chopping down trees (which don't exist), traffic, non-family oriented people that would buy the units (yes, they actually said they did not want young people/ couples in "their" neighborhood). They also claimed that higher density housing = section 8 = Cabrini Green and that this development will lead to higher crime.

The mob then shouted that they would not support and alderman whom was in favor of this development, at which point Levar then back stabbed the developer by claiming how inappropriate this project was for the area, before the meeting began it was pitched as a concept to generate community feedback. The project is now very, very dead; and we still have vacant lots and stores fronts within a block of the NW Side's greatest transit hub.

The reason Levar is hated is because he appears to be in bed with certain developers. While there may be some truth to that, it will only go as far as to losing votes. The rest of his time on the job consists of NIMBY panderhacking and trying to downzone everything in the ward so that any changes come through him first. During the last election year, he sent out the army of precinct captains which have tried to intimidate my family members because they have signed a petition to put competition on the ballot. They also encouraged the supportive populace to put up gigantic, billboard-size campaign yard signs, which were wider than his ass.

Here is a reference photo of the fat bastard (on the left):
http://www.judgejessereyes.com/AldermanLevar.JPG

I moved out of Jefferson Park 1.5 years ago. Unfortunately, that neighborhood is a lost cuase for urbanism and good planning as long as Levar is large and in charge. He would not even allow a comprehensive plan to be drafted. He claimed that such plans "allow outsiders to dictate what happens in your neighborhood", which of course scares the NIMBY crowd.

[the urban politician]

^ What a fat loser. Isn't he about due for a heart attack?

[left of center]

^ Sad news. Jefferson Park is the next step up for gentrification to advance into along the blue line/milwaukee ave corridor from Logan Sqaure/Avondale, which in turn is being fed by an exodus from Wicker Park/Bucktown as prices there have long outpriced the artist crowd that made it what it is.

Milwaukee Ave is one of the city's great thoroughfares, and its sad to see that due to horrible lack of foresight the bare areas wont be changing anytime soon.

[the urban politician]

^ Good news is, at least Wicker Park seems to be coming up with a TOD plan allowing for some higher density.

But if you ask me, I think Chicago should pass what I will refer to as the 2009 Chicago TOD Act (see my post today in the 'Transit Developments' Thread).

[VivaLFuego]

Thanks for the roundup, Shawn. Too bad there's no hope for Jefferson Park anytime soon.

May the kitchens of NIMBYs be piled high with rat poop.

Me, I would just immediately shut down all transit facilities in the neighborhood until the land use guidelines in place are at least somewhat friendly to the service (I'd do this in Norwood Park, as well, where there is vacant land zoned R1 [large lot single family house] literally adjacent to a rapid transit station), but then again I'm a bit of a curmudgeon about these things and would be far more eager to declare war upon the aldermen than Daley has been.

[BVictor1]

^ To me, it seemed far too consistent to be rust and your hypothesis that it would have been all over the place makes a lot of sense.

This sounds to me like a convenient way for the Park District to pass the blame and shed the mockery when they forgot to chlorinate the water or didn't maintain the fountain as needed, etc.

It wasn't the park district who said it. It was Mark Sexton of Krueck/Sexton who said it, and seeing as his firm helped to design the fountain with Plensa, I feel that his info could be accurate.

[honte]

^ ...and there is absolutely no reason why Mark Sexton would want to help defend the Park District... :rolleyes: ;)

[alex1]

I moved out of Jefferson Park 1.5 years ago. Unfortunately, that neighborhood is a lost cuase for urbanism and good planning as long as Levar is large and in charge. He would not even allow a comprehensive plan to be drafted. He claimed that such plans "allow outsiders to dictate what happens in your neighborhood", which of course scares the NIMBY crowd.

Levar obviously doesn't understand what makes successful cities but he's partly right. Outsiders have been pretty awful at making design decisions for too many cities and neighborhoods. It's a problem that's rarely ever solved for.

At the same time, that rendering shown for Jefferson Park is hugely problematic. It might be dense, but it's street presence is severely compromised on two sides. The side street is held hostage by the driveway and garage component. The front of the building is compromised by its superblock status. These are exactly the kind of buildings that fail miserably when you're walking alongside them at night.

[2PRUROCKS!]

.

[jstush04]

Levar obviously doesn't understand what makes successful cities but he's partly right. Outsiders have been pretty awful at making design decisions for too many cities and neighborhoods. It's a problem that's rarely ever solved for.

At the same time, that rendering shown for Jefferson Park is hugely problematic. It might be dense, but it's street presence is severely compromised on two sides. The side street is held hostage by the driveway and garage component. The front of the building is compromised by its superblock status. These are exactly the kind of buildings that fail miserably when you're walking alongside them at night.

yeah, It's really not that appealing. I'm wishing we could put something...nicer there. cooler? It's not gonna happen until Levar is dead, though. He owns the ward. It makes me sick. suuuure, I bet all those businesses and people with Levar signs all over actually have a choice in supporting the fat bastard :rolleyes:

the superblock status you mentioned...it's just kind of a tough situation right there. You got lawrence reaching between milwaukee and the train/I-90, with some one ways in the mix. It's just a weird area. I'm sure with all the creative talent in the world, somebody could think of something that would satisfy the situation. And if they did, you've got a development within a halfblock of the interstate, cta buses, the el, pace buses, and metra. jimminy christmas. I don't think there is a better place to be in the entire city when it comes to transportation (other than downtown)

[honte]

^ But that's just it... seeing such crap architecture in such an exciting environment with such potential.... it just makes me sick. What you describe is the kind of complexity and challenge that the good architects would kill for. That's the cake right there.

[Jibba]

^ But that's just it... seeing such crap architecture in such an exciting environment with such potential.... it just makes me sick. What you describe is the kind of complexity and challenge that the good architects would kill for. That's the cake right there.

Agreed. Additionally, the design for the plot shown on the previous page is a great example of pretentious "Architecture", in which silly little superfluous details that are a shallow and cheap imitation of their respective inspirations are tacked on to appeal to the lowest common denominator of taste. Either the "architects" who designed this junk truly find these elements aesthetically valuable, or they know that the general populace is too stupid and undiscerning to appreciate anything, well, not pretentious, shallow, and cheap. There are too many of these details in the development to mention, but the offset "Jefferson Village" planter/sing/piece-of-crap/whatever thing is particularly tacky and useless. Do these honestly look classy and appealing to anyone? I'm actually afraid to know the answer.

I know that the apartment building at Harlem and Ontario in Oak Park is sort of love/hate around here, but I prefer that 100x over to the Jefferson Village pile. In fact, not only do I prefer it, but I enjoy it. At least it's honest. I'm just so damn sick of all the fake BS, and it's far too pervasive. It already ruined a substantial portion of Mag Mile, and it's going to get worse with the Ritz. When will the city achieve some beneficial disillusionment?

[OhioGuy]

Have there been any updates to this project that spyguy posted about earlier this summer?

On the site of the Sears Auto Center
13 story, 160 unit building facing Lawrence with three levels of retail
50 townhome units on the northern part of the site
4 story parking garage in between both developments
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9376/lawrencer1qy0.jpg
http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/5993/lawrencer2kg3.jpg

[denizen467]

Earth moving equipment has been working at the little North/Clybourn triangular lot.
Somehow I doubt Apple is moving in there anytime soon. Maybe just gas station remediation?

[BWChicago]

^Its a dead project. The rendering you posted Viva was of the older proposal. Lavar wouldn't support the project in part because of the bike store fiasco. The developer (MEGA) however, has had a friendly relationship with Lavar in the past, and Lavar's ward offices were even located in one of MEGA's developments, Veteran's Plaza (the big, brown brick 10 story office building attached to a strip mall). MEGA in the past had been building a plethora of ugly little strip malls up and down Milwaukee Avenue, but has in recent years turned to constructing fairly decent mixed use development.

The plan latter changed to building a six story building and a 10 story building with a plaza in the middle, then no plaza at all and just sandwiching the hold out bike shop between the two buildings. It was actually a good plan. The height allowed for generous setbacks on Lawrence Avenue for a much wider sidewalk, and a setback along the alley to the south for some buffer space for the neighbors. The parking was to be all under ground, for both the condos and some even set aside for the retail. The community FREAKED OUT, and I was one of the many people who sat through a community meeting that ran for about 3 hours. Sam Assafa tried to do a presentation on TOD benefits but couldn't even get through it without being interrupted multiple times by screaming NIMBYs. I was a lamb set out to slaughter when I supported the project in front of the angry mob.

(...)

For a different angle on this development, Ben Joravsky wrote an article on it a couple years ago. http://www.chicagoreader.com/tifarchive/060224/

[jstush04]

^ thanks for the link. Zordani is just a dick, even to people who buy from him (yup, I've bought a bike from him. never again). But it makes me slightly happy that he was such an effective dick to levar. But I do wish the store would go. And who thinks he could have gotten 1.3 million bucks on the open market at the time like he claimed?

[honte]

I know that the apartment building at Harlem and Ontario in Oak Park is sort of love/hate around here, but I prefer that 100x over to the Jefferson Village pile. In fact, not only do I prefer it, but I enjoy it. At least it's honest. I'm just so damn sick of all the fake BS, and it's far too pervasive. It already ruined a substantial portion of Mag Mile, and it's going to get worse with the Ritz. When will the city achieve some beneficial disillusionment?

Exactly.

[Steely Dan]

Grant Park Conservancy and Grant Park Advisory Council public meeting:

Thursday, December 18, 2008, 6:30pm

Daley Bicentennial Plaza Fieldhouse
337 E. Randolph ( just east of Columbus Drive)


Planning for the Southwest Corner of Grant Park: public input

EDAW and Adrian Smith +Gordon Gill Architecture are working with the Grant Park Conservancy and Advisory Council and Chicago Park District to design a world-class, sustainable park at the SW corner of Grant Park at Roosevelt Road and Michigan Avenue (east of the Agora sculptures to Columbus Drive) where the railroad tracks and huge empty railroad beds are now. The planners and architects will be making a presentation. Your input will contribute to what could be the most innovative and green park in the country.

[Patel]

:previous:

I cannot make it to the meeting but if you can share my thoughts about this issue. Feel free to quote me directly if you want.


Please lord cover the tracks.

Someone call Obama, about this and the McCormick Place truck marshaling yards need a complete and utter covering ala MP but without the massive parking areas and the needed weight to support any super structures. Just give us a green top and the 2016 thingy will be so much better off and the city in the long haul.

[honte]

Great news that Smith+Gill is doing that design... let's hope it's spectacular.

Also, I forgot to mention that a trio of buildings was the topic at last week's landmarks meeting:

- The Chicago Orphan Asylum, 5120 S. King Drive

- What they're calling "Lincoln Avenue Row House District," 1928-1936 N. Lincoln Avenue

- Lindblom Tech, 6130 S. Wolcott Avenue

A nice group of buildings to round out a decent year at the Commission.

[ChicagoChicago]

Grant Park Conservancy and Grant Park Advisory Council public meeting:

Thursday, December 18, 2008, 6:30pm

Daley Bicentennial Plaza Fieldhouse
337 E. Randolph ( just east of Columbus Drive)


Planning for the Southwest Corner of Grant Park: public input

EDAW and Adrian Smith +Gordon Gill Architecture are working with the Grant Park Conservancy and Advisory Council and Chicago Park District to design a world-class, sustainable park at the SW corner of Grant Park at Roosevelt Road and Michigan Avenue (east of the Agora sculptures to Columbus Drive) where the railroad tracks and huge empty railroad beds are now. The planners and architects will be making a presentation. Your input will contribute to what could be the most innovative and green park in the country.
I'm curious to know how far north the plan to cover the tracks goes. Balbo? Congress? Jackson? Monroe???

[spyguy]

http://www.uptownupdate.com/2008/12/centrum-properties-to-develop-maryville.html

'Centrum Properties' To Develop Maryville Site

"A representative from Centrum Properties contacted us today to ask about scheduling a meeting with the community. This process will begin to move fast, and we as a community need to understand and clearly relay our concerns, demands, and questions to the developer and the Alderman's office.

So please come to the meeting Thursday night at 7pm at Kahawa Coffee House, 838 W. Montrose so we can discuss our concerns and questions. This project will have a large impact upon the neighborhood and our quality of life over the next couple of years."

[spyguy]

http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=6603&TM=86103.41

New life for Schoenhofen building
East Pilsen-based brothers envision commercial in historic structure

By KATE GARDINER

...The building is now undergoing renovation by the East Pilsen-based firm Athens Construction. The company, which bought the building for about $400,000 two years ago, has budgeted more than $2 million for its renovation into modern commercial space that could include galleries, music, a bar or restaurant. On the western edge of the existing structure, the firm will build a service shaft for stairs and elevators.
---------------

http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=6569&TM=86091.9

End of the line for St. Boniface?
Coptics disappointed as preservationists vow a fight

By MICAH MAIDENBERG

The Archdiocese of Chicago has applied for a permit to demolish the long-shuttered St. Boniface campus in West Town three months after it asked developers to submit bids for redevelopment of the site.

[ardecila]

I'll try to make it to the meeting about the Grant Park South plan. EDAW and Smith/Gill working together can only be good.

HOWEVER - there's no guarantee this thing will actually be built. As far as I know, the city is not involved in any sort of meaningful fashion, besides helping to shape the plan on a rough level, and they have not committed to paying for anything yet. Also, I'm way too cynical about the Park District to believe that they would build anything with good design - the wonders of Millennium Park came about as a result of private money, remember.

Also, I doubt anything built down here would be a tourist attraction on the level of Millennium Park. MP is a straight shot down Madison from Union and Ogilvie Stations, it sits above a third Metra station, it's two blocks from State Street, and 4 blocks away from the beginning of the Mag Mile - i.e., perfectly-placed to draw people. Grant Park South will be much more of a residents' park, I think. It is relatively close to the Museum Campus and the Roosevelt CTA/Metra Electric stations, so it's not in a bad location either - but it seems like a museum trip is a more self-contained trip, where you drive there and park across the street, whereas visitors to State Street or the Mag Mile, a pedestrian-oriented experience, can go to MP as just another thing to do.

[lawfin]

I'll try to make it to the meeting about the Grant Park South plan. EDAW and Smith/Gill working together can only be good.

HOWEVER - there's no guarantee this thing will actually be built. As far as I know, the city is not involved in any sort of meaningful fashion, besides helping to shape the plan on a rough level, and they have not committed to paying for anything yet. Also, I'm way too cynical about the Park District to believe that they would build anything with good design - the wonders of Millennium Park came about as a result of private money, remember.

Also, I doubt anything built down here would be a tourist attraction on the level of Millennium Park. MP is a straight shot down Madison from Union and Ogilvie Stations, it sits above a third Metra station, it's two blocks from State Street, and 4 blocks away from the beginning of the Mag Mile - i.e., perfectly-placed to draw people. Grant Park South will be much more of a residents' park, I think. It is relatively close to the Museum Campus and the Roosevelt CTA/Metra Electric stations, so it's not in a bad location either - but it seems like a museum trip is a more self-contained trip, where you drive there and park across the street, whereas visitors to State Street or the Mag Mile, a pedestrian-oriented experience, can go to MP as just another thing to do.

^^^All the more reason for a michigan ave / museum camput circulator...maybe circulating as far north as Hancock area and as far south as Science and Industry

[ardecila]

A lot of suburbanites won't take a bus, unfortunately, and the free "trolleys" are now canceled. I don't think the city is actively planning any sort of circulator route besides the Carroll Street line that connects Mag Mile/Navy Pier to the West Loop train stations.

[VivaLFuego]

http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=6569&TM=86091.9

End of the line for St. Boniface?
Coptics disappointed as preservationists vow a fight

By MICAH MAIDENBERG

The Archdiocese of Chicago has applied for a permit to demolish the long-shuttered St. Boniface campus in West Town three months after it asked developers to submit bids for redevelopment of the site.

The church is magnificent and ideally will be saved if possible, but of course large churches tend to be total albatrosses that are very costly to maintain or adapt to other uses (smaller churches can at least go condo).

At the same time, I have some philosophical issues with the idea that tax-exempt organizations like the Archdiocese maintain a vested right to maximize return on their assets without broader consideration for the well-being of the taxpayers who subsidize their continued existence and operation, but that's sort of a whole other issue that won't come into play for this go-round. Chances are this church is a goner.

[Chicagoguy]

Hey I havent been on here in a while and I was wondering if there has been any new updates on the new Barneys New York Department Store at Rush and Oak? When is the expected completion date? I know it should be getting pretty close?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Its almost done, they are putting the final touches on the building and have been working on the sidewalks and street-scaping, will probably be done in January, as to when it opens, who knows, depends on how long it takes them to move everything over from the old building.

[honte]

The church is magnificent and ideally will be saved if possible, but of course large churches tend to be total albatrosses that are very costly to maintain or adapt to other uses (smaller churches can at least go condo).

At the same time, I have some philosophical issues with the idea that tax-exempt organizations like the Archdiocese maintain a vested right to maximize return on their assets without broader consideration for the well-being of the taxpayers who subsidize their continued existence and operation, but that's sort of a whole other issue that won't come into play for this go-round. Chances are this church is a goner.

Maybe you don't remember all that transpired with this church... the earlier attempts to tear it down, the empty promises that they would reopen it, the demolition of the convent and rectory with the promise that one facade would be retained to re-erect it later, the architectural competition that basically wasted people's time because they did nothing with it, etc. This is a long-standing issue and their move to demolish it is a much bigger slap in the face than the typical church closure and demolition (which sadly the Archdiocese has done several times in the recent past).

Churches have been reused all over Chicago for residential purposes and others. I don't think there's any reason why this building could not be preserved - there is a different animal at play here which is suspect is money-oriented.

Thanks to your favorite, our buddy Alderman Natarus, there is a bizarre part of the Landmarks Ordinance that prevents the city from landmarking functioning religious structures without consent of the owner (a privilege that makes no sense whatsoever). But, there is a caveat in the way it was written that allows for them to landmark non-functioning, former religious structures that are still owned by a religious party. So, the commission could landmark the building if pressure were strong enough.

[VivaLFuego]

Maybe you don't remember all that transpired with this church... the earlier attempts to tear it down, the empty promises that they would reopen it, the demolition of the convent and rectory with the promise that one facade would be retained to re-erect it later, the architectural competition that basically wasted people's time because they did nothing with it, etc. This is a long-standing issue and their move to demolish it is a much bigger slap in the face than the typical church closure and demolition (which sadly the Archdiocese has done several times in the recent past).

Churches have been reused all over Chicago for residential purposes and others. I don't think there's any reason why this building could not be preserved - there is a different animal at play here which is suspect is money-oriented.

Thanks to your favorite, our buddy Alderman Natarus, there is a bizarre part of the Landmarks Ordinance that prevents the city from landmarking functioning religious structures without consent of the owner (a privilege that makes no sense whatsoever). But, there is a caveat in the way it was written that allows for them to landmark non-functioning, former religious structures that are still owned by a religious party. So, the commission could landmark the building if pressure were strong enough.

I'm aware of some of the history but only the more recent stuff like tearing down the convent and rectory.

Clearly, as you say there are other motives here, and while I'm willing to grant profit motive to taxpaying entities, a church definitely does not qualify, and thus should be held to a different standard when it comes to land use (*cough parking lots cough* *cough historic preservation cough*).

That Natarus exemption sounds sort of weasally... which church was this for specifically, Fourth Presbyterian, Holy Name...? I wouldn't exactly call ol' Burt my "favorite," I just see him as better than the NIMBYs despite his weakness on landmarking. In an ideal world, the landmarks commission would act based on the merits of the case rather than aldermanic perogative...

What re-uses do you envision for this building other than as a church (hopefully for the Copts who bid on it but were rejected)? Most of the residential church conversions throughout the city are of much smaller structures than this.

[aic4ever]

This is a very interesting situation with this church. After reading up on the timeline, I find the history of it all to be much more a religious power struggle than anything. The property on the whole has long since been paid for, and it seems the Catholic Church has no qualms at all about playing slumlord over the property so long as it keeps some other denomination, in this case the Coptics, from expanding its membership, even while the Catholic Church's membership continues to dwindle precisely because of actions like this.

[MrLakepoint]

This is a very interesting situation with this church. After reading up on the timeline, I find the history of it all to be much more a religious power struggle than anything. The property on the whole has long since been paid for, and it seems the Catholic Church has no qualms at all about playing slumlord over the property so long as it keeps some other denomination, in this case the Coptics, from expanding its membership, even while the Catholic Church's membership continues to dwindle precisely because of actions like this.

What is "Coptics" not familiar with that. I dont understand what the church does sometimes. But then again whenn you hold a large sum of property they can do what ever they feel fit.

[Abner]

New life for Schoenhofen building
East Pilsen-based brothers envision commercial in historic structure

By KATE GARDINER

...The building is now undergoing renovation by the East Pilsen-based firm Athens Construction. The company, which bought the building for about $400,000 two years ago, has budgeted more than $2 million for its renovation into modern commercial space that could include galleries, music, a bar or restaurant. On the western edge of the existing structure, the firm will build a service shaft for stairs and elevators.

This is great news. I've noticed that there are already new windows in the building. That area needs a shot in the arm--Podmajersky's crappy management on Halsted (tons of long-term vacancy, no stores) sort of kills the neighborhood. This complex, by the way, was used for a brief shot in The Blues Brothers to represent the outside of the orphanage.

[Mr Downtown]

To clarify, the Orphanage of Saint Helen of the Blessed Shroud was behind the Schoenhofen Brewery buildings, taking cinematic advantage of the narrow Normal Avenue opening between two large factory buildings. I think it was an actual church building that's now gone, but it may have been a false front built for the movie.

[honte]

That Natarus exemption sounds sort of weasally... which church was this for specifically, Fourth Presbyterian, Holy Name...? I wouldn't exactly call ol' Burt my "favorite," I just see him as better than the NIMBYs despite his weakness on landmarking. In an ideal world, the landmarks commission would act based on the merits of the case rather than aldermanic perogative...

What re-uses do you envision for this building other than as a church (hopefully for the Copts who bid on it but were rejected)? Most of the residential church conversions throughout the city are of much smaller structures than this.

Hah, yeah, I have to jab you about Burt a little bit, since you were right about Reilly. ;)

The strange Landmarks amendment was concerning 4th Pres. I forget all the specifics - that was a long while ago. It was a move that benefited one specific church and screwed the rest of the city in the process.

The easiest thing for St. Boniface would be to put a religious group in there, obviously. That was the ultimate outcome with the St. Gelasius fight in Woodlawn, which seems to have been a great solution. But I think a number of things could work. Residential is the obvious answer, given the area and the market. A number of the competition proposals came up with other ideas - many of those were a bit off-the-wall as architects tend to be in competitions, but I think there were good ideas. It is a large building and chopping up the inside of a grand structrure is always a sad thing to do, so I'd prefer that residential not be the solution, but it's better than a pile of bricks stacked beside a vacant lot.

If you got a really creative architect in there, I could see it becoming a fieldhouse for the park across the street, or a gym / community center, etc. The possibilities are always endless once you move into the realm of creative reuse (sitting around dreaming with no client or budget always helps too, I'll admit ;)). Because the church already did the dirty deed of tearing down adjacent structures, there is some available land and wiggle room too.

[VivaLFuego]

Reporting on some demolition. The building at the SW corner of Dearborn/Superior has been cleared, along with a building mid-block on the south side of Superior.

Corner building:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=dearborn+and+superior,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.452734,64.072266&ie=UTF8&ll=41.900185,-87.629743&spn=0,359.984357&z=16&g=dearborn+and+superior,+chicago+il&iwloc=addr&layer=c&cbll=41.895647,-87.629753&panoid=EfaO3YuWE8ijnKS515McHg&cbp=12,237.79964261759397,,0,-9.532171991842372

Mid-block building:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=dearborn+and+superior,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.452734,64.072266&ie=UTF8&ll=41.896,-87.629743&spn=0.008369,0.015643&z=16&g=dearborn+and+superior,+chicago+il&iwloc=addr&layer=c&cbll=41.895638,-87.630404&panoid=x_gxnyIt8JnPXibSTcs8Gg&cbp=12,204.24752949054778,,0,-1.9508544002276413

The mid-block building was quite nice, and reasonably intact historically other than the cornice. The corner building was pretty mediocre, the only quality to my eye being the continuation of the streetwall - if it was historic, the exterior was certainly compromised through renovation. Anyone know the story on what's going on here? Please no one say drive-thru bank...

ADDENDUM: The new Poetry Foundation, designed by John Ronan. But I can't find any renderings.

[honte]

^ Oh, that's very sad... didn't realize they were going to clear the Italianate too.

The corner building was an early 1880s flat that got the serious PoMo treatment.

Last thing I heard about Poetry, the funding didn't appear to be there and Ronan wasn't sure if it was moving forward. Perhaps that's changed...

____

Also, I wanted to mention that the first batch of new Rush buildings is shaping up to be pretty nice (including the parking garage, all things considered). Maybe if someone with a camera is in the area... ;)

[ardecila]

^^ Shoot (no pun intended!) I went to Taylor Street for lunch, so I could have easily taken pictures if I had known.

Are we talking about the 3-lobed Perkins+Will building along Harrison?

[honte]

^ No, that's not above ground yet, unless I missed it somehow. What's been partially built is a "framed" 4 or 5 story glass box on Ashland (replacing that beautiful 2-story Modernist school building), and a parking structure. You'll know what I mean by "framed" when you see it - it's a common motif in modern architecture these days; I don't think it has a particular name.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2008/12/the-battle-of-s.html#more

The battle of St. Boniface: Archdiocese wants to raze historic church; preservationists want to save it
By Manya A. Brachear

From tomorrow's print edition

Since it was shuttered in 1989, the imposing brick structure of St. Boniface Roman Catholic Church has provided neighbors and passersby with a reminder of the rich Catholic heritage of Chicago’s Near Northwest Side.

But the 104-year-old church also has been the subject of a contentious struggle between the Chicago archdiocese and preservationists seeking to rescue the Romanesque building from the wrecking ball.

Touching off another battle to preserve its crumbling walls, the archdiocese earlier this month asked the city for a permit to raze the building, saying the cost of transforming the structure would be prohibitive in ordinary economic times much less now.

“The process used in the St. Boniface Request for Proposal was to leave no stone unturned,” said Martin Jablonski, the archdiocese’s real estate adviser. “The results ..... were decisive.The existing structures on Chestnut and Noble [Streets] cannot be salvaged [as a church] without a donation of $25 million.”

But preservationists said the archdiocese’s decision is irresponsible and greedy. They point to the archdiocese’s reluctance to negotiate with members of the local Egyptian Coptic Orthodox community who made a bid to save the building.

“In the eyes of the archdiocese ..... they have this great piece of land with this great view of downtown, and they obviously want to maximize it to what they consider is their highest and best use,” said Jonathan Fine, executive director for Preservation Chicago, a non-profit devoted to preserving historic architecture.

That difference of opinion underscores a longtime battle in Chicago over who has final say about the fate of historic houses of worship. Preservationists argue that they should be protected by landmark status. The archdiocese and other religious leaders contend that imposing landmark status on sacred spaces puts an undue burden on cash-strapped religious organizations whose congregations are dwindling.

Though a city ordinance blocks houses of worship from being declared landmarks, sacred but vacant spaces such as St. Boniface are eligible.

That caveat surfaced four years ago when a similar battle played out over St. Gelasius Church in the Woodlawn neighborhood.

When the archdiocese prepared to demolish the parish in 2003, preservationists and the city stepped in to block it by declaring it a landmark. In the end, a small religious order took over the church, restoring the building.

Boniface, however, has been vacant for nearly two decades. For most of that time, the archdiocese has sought to attract a tenant to sign a long-term lease on the structure, hoping to maintain ownership of the land. In 2003, the archdiocese tried to drive interest by hosting a design contest focused on alternative uses for the building. The winning design—a modern day care and community center within the church’s historic nave—proved too costly to carry out.

Now the property faces so many building violations that it poses a threat to neighbors and pedestrians walking by, said Ald. Walter Burnett (27th). Missing windows and holes in the roof have exposed the building’s steel and concrete framing to moisture.

Founded as a German parish, St. Boniface embodies the story of the neighborhood now known as West Town. Organized in 1864 and housed in a wood frame structure, St. Boniface survived the Chicago Fire of 1871 and served as a refuge for Chicagoans displaced by the blaze.

Many of them eventually relocated to the surrounding neighborhood, building it up and eventually building the brick edifice that stands today designed by architect Henry Schlacks, the same architect who designed St. Gelasius and a number of other houses of worship. Eventually, the parish became predominantly Polish. And a few decades later, it became largely Latino.

“It was the epicenter of the culture for a lot of our history,” Fine said. “It helped build West Town.”

The demolition will not happen right away. Because the parish is rated Code Orange in landmark lingo, the archdiocese cannot proceed with demolition for 90 days while the city weighs its request. That delay gives preservationists or religious organizations time to step in and save the building now priced at more than $2 million.

Cameel Halim, chairman of the Wilmette-based Coptic Assembly of America, said the Egyptian Coptics offered a $100,000 donation to an unspecified Catholic charity in exchange for ownership and control of the building to carry out the renovations, which would be partly funded by supporters in Egypt.

“We’re dying for this church,” Halim said. They want to “bring this building back to its glory.”

Fine and Burnett said they hope to get all parties to the table during the 90-day period to hammer out a solution.

Fine said he realizes it may take a so-called Christmas miracle to save the parish named for St. Boniface, the father of the Christmas tree.

“Our buildings contain our history,” Fine said. “When you wipe out a building like St. Boniface, you wipe out ..... years of collective memory.”

Tribune reporter Russell Working contributed to this report.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ One of the most persistent themes in the history of the Catholic Church has been the tension between temporal and heavenly power. Theoretically, the Church has no business with the former. Yet, here it is, rebuffing spiritual camaraderie and trading cultural significance for maximum profit. It doesn't surprise me but it never ceases to amaze me. I hope some group takes the lead and develops a clear path for preservation. I'd happily do my part.

[Mr Downtown]

What "clear path for preservation" do you wish to see followed in this case?

[spyguy]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/1334584,CST-FIN-ROEDER17.article

Another chance on the N. Side's money pit
UPTOWN | Maryville Academy site is latest development deal

December 17, 2008
DAVID ROEDER

The latest development firm to bite the Uptown apple is Sedgwick Properties Development Corp., which has signed a contract to buy the former Maryville Academy property at Montrose and Clarendon. The site consists of buildings north of Montrose and on both sides of Clarendon, just off Lake Shore Drive and Lincoln Park.

The potential of new homes with lake views wasn't lost on Marty Paris, Sedgwick president. At 3½ acres, the property is large enough to do several things, such as adding retail space into the design.

So Paris said he's working on a mixed-use concept he hopes to refine after discussions with neighborhood groups. He also said he believes the property can accommodate a high-rise, although he didn't want to get specific.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9530/121708roedercstfeed2008gk9.jpg

[Bellow]

That is bad news about Maryville. It is a good example of the modernism of the 60s. And the developer has done terrible work like the Marquee on Michigan.

[honte]

^ Right.

The building above was designed by Belli + Belli, who were responsible for some of the coolest / funkiest stuff in the city. I believe it was finished around 1955.

The firm was one of the only in the Chicago area to pick up on some of the "alternative" Modernist ideas going on around the world at the time, and did it quite well in many cases, such as at this site that became Maryville's lakeside campus. The interiors of the buildings are rather icky (I worked here for a stint once upon a time, believe it or not), but they of course could be reworked. I'd be very sad to see these go - particularly if a Marquee is what pops up in their place.

Why not turn the building above into a swanky apartment building, and then build the tower on the west parcel? It is architecturally the less important of the two, and has a larger footprint.

[sentinel]

Marty Paris/Sedgwick Properties are one of the most crooked developers in the City with lawsuits and complaints aplenty against them and I know from being burned by them firsthand - Ald. Shiller is either a moron or crooked for allowing them to have the option to purchase that property.
Un-fu*king-believable that Sedgwick is still generating CRAP in this City.

[BWChicago]

Why not turn the building above into a swanky apartment building, and then build the tower on the west parcel? It is architecturally the less important of the two, and has a larger footprint.

Speaking of which, does anyone know if Chicago has any provision for transfer of development rights to make projects like that financially attractive?

[honte]

^ Yes, it does. Depending on specifics, you can transfer FAR and can also get bonuses for doing rehabs of landmarks or, in some cases, would-be landmarks.

Erie on the Park and Chestnut Tower are two examples of situations that have benefited from such provisions.

[VivaLFuego]

Speaking of which, does anyone know if Chicago has any provision for transfer of development rights to make projects like that financially attractive?

Yes - either a Planned Development (allowing the buildable Floor Area to be transfered from one parcel to another) or the "Adopt-a-landmark" program wherein contributions to preserve a landmark purchase density bonuses.

Of course, the latter is not applicable in this case because everyone in this city/country hates Modernism. I like honte's idea a lot - it's probably too good an idea to work, we'll just end up with a squatter version of Marquee Michigan instead, ample streetlife-killing open space, and 50% Section 8 inside. Win-win!

[killaviews]

Any word if the retail development on the site of the old Gino's North building just north of Eylsian. I haven't been over there in a while, is something going up there now?

[Jibba]

A shot of the (relatively) recently completed North Avenue bridge:
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6931/dsc058162736880cc6.jpg

[emathias]

A shot of the (relatively) recently completed North Avenue bridge:
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6931/dsc058162736880cc6.jpg

Is that your bike, or the abandoned wheeled steed of some less dedicated cyclist?

[Jibba]

^It's mine. It might as well be abandoned, though, as it is a complete pile.

[Chicago Shawn]

Yes - either a Planned Development (allowing the buildable Floor Area to be transfered from one parcel to another) or the "Adopt-a-landmark" program wherein contributions to preserve a landmark purchase density bonuses.

Of course, the latter is not applicable in this case because everyone in this city/country hates Modernism. I like honte's idea a lot - it's probably too good an idea to work, we'll just end up with a squatter version of Marquee Michigan instead, ample streetlife-killing open space, and 50% Section 8 inside. Win-win!

Neither can happen, density bonuses including adapt a landmark can only be taken in D-districts (downtown, and only in areas with D-district zoning). Adopt a Landmark alone, requires at least a base FAR of 5 (such as DX-5). Another example of how restrictive our zoning code has gotten.

However, the Mercy site is already a PD, number 138. Which means it is a really old one, and the base zoning with its allowable FAR, under which the PD was originally created on likely does not exist anymore. Being that close to the lake, I will take a guess that it was R-6, R-7 or R-8 in the 1957 code. So, maybe some flexibility will be allowed, such as changing underlying zoning to B3-5, RM-6, or RM-6.5 which are the only neighborhood zoning classes without a height limit, although PD process is required (B3-5 no height limit on parcels with 100+ feet street frontage). The PD would certainly have to be amended if the use is changing. Plus, the Mercy PD takes up quite a bit of area, so a FAR of 5, would allow for a sizable development to occur. 5 FAR is what is allowed in B3-5. 4.4 and 6.6 FAR are allowed in RM-6 and RM-6.5 respectively; and FAR premiums are available, but only if the developer reduces the overall unit count.

I really hate the new 2004 code. I wish we could have kept the amended 1957 code and added the pedestrian friendly features such no blank walls and pedestrian streets.

[harryc]

^It's mine. It might as well be abandoned, though, as it is a complete pile.

The salt will eat any bike, best to ride a complete pile during the winter.

Great night shots all around, and this one in particular.

[jpIllInoIs]

A shot of the (relatively) recently completed North Avenue bridge:
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6931/dsc058162736880cc6.jpg


Judging by the height of the seat, I'd say your 6'2".

[cbotnyse]

Grant Park Conservancy and Grant Park Advisory Council public meeting:

Thursday, December 18, 2008, 6:30pm

Daley Bicentennial Plaza Fieldhouse
337 E. Randolph ( just east of Columbus Drive)


Planning for the Southwest Corner of Grant Park: public input

EDAW and Adrian Smith +Gordon Gill Architecture are working with the Grant Park Conservancy and Advisory Council and Chicago Park District to design a world-class, sustainable park at the SW corner of Grant Park at Roosevelt Road and Michigan Avenue (east of the Agora sculptures to Columbus Drive) where the railroad tracks and huge empty railroad beds are now. The planners and architects will be making a presentation. Your input will contribute to what could be the most innovative and green park in the country.reminder this is tonight, thanks for posting Steely. I might try to make it, if the weather doesnt suck too bad.

[Mr Downtown]

Yeah, we'll see how much public input Bob O'Neill allows. I predict a total meeting time of 108 minutes, 52 minutes of it consisting of His Blovialness speaking solo.

[the urban politician]

To some of you living in the South Loop/Downtown, I'm just curious to know how you guys envision this part of Grant Park evolving.

This is a great opportunity, after all. In the next decade or two this area is going to be very densely developed, I suspect.

[cbotnyse]

Yeah, we'll see how much public input Bob O'Neill allows. I predict a total meeting time of 108 minutes, 52 minutes of it consisting of His Blovialness speaking solo.who's Bob O'Neill? I was at the last meeting and there was a long Q&A session.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=6661&TM=41931.55

Two parking garages at six corners?
Proposals would reshape parking in busy area

By MICAH MAIDENBERG

At 1611-1619 N. Damen, CG Development has proposed a 134-space garage with ground-level retail. The four-story structure would be built atop a surface lot and require demolition of an existing building. The zoning committee was scheduled to consider a higher zoning classification for the property on Dec. 18.

At 1616-1628 N. Milwaukee, a company associated with Kryzstov Karbowski, one of the neighborhood's most active developers, wants to build a five-story, 140-space garage. Karbowski's group is presenting the proposal to area community organizations.

..."What you don't usually see near a transit station is a parking garage, because the proximity to transit is an opportunity," she said. "You can do increased residential density there."
-----

At least someone gets it.

[lawfin]

Which building would be demolished.....I don't know I think a parking garage is not necessarily a great use....maybe if they could do mixed use for first few floors say 3-5 and then put a garage on top say another 3-4 stories...totaling 5-9 stories...I know this height would not be allowed by current zoning

here is a street level google maps link

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=&jsv=140g&sll=41.920757,-87.674883&sspn=0.53748,0.878906&ie=UTF8&geocode=FZyCfwId_yXG-g


am glab surface lot will be going....not too gald of existing bulding goinf for a parking garage

[Jibba]

The salt will eat any bike, best to ride a complete pile during the winter.

Great night shots all around, and this one in particular.

Yes, the salt is hell on the cables, crank, gears, just about anything metal. That's the one good thing about riding a P.O.S. That and theft prevention. Thanks for the compliment, too.

Judging by the height of the seat, I'd say your 6'2".

Nope, only about 6'1/2" (it's a small frame). Very close, though.

Here is the building that would be torn down for the developer CG's parking garage (it is the one with the "Caoba" awning, and, from what I've heard around the neighborhood, it's late 19th century):
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/2550/scr0879420ef41234448ua9.jpg

I'm almost feeling ambivalent about the garage proposed by CG: it is going to be (clad in) brick, and it will have retail on the first floor. So as far as garages go, it's slightly better than standard procedure. Also, I'm afraid that since Bucktown has become a full-blown destination for shopping, there will be just too much demand for more parking in the future. As much as I hate the idea of a parking garage in the area, especially at the planned location, too many people are going to push for it--it's going to be an uphill battle against it.

As for Karbowski's plans, I am remaining extremely skeptical. Thankfully, Waguespack and some of the community groups around here have the same healthy (and necessary) skepticism regarding any project revolving around this clown. He got approval to convert Northwest Tower into a hotel (and not with Waguespack's approval) mostly because of his relation to a powerful zoning attorney that approached the city zoning board about the project. The couple historic warehouses that abut Northwest Tower are currently for sale by Karbowski, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't want to level them to make way for his precious parking garage, and, as far as I know, they aren't protected by any landmark ordinance or certification.

[Mr Downtown]

I'm just curious to know how you guys envision this part of Grant Park evolving.

Conceptually, I see it as Millennium Park's more movement- and family-oriented sister. I think it should be an inviting pathway from Roosevelt Road transit stations to the Museum Campus, and should include a world-class playscape that will be a memorable part of family visits to Chicago. For some reason I keep thinking of the Tuileries. Challenges include the siting of “Agora,” which is apparently difficult to alter, and the shadowing that will make that part of the park less attractive than the blocks to the north.

[lawfin]

Oh god the emergence of the dreaded shadow ogre once again

[jstush04]

Oh god the emergence of the dreaded shadow ogre once again

shut your mouth, dude. Mr. Downtown's input is completely appreciable

[honte]

Neither can happen, density bonuses including adapt a landmark can only be taken in D-districts (downtown, and only in areas with D-district zoning). Adopt a Landmark alone, requires at least a base FAR of 5 (such as DX-5). Another example of how restrictive our zoning code has gotten.


Wow, I didn't realize this. Thanks for the clarification.

Yeah, we'll see how much public input Bob O'Neill allows. I predict a total meeting time of 108 minutes, 52 minutes of it consisting of His Blovialness speaking solo.

:haha: Thank you!


Here is the building that would be torn down for the developer CG's parking garage (it is the one with the "Caoba" awning, and, from what I've heard around the neighborhood, it's late 19th century)

Thanks for the image. I'd peg that one around 1905 at the earliest without looking closely. I'd be very surprised if it were any older than that.

Concerning the garages, I don't know what to say... certainly, I couldn't support them at the expense of historic buildings. Even if that were not an issue, it's a very hard call. Wicker Park / Bucktown is in the interesting predicament of being the first true destination "inland" neighborhood for retail / shopping (it's hard to call North / Clybourn a real neighborhood), and the choices made here are going to have a large impact on other future developments throughout the city. It's nice to see the area has "arrived" in such a large-scale economic sense, but will its success also be its total undoing?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Conceptually, I see it as Millennium Park's more movement- and family-oriented sister. I think it should be an inviting pathway from Roosevelt Road transit stations to the Museum Campus, and should include a world-class playscape that will be a memorable part of family visits to Chicago. For some reason I keep thinking of the Tuileries. Challenges include the siting of “Agora,” which is apparently difficult to alter, and the shadowing that will make that part of the park less attractive than the blocks to the north.

Family-oriented? World-class playscape? You have Millennium Park (Crown Fountain, winter ice rinks, free concerts), softball fields, the entire Museum Campus, and, God forbid, a possibly relocated children's museum right there. How much more "pro-child" can that area get? Or are you actually advocating for a glorified playground?

Apologies if this sounds acrimonious but, coming from a suburb where the children are among the most coddled in the region, I find this idea absolutely repulsive. The city's done enough catering to young family-tourists.

Maybe someone can help me out here, but didn't Burnham's plan for Grant Park call for a more bucolic experience in the southern portion? Something pastoral and contemplative would nicely complement the theme park to its north.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Concerning the garages, I don't know what to say... certainly, I couldn't support them at the expense of historic buildings. Even if that were not an issue, it's a very hard call. Wicker Park / Bucktown is in the interesting predicament of being the first true destination "inland" neighborhood for retail / shopping (it's hard to call North / Clybourn a real neighborhood), and the choices made here are going to have a large impact on other future developments throughout the city. It's nice to see the area has "arrived" in such a large-scale economic sense, but will its success also be its total undoing?

This call for garages baffles me. We should all unequivocally oppose them. Yes, it's a busy neighborhood, but, not only is it well-served by public transportation, parking is nowhere near as difficult as it is in Lincoln Park and Lakeview (which I see as the only comparable set of neighborhoods in terms of commercial activity outside downtown), especially during shopping hours.

The problem with suburbanites is that they feel so entitled to a space on the same block as their retail destination they bristle at the idea of having to walk a few more. In my North Shore hometown, people constantly complain about parking in the business district despite the fact that there are two free underground parking garages, two recently constructed free above-ground garages and plenty of spaces on the periphery.

[honte]

^ Yeah, I agree. I certainly didn't mean to imply that I'd ever be totally in favor of a garage in that location; just that they would be less objectionable if they were on vacant property.

If I ever have trouble parking in that area, it's in the evening when the restaurants are doing a lot of business, not during the day. However, I think the garages would do acceptable business and probably would reinforce the area's commercial appeal from a certain perspective.


Maybe someone can help me out here, but didn't Burnham's plan for Grant Park call for a more bucolic experience in the southern portion? Something pastoral and contemplative would nicely complement the theme park to its north.

I agree. Enough with the theme parks. However, the location demands something unique and wonderful, hopefully more modern in concept.

[VivaLFuego]

This call for garages baffles me. We should all unequivocally oppose them. Yes, it's a busy neighborhood, but, not only is it well-served by public transportation, parking is nowhere near as difficult as it is in Lincoln Park and Lakeview (which I see as the only comparable set of neighborhoods in terms of commercial activity outside downtown), especially during shopping hours.

The problem with suburbanites is that they feel so entitled to a space on the same block as their retail destination they bristle at the idea of having to walk a few more. In my North Shore hometown, people constantly complain about parking in the business district despite the fact that there are two free underground parking garages, two recently constructed free above-ground garages and plenty of spaces on the periphery.
Indeed. Whenever I've driven there, I've never had to park more than 2 blocks from the main intersection. In addition to metered spaces there is always ample unregulated street parking south along Damen and on numerous side streets. The parking 'problem' can and should be solved through metering: more metered spaces, higher meter rates, and signage to direct drivers to metered zones where appropriate (also, as with many retail districts, lots of meters are taken up by workers feeding the underpriced meters for 8 hours, which should be rectified in short order. the workers especially should park on side streets so the meters are for shoppers and diners).

Further, as Ch G says, we shouldn't be catering to the notion that everyone can always expect parking immediately in front of their destination. If a restaurant wishes to offer valet service for storing cars off-site, that's their perogative and should be encouraged in lieu of parking garages blighting the intersection. That the proposed sites are mere steps from a rapid transit station should seal the deal. If Bucktown wants a garage, build it near the no-man's land along Ashland or North near the Kennedy Expressway where the drivers are coming from, anyway - not next to the train line.

[ardecila]

Conceptually, I see it as Millennium Park's more movement- and family-oriented sister. I think it should be an inviting pathway from Roosevelt Road transit stations to the Museum Campus, and should include a world-class playscape that will be a memorable part of family visits to Chicago. For some reason I keep thinking of the Tuileries. Challenges include the siting of “Agora,” which is apparently difficult to alter, and the shadowing that will make that part of the park less attractive than the blocks to the north.

I attended the meeting tonight in Grant Park. The comments were actually pretty rational, considering the NIMBY-fests that GPC's meetings have broken down into before.

-There is no design ready to present yet. In fact, there was precious little concrete information given out.
-The new park aims to be on the cutting edge of sustainability, demonstrating green techniques that can be used elsewhere in the city.
-The architects from EDAW and Smith+Gill stressed "activation" of the park space, i.e. the creation of park features that draw people and compel them to take part in some activity.
-The architects also seek to make the park a destination for residents moreso than tourists, but they must balance this with the Millennium Park-style "activation" mentioned above
-The Agora sculpture will remain, and the park will grow around it
-No decision has been reached on whether the tracks will be decked over or, if so, how much of the tracks will be decked (this will largely depend on the funding available)
-O'Neill mentioned that the city is trying to put movable chairs in certain park areas along Michigan
-The presentation included several ideas from EDAW's and Smith+Gill's previous projects, as well as other architects' projects, that MAY influence the design. Among these, an innovative playground designed by a Dutch architect was shown.

The new park will be limited to the area between Roosevelt and the 11th Street pedestrian bridge, because of limited funding and the fact that this area falls within the Near South TIF district for some obscure historical reasons.

Comments were mostly positive (it's hard to disagree when the architects are merely presenting their goals). Commenters largely fell into two camps - those who wanted to see a repeat of the density and flashiness of Millennium Park, and those who wanted a quiet neighborhood park. The architects were already one step ahead, and they are striving to achieve a proper balance between the two.

The most interesting idea I heard was actually one that's been around for awhile, but I never knew about it - Kathryn Gustafson, designer of Lurie Garden in MP, suggested a kind of landscaping for the Metra trench that does not include decking. To be sure, it would involve additional bridges across the tracks at each east-west street, but between those, the trench would have every unused inch filled with resilient and attractive plant material to create a landscaped area without the tremendous cost of covering up the tracks. If you can imagine the trench walls turned into hanging gardens and the railroad's track bed transformed into a colorful plant carpet, that's what it would resemble.

[Jibba]

This call for garages baffles me. We should all unequivocally oppose them. Yes, it's a busy neighborhood, but, not only is it well-served by public transportation, parking is nowhere near as difficult as it is in Lincoln Park and Lakeview (which I see as the only comparable set of neighborhoods in terms of commercial activity outside downtown), especially during shopping hours.

The problem with suburbanites is that they feel so entitled to a space on the same block as their retail destination they bristle at the idea of having to walk a few more. In my North Shore hometown, people constantly complain about parking in the business district despite the fact that there are two free underground parking garages, two recently constructed free above-ground garages and plenty of spaces on the periphery.

I certainly agree with these sentiments, but unfortunately there is a lot more going on with the two developers that are proposing the garages that is ultimately going to have a substantial impact on what ends up happening. CG Development, which is proposing the garage on Damen that will end up leveling one structure if built, is the party behind the acquisition of the Midwest Bank property at the NW corner of Milwaukee and Damen. The deal that they made, for quite a bit of money I should add (near $30 mil. IIRC), also included two surface lots, one of which being the site of their proposed garage. The development of the garage was announced concurrently with their purchase of the bank and the associated lots, and this leads me to believe that they are banking on the garage to recoup some of the substantial initial investment in the properties. For its development plans, CG hired the same attorney that Karbowski used to skirt community groups and the 32nd ward alderman to forge ahead with his plans for Northwest Tower; it seems as though they plan on pulling out all the stops to get their parking garage constructed.

And speaking of Karbowski and his proposed garage, it is also quite mysterious that he would get special permission from the zoning board of appeals for his hotel construction when there is currently only 26 spaces alloted for that property on the street and in various surface lots. 26 spaces for 90 planned hotel rooms does not sound like math that would be approved by the city, unless of course they know something that we don't...

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

And thanks, Ardecila, for updating us with your notes from the meeting tonight. I am putting my faith in S&G that they will deliver a nice product, but it seems as though their plans are a little ambitious considering all of the talk of budget constraints. Miller-Coors to the rescue?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Wow, Ardecila. Thanks for the rundown. Interesting information. I'm not liking the fact that the architects are bandying about this "activation" buzzword. While I'm thrilled with the way Millennium Park turned out, and concerns for a "balanced" Grant Park aside, its success would be near impossible to replicate without the massive funds I'm certain this project will lack. I mean, Millennium Park is less innovative planning and more a simple showcase of individual, high quality attractions. I don't know how a comparably flashy counterpart would look anything but tacky on a budget. The "quiet neighborhood park" proposition is also kind of troubling. The area should be sublime, not quaint.

But I love Kathryn Gustafson's idea. One of the amazing things about Chicago is the way in which world-class institutions (housed in world-class architecture) sprung up right alongside the basest, dirtiest industries. Over the last couple of decades the city has grown self-conscious of the remnants of its industrial heritage. That's understandable. But the solution has been to raze them or cover them up. So you end up with something like Millennium Park which kind of denies the evidence of a crucial part of Chicago's history. From the sound of it, Kathryn Gustafson wants to do the opposite: embrace and adapt it. It reminds me of a larger scale version of Manhattan's High Line project. I think this could prove to be a very successful strategy if pursued and may even set a much needed precedent for the city. Plus, the Lurie Garden is one of my favorite components of Millennium Park, so I tend to trust where she's coming from. :)

[Mr Downtown]

Millennium Park's attractions are not "right there." They're a mile to the north. I'm thinking of things that will engage the west-to-east movement across the south end of Grant Park: families slowly making their way from Roosevelt Road CTA stations or South Michigan Avenue hotels to the Museum Campus, or Bears fans making the trek to Soldier Field. So I'd like to see the design recognize this processional component and enliven it, so the psychological distance to transit is shortened for visitors. Elements could include innovative playscapes that will appeal to older kids as well as preschoolers, water features that kids can play in (here's where shadowing becomes a big problem), and concessions that encourage visitors to sit and enjoy the passing parade. The Bears games mean this part of the park gets winter visitors as well, and they should find something other than a frozen wasteland. The elevation difference between the Roosevelt viaduct and the IC trench makes a sledding hill a natural. I also loved the Gustafson idea of carpeting the IC trench with different colored grasses and wildflowers—but Metra is notoriously hard to work with.

And Burnham's plans for Grant Park were to fill it with buildings and front the south end with an enormous train station.

[Busy Bee]

Metra is hard to work with because they are fundamentally unimaginative and disconnected from anything and everything "design related." Look at their branding, a good 25 years out of style, look at their rolling stock, look at their paint schemes. The previous operators of their lines had fantastic brand identity—CNW Green and Yellow, Rock Island Red, IC Orange, Metra took this heritage and barfed all over it with some homage to Old Glory, CTA as well for that matter. With the exception of Randolph St Station, which probably wasn't their idea, foreign rail operators make Metra look like it has the brand image of a lemonade stand.

[Mr Downtown]

Branding is one issue, but I actually give Metra a B- on that score. I mean, they could have just remained the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, or the Suburban Train Division of RTA. Instead, they created an identity and have built a well-regarded service around the idea of "the way to really fly." On the other hand, I'm mystified about why every piece of rolling stock has to display the American flag. Is there a danger that it will be shot at if it ventures into North Korean airspace?

No, Metra is most difficult when it comes to real estate. They refused to allow CDOT to construct an intermodal facility at LaSalle Street Station. Their complete intransigence over the relocation of Rock Island District tracks made both Riverside Park and the Roosevelt Collection mediocre projects. They insisted that CTA buses never be allowed to use the McCormick Place Busway. I'm sure their foot-dragging is the reason the new Roosevelt Road station took decades to get and in the end had to be built and funded by CDOT. Time after time they demonstrate that they have no interest in running a real regional rail system. Instead they think they're running a sort of mine train, allowing upstanding suburbanites to tentatively venture into a stinking pit of commerce and vice for a few hours each workday before carrying them safely back home to loving family members in Lawnland.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Millennium Park's attractions are not "right there." They're a mile to the north. I'm thinking of things that will engage the west-to-east movement across the south end of Grant Park: families slowly making their way from Roosevelt Road CTA stations or South Michigan Avenue hotels to the Museum Campus, or Bears fans making the trek to Soldier Field. So I'd like to see the design recognize this processional component and enliven it, so the psychological distance to transit is shortened for visitors. Elements could include innovative playscapes that will appeal to older kids as well as preschoolers, water features that kids can play in (here's where shadowing becomes a big problem), and concessions that encourage visitors to sit and enjoy the passing parade. The Bears games mean this part of the park gets winter visitors as well, and they should find something other than a frozen wasteland. The elevation difference between the Roosevelt viaduct and the IC trench makes a sledding hill a natural. I also loved the Gustafson idea of carpeting the IC trench with different colored grasses and wildflowers—but Metra is notoriously hard to work with.

You mean to tell me you think a mile-- one mile (and not to be picky but because we're talking about such a small distance it's worth mentioning that it's actually an eighth of a mile from Monroe to 11th Street)-- is too far for tourists to go unaided by some kind of ceremony? How about the Michigan Avenue historic streetwall? The stroll alongside provides one of the most beautiful vistas in the world of built environment. It is plenty engaging, even for the visitor with the shortest of attention spans.

I think the approach you advocate is far too didactic and caters much too much to out-of-towners and parents with young children. Playscapes? Water features? (How many more Crown Fountains do we need?) Concessions? Maybe the city could contract some of the costumed characters from Six Flags while it's at it? I get that you're aiming for a sort of Parc de la Villette experience but I really think that would be overkill given the nature of the attractions (well within walking distance) that already surround this parcel. Chicago's front yard should be sophisticated and awe-inspiring regardless of your age or relationship with the city. I don't think emulating Navy Pier will achieve this.

[honte]

I am in no way in favor of this Kathryn Gustafson proposal, except as a short-term measure.

Certainly, I count myself among the bigger fans of celebrating the city's industrial heritage. But I have my limits: When it directly interferes with one of the city's greatest public spaces, I'll side with those who want to "clean it up." We have miles and miles of lovely railroad and viaduct to look at - let's implement her plan in those areas.

For instance, I think Piano's decision (assistance) to keep the tracks uncovered by the Art Institute is a horrible and detrimental idea - except, of course, I think in actuality ARTIC is just playing the "celebrate the train" card as a way to keep that as a future development site.

If the scales were tipped to 80% coverage and the rest reworked as very clever "reveals" where the tracks became visible in an aesthetic way, I'd be OK with that. But that's about as much as I'm willing to give on this issue. The cohesiveness of the park is just much more important.

[Chicago3rd]

This call for garages baffles me. We should all unequivocally oppose them. Yes, it's a busy neighborhood, but, not only is it well-served by public transportation, parking is nowhere near as difficult as it is in Lincoln Park and Lakeview (which I see as the only comparable set of neighborhoods in terms of commercial activity outside downtown), especially during shopping hours.

The problem with suburbanites is that they feel so entitled to a space on the same block as their retail destination they bristle at the idea of having to walk a few more. In my North Shore hometown, people constantly complain about parking in the business district despite the fact that there are two free underground parking garages, two recently constructed free above-ground garages and plenty of spaces on the periphery.

100% Agree!

It is time we go back to the old neighborhoods where stores served those living in the neighborhoods. No one needs a car if you live in a neighborhoods and all the stores and restaurants and medical are all within a decent walking distance.

[Chicago3rd]

Family-oriented? World-class playscape? You have Millennium Park (Crown Fountain, winter ice rinks, free concerts), softball fields, the entire Museum Campus, and, God forbid, a possibly relocated children's museum right there. How much more "pro-child" can that area get? Or are you actually advocating for a glorified playground?

Apologies if this sounds acrimonious but, coming from a suburb where the children are among the most coddled in the region, I find this idea absolutely repulsive. The city's done enough catering to young family-tourists.

Maybe someone can help me out here, but didn't Burnham's plan for Grant Park call for a more bucolic experience in the southern portion? Something pastoral and contemplative would nicely complement the theme park to its north.

Am tired of it too. City parks should be designed for all. Tired of the "Norman Rockwell" bull. If the city wants to make children areas...time to make child free parks too.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

For instance, I think Piano's decision (assistance) to keep the tracks uncovered by the Art Institute is a horrible and detrimental idea - except, of course, I think in actuality ARTIC is just playing the "celebrate the train" card as a way to keep that as a future development site.

I don't know, honte. When I was a young one lallygagging in and around the Art Institute, I always found the sight of such a venerable institution maneuvered atop an active rail system pretty awesome (and not the general declarative kind). I still do.

[Nowhereman1280]

water features that kids can play in (here's where shadowing becomes a big problem)

Question, during the 4 or 5 months a year that Chicago isn't frozen solid, when one would actually be able to play in a water feature without getting hypothermia, isn't the sun far enough north that shadows from the south wall would hardly be an issue (maybe 50-150 feet long to no feet long depending how close to the solstice you are)?

If its shadows from future buildings to the west you are worried about, how does an extremely successful water feature like Crown Fountain get away with being right up against a wall of extremely tall building to the west?

[Steely Dan]

Instead they think they're running a sort of mine train, allowing upstanding suburbanites to tentatively venture into a stinking pit of commerce and vice for a few hours each workday before carrying them safely back home to loving family members in Lawnland.

this statement cracked me up. :haha:

[emathias]

You mean to tell me you think a mile-- one mile (and not to be picky but because we're talking about such a small distance it's worth mentioning that it's actually an eighth of a mile from Monroe to 11th Street)-- ...

Um, no. I don't know how you measure distances, but unless some weird time-space warp appeared over Michigan Avenue, it's actually 7/8ths (seven eights) of a mile from Monroe to 11th Street.

[honte]

I don't know, honte. When I was a young one lallygagging in and around the Art Institute, I always found the sight of such a venerable institution maneuvered atop an active rail system pretty awesome (and not the general declarative kind). I still do.

It is awesome. But taken in totality, is it so awesome that it should be kept around exactly as-is for eternity? Is there a way to keep the "awesomeness" while enhancing the public realm, reclaiming land for useable green / public space, and reconnecting the park?

[jstush04]

^ I'm sure there are some cool things you could do. Maybe an outdoor "portal" of some kind where everything is covered up nicely down south, except there is a pit where you can see the railroads. Just so you can know that everything you see is built above railroad tracks, which is not exactly a small feat

i love how eloquent I am

[aic4ever]

I wonder if whatever they do will pre-empt people from using the entire south end of grant park as a giant dog-toilet.

Nothing like the pungent aroma of dog piss baking in the summer sun on yellow grass to make for a nice stroll through the park.