[Ch.G, Ch.G]

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.

Sorry about that. I meant to write eight-tenths. I got the figure from Google Maps.

[Abner]

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.

This is the part of your proposal I agree the most with, but I'd take it farther. The city is way behind the times when it comes to winter gardens and other ways of maintaining some visual interest during the winter. I think a big part of the reason people think of Chicago's winter as being so ugly is that the city pretty much only plants deciduous trees and other plants that lose all their leaves and color in the winter. Even the planter boxes downtown, some of which could have native grasses, small conifers, or evergreen bushes, instead get flowers in the summer and weird mats of butchered pine twigs in the winter. Wouldn't it be nice to have winter landscaping in this new area, or at least landscaping that looks good year-round like the area around the Notebaert museum or the restored pieces of Northerly Island?

[ardecila]

I should mention that the Kathryn Gustafson proposal was presented in the "History" section of the meeting, where they reviewed the many conceptual plans for the park that have been created over the years. In no way was this presented as an active plan for the park, but it was presented as a way to turn the railroad tracks into something positive without the extreme cost of decking them.

Another interesting idea that was mentioned: creating some kind of an artificial stream. This could be abstra

[Mr Downtown]

Question, during the 4 or 5 months a year that Chicago isn't frozen solid. . .isn't the sun far enough north that shadows from the south wall would hardly be an issue

That's true in June or July, but by late August and early September the 2 pm shadows will extend almost to 11th Street—and will be solid from Michigan to Columbus.

how does . . . Crown Fountain get away with being right up against a wall of extremely tall building to the west?

Nothing fronting Crown Fountain is taller than 218 feet (University Club).

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.

I was thinking more Tuileries than Parc de la Villette. For one thing, I'd like to see Bennett's formal landscape honored and extended. I'm not trying to compete with Millennium Park, Navy Pier, or even the Museum Campus. The Crown Fountain is a trip for a different day. I don't see how it's overkill for there to be someplace to sit, maybe someplace to buy a beverage, and something that kids walking to the Aquarium or Field Museum will think is a neat place to stop and play for a little while.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/new-link-planned-for-millennium-grant-parks.html

New link planned for Millennium, Grant Parks
December 19, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Hal Dardick

...Using $35 million from a lease of city parking garages, the district will transform 25 acres that include Daley Bicentennial Plaza and two smaller areas to the east known as Cancer Survivors Garden and Peanut Park, officials said.

...The district has invited landscape firms to submit their qualifications and ideas for the job by the end of the month.

...The $35 million will cover re-topping the area with landscaping. Additional amenities, like public art or fountains, likely would cost extra, and one way to pay for them might be with naming rights, Mitchell added.

[BWChicago]

I'm a little concerned that redeveloping so much of the park at once, and having to follow the Millennium template to a degree, runs a risk of overwhelming the Bennett plan and leaving us with a dated park.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I don't see how it's overkill for there to be someplace to sit, maybe someplace to buy a beverage, and something that kids walking to the Aquarium or Field Museum will think is a neat place to stop and play for a little while.

Well, sure, phrased like that who would object? But when you start talking about this place being family-oriented with "world-class playscapes" and interactive water features it sounds less like the tranquil, reflective experience you describe above and more like an amusement park.

[the urban politician]

Well, sure, phrased like that who would object? But when you start talking about this place being family-oriented with "world-class playscapes" and interactive water features it sounds less like the tranquil, reflective experience you describe above and more like an amusement park.

If I see those retarded yellow and orange plastic kiddy-playgrounds I might actually vomit.

[cbotnyse]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/new-link-planned-for-millennium-grant-parks.html

New link planned for Millennium, Grant Parks
December 19, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Hal Dardick

...Using $35 million from a lease of city parking garages, the district will transform 25 acres that include Daley Bicentennial Plaza and two smaller areas to the east known as Cancer Survivors Garden and Peanut Park, officials said.

...The district has invited landscape firms to submit their qualifications and ideas for the job by the end of the month.

...The $35 million will cover re-topping the area with landscaping. Additional amenities, like public art or fountains, likely would cost extra, and one way to pay for them might be with naming rights, Mitchell added.I really wish this included a pedestrian ramp over LSD at that location.

[nomarandlee]

I really wish this included a pedestrian ramp over LSD at that location.

I think that would perhaps be a good locations for a natural land bridge with a sunken LSD in the future.

[cbotnyse]

I think I'm gonna go to the meeting, whenever it is, and bring that up if nobody else does. The area sorely needs a way across LSD. The entire LakeShore East development would use it.

I use this area a lot riding my bike and I remember a few times last summer I would sit on LSD and just people watch, and over heard many people from out of town be shocked they had to cross an eight lane expressway to get to the lake.

[Mr Downtown]

Lake Shore Drive is elevated at Randolph; not the place for it to be sunken.

There does needs to be a pleasant and logical way to walk from Millennium Park to Navy Pier. As it is, you have to walk the wrong way to Monroe, master the rather offputting stairways of lower Randolph, or find the hole in the fence by the Lower Wacker auto pound. But I suppose for suggesting such a thing, I'm catering too much to (spit!) tourists.

But it's the Queen's Landing problem that's the most glaring embarrassment to the city. Someone is going to die there in the next couple of years and the mayor will reach frequencies that only dogs can hear in trying to place the blame elsewhere.

At the south end, the reason I said "world-class playscape" was to make it clear that standard-issue plastic playground slides would not do.

[Jibba]

But it's the Queen's Landing problem that's the most glaring embarrassment to the city. Someone is going to die there in the next couple of years and the mayor will reach frequencies that only dogs can hear in trying to place the blame elsewhere.

I completely agree. I am tired of this issue not getting more attention. Why does one have to cross a multi-lane expressway just to get to the lake from Grant Park; annoying, and highly dangerous.

[honte]

I really wish this included a pedestrian ramp over LSD at that location.

For that amount of money, you'd think it would...

[nomarandlee]

Lake Shore Drive is elevated at Randolph; not the place for it to be sunken.

.

I was thinking more a tunnel starting once the road is level again south of Randolph going into the bend into the straightway. Monroe does come up pretty quick however so I don't know if the expense would be worth it for a relatively short tunnel.
Queens landing would perhaps be a better place to put such a tunnel but I rather like the vista going south towards the Field Museum but there is a longer expanse with which to excavate.

[honte]

Were Calatrava's sketches for Queen's Landing ever made public?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I use this area a lot riding my bike and I remember a few times last summer I would sit on LSD and just people watch, and over heard many people from out of town be shocked they had to cross an eight lane expressway to get to the lake.

...I wonder if they'd be twice as shocked by Avenido 9 de Julio in Buenos Aires.

There does needs to be a pleasant and logical way to walk from Millennium Park to Navy Pier. As it is, you have to walk the wrong way to Monroe, master the rather offputting stairways of lower Randolph, or find the hole in the fence by the Lower Wacker auto pound. But I suppose for suggesting such a thing, I'm catering too much to (spit!) tourists..

Snark aside, this is very valid criticism. Navy Pier already is a tourist destination so it doesn't make sense for it to be such a pain for pedestrian inclined visitors on foot from Grant Park. It's a similar distance to the Museum Campus from Millennium Park, though, so maybe we should advocate for some water features and playscapes at DuSable?

[emathias]

...

There does needs to be a pleasant and logical way to walk from Millennium Park to Navy Pier. As it is, you have to walk the wrong way to Monroe, master the rather offputting stairways of lower Randolph, or find the hole in the fence by the Lower Wacker auto pound. ...

Or take upper Columbus to Wacker, then use the open stairs to the Columbus bridge to Illinois to Navy Pier, which I've seen tourists do frequently. That's probably the most direct route. If Daley Bicentennial Plaza transitioned better to that triangle of land between LSD and lower Randolph, it'd be pretty straightforward to take that curvy bridge toward the lake and keep walking until you got there. Seems the City should do that, and seems it wouldn't cost much, either.

[emathias]

...I wonder if they'd be twice as shocked by Avenido 9 de Julio in Buenos Aires.
...

Probably. There have been suggestions (so far, none taken too seriously) to bury the central portion of that, just for that reason.

[ardecila]

Or take upper Columbus to Wacker, then use the open stairs to the Columbus bridge to Illinois to Navy Pier, which I've seen tourists do frequently. That's probably the most direct route. If Daley Bicentennial Plaza transitioned better to that triangle of land between LSD and lower Randolph, it'd be pretty straightforward to take that curvy bridge toward the lake and keep walking until you got there. Seems the City should do that, and seems it wouldn't cost much, either.

I once ran into a couple at the end of Harbor Drive on LSE. Apparently they had walked eastward down Randolph from Millennium Park and, when they reached the end, they turned onto Harbor (which runs in the direction of Navy Pier). They asked me how to get to Navy Pier, and they looked crestfallen when I told them they had basically walked into a giant cul-de-sac in the air. I tried to explain to them about Field Boulevard and the hole in the fence, but it went right over their heads.

There really is no orthodox path through LSE. All of them either involve some informal "hole in a fence" or gravel construction road, or they require trips through private property (like the stairs in the Shoreham).

[Jibba]

^Something about that story is utterly hilarious to me (nothing about you or your character, but about your explaining to uninformed tourists how to travel in ways that they likely found unimaginable), and, accordingly, somewhat sad and unfortunate.

[cbotnyse]

...I wonder if they'd be twice as shocked by Avenido 9 de Julio in Buenos Aires.probably, yeah. what's your point?

[aic4ever]

I find the easiest way to Navy Pier from Millenium Park is to go up Michigan Ave., cross the river, then cut northeast through the plaza at Tribune Tower and Cityfront Plaza. Go down the stairs at the dead end of Illinois (upper) and down onto the lower Illinois, and it's a straight shot to the pier.

To simplify it for tourists, just tell them Michigan north to Illinois, east to the Pier. They won't get the more pleasant stroll through the plazas, obviously, but it's the easiest way to get there.

[wrabbit]

.....the city pretty much only plants deciduous trees and other plants that lose all their leaves and color in the winter. Even the planter boxes downtown, some of which could have native grasses, small conifers, or evergreen bushes, instead get flowers in the summer and weird mats of butchered pine twigs in the winter. Wouldn't it be nice to have winter landscaping in this new area, or at least landscaping that looks good year-round like the area around the Notebaert museum or the restored pieces of Northerly Island?

You know, I've been wondering why there aren't more conifers/evergreens in the city for the longest time. I though that it maybe it was a hangover from the aftermath of the Great Fire, because of the high combustibility of pine wood?

Anybody know? Mr. Downtown?

[cbotnyse]

I find the easiest way to Navy Pier from Millenium Park is to go up Michigan Ave., cross the river, then cut northeast through the plaza at Tribune Tower and Cityfront Plaza. Go down the stairs at the dead end of Illinois (upper) and down onto the lower Illinois, and it's a straight shot to the pier.

To simplify it for tourists, just tell them Michigan north to Illinois, east to the Pier. They won't get the more pleasant stroll through the plazas, obviously, but it's the easiest way to get there.so we should steer people away from the new section of park the city is spending $35 million on? I understand your point, and you're right, but it just illustrates how much a pedestrain bridge makes sense as part of the renovation of that area.

[aic4ever]

so we should steer people away from the new section of park the city is spending $35 million on? I understand your point, and you're right, but it just illustrates how much a pedestrain bridge makes sense as part of the renovation of that area.

Well, as of right now, there is no $35 million expansion in place, so my directions are actually faster anyway, since all parts of Millenium park are currently closer to Michigan Ave. than they are to the lakefront. While I understand the attraction to walking along the lake to get to the Pier, if the Pier is the main destination, the route given, in my opinion should be the easiest, especially for tourists. I have been traversing the lakefront since I moved into the city in '99, and with the current construction happening where you cross the river, I find myself getting turned around again, like I used to, at the area where I need to cross the river to get to the pier.

That said, I really can't disagree with the idea of a pedestrian bridge over LSD. Hell they put one over Columbus for no reason apparent to me, other than perhaps to service future expansion. The problem I see will be that there isn't a heck of a lot of room on the lake side of the drive to accommodate abutments and the necessary handicap ramps, and still make the thing look decent. I think the last thing anybody wants there is something reminiscent of the North Ave. crossing, which is kind of an eyesore.

As far as crossings go, at this point, I'd much prefer to see Queen's Landing addressed. It's a flat-out crime that there's no option for crossing at that location anymore (there used to at least be a light) other than playing live-action frogger.

[cbotnyse]

what do you mean no plan in place? did you read the link spyguy posted?

I think there should be a crossing at Queen's and at Randolph, either above or below ground, doesn't matter to me.

The more I think of it the more I hate how Columbus and LSD just kill Grant Park. Do we really need 16 lanes of traffic cutting through the heart of the park?

[Mr Downtown]

Some of you are misunderstanding the problem. Tourists walk east over the BP Bridge, logically expecting to continue onward to the lake and then north to Navy Pier. By the time they're standing at Upper Randolph and Field Boulevard, telling them to walk all the way back to Michigan Avenue and start over is not perceived as all that helpful.

[cbotnyse]

Some of you are misunderstanding the problem. Tourists walk east over the BP Bridge, logically expecting to continue onward to the lake and then north to Navy Pier. By the time they're standing at Upper Randolph and Field Boulevard, telling them to walk all the way back to Michigan Avenue and start over is not perceived as all that helpful.hell no it isn't, or as you said earlier, walk back south in the opposite direction to Monroe and wait for the light to change. Its embarrasing actually.

[Chicago3rd]

Some of you are misunderstanding the problem. Tourists walk east over the BP Bridge, logically expecting to continue onward to the lake and then north to Navy Pier. By the time they're standing at Upper Randolph and Field Boulevard, telling them to walk all the way back to Michigan Avenue and start over is not perceived as all that helpful.

Logically? Since when was Grant Park the link to Navy Pier? And if that is the only goal for the BP bridge then put signs on the walking path...it is easy....take a left at the end of the bridge...walk 50 feet take a right pass through the cancer garden and follow trails diaganal under Lake Shore drive to lake front take left.

Priority on the parks should be in this order:

1. Citizens of the city of Chicago
2. Citizens of the Chicagoland Area
3. Tourist

I am sad to see all these changes....I love that area...especially in the summer. I hope it doesn't get too thought out...and become another Disneyland.

[cbotnyse]

Priority on the parks should be in this order:
1. Citizens of the city of Chicago
2. Citizens of the Chicagoland Area
3. Tourist
you don't think all residents of LSE would use this? I am a citzen of Chicago and a resident of the area and I think its exactly what the area needs. The lakefront needs better pedestrain access from Roosevelt to Chicago Ave.

[Loopy]

The Parks department does have a bridge planned to connect the North end of Grant Park to Monroe Harbor. The big push now, however, is to get the Queens Landing pedestrian crossing project to come to life.

2009 is the 50th anniversary of the Royal visit and our local aristocrats are putting the squeeze on their peers in Great Britain to tap Sir Richard Rogers to design the thing gratis.

[Chicago3rd]

I was discussing the bridge to nowhere that for some reason people feels needs to be made into the bridge to Navy Pier.

Am in agreement with you...historically I am for the pedestrian right a way at the Buckingham fountain (Queens Landing).

Closing of Columbus Drive period.

Hell I am the person who wants LSD gone. Or at least turned into a normal Blvd.

I am just opposed to things being planned around the needs of the tourist. Yes LSE deserves to be heard in this discussion and their concerns should be taken seriously, but Grant Park was not ever designed to be a neighborhood park...and shouldn't be treated as one.

[cbotnyse]

I am just opposed to things being planned around the needs of the tourist. Yes LSE deserves to be heard in this discussion and their concerns should be taken seriously, but Grant Park was not ever designed to be a neighborhood park...and shouldn't be treated as one.so if its not designed for tourists or as a neighborhood park, then who should it be designed for? When Grant Park was designed, I don't think it was envisioned that there would be so much residential development surrounding it.

I also think Columbus should be at least down to 4 lanes (not 8) with a 20 MPH speed limit, and at least 2 pedestrain crossings to the lake over LSD from the fountian to Chicago Ave.

Loopy, do you have a link or more info to the planned bridge at Randolph. why has nobody mentioned this before?

[brian_b]

The residents of LSE would most likely use the already-existing path at the Lancaster. There's a driveway with a sidewalk down to the parking facility, but if you continue on you've got the wide [paved] alley leading to the parking lot underneath LSD, which has a faded pedestrian walkway painted on it that leads directly to the lakefront bike path. People that find themselves on Harbor Drive can use the staircase right there at the Lancaster to walk down and be deposited right at the entrance to the above-mentioned driveway.

No, it's not well-marked and it's not ideal, but it's easy and already exists and to anyone already in LSE it's going to be a lot more convenient than crossing all the way down at Queen's Landing.

[cbotnyse]

No, it's not well-marked and it's not ideal, but it's easy and already exists and to anyone already in LSE it's going to be a lot more convenient than crossing all the way down at Queen's Landing.I'm not talking about Queen's landing, I'm taking about a bridge over LSD at Randolph.

[Loopy]

Loopy, do you have a link or more info to the planned bridge at Randolph. why has nobody mentioned this before?

It's not really planned at Randolph, nor is it necessarily a bridge (it could end up being an underpass). Just some kind of connection between Daly Bi and the Lakeshore path.

Anyway, Bob O'Neill mentioned it a couple of times during the public comment meeting on the Daly Bi overhaul. Like all major Parks improvements these days, it will be a "Public-Private Partnership". So, in other words, when a big corporate sponsor wants to put their name on it, it will happen. Until then, it's just a dream.

[cbotnyse]

^^ thats why I don't understand why a bridge or underpass cant be included in the $35 million. Are we really spending $35 million dollars on landscaping???

[Loopy]

^The 35 million dollars is not just for landscaping but for the total improvement package to replace the entire area that will be scraped off to repair the garage (minus the area encompassing the Children Museum). The area is bordered by Columbus, Randolph, Monroe and Lake Shore Drive. I can see how the 35 mil could evaporate pretty quickly.

On the other hand, a pedestrian bridge could cost nearly 20 million (including design and engineering).

[Chicago3rd]

so if its not designed for tourists or as a neighborhood park, then who should it be designed for? When Grant Park was designed, I don't think it was envisioned that there would be so much residential development surrounding it. ?

Name one neighborhood park that will get as much money from the city as this part of the Park will. Clearly it isn't a neighborhood park. After Wells Park gets $35 million then that neighborhood can have their $35 million dollar park...well after all the other neighborhood parks in the city get their $35 million. I am all for that.

It should be planned as a City park for the entire city and the uses the city needs.

[cbotnyse]

Name one neighborhood park that will get as much money from the city as this part of the Park will. Clearly it isn't a neighborhood park. After Wells Park gets $35 million then that neighborhood can have their $35 million dollar park...well after all the other neighborhood parks in the city get their $35 million. I am all for that.

It should be planned as a City park for the entire city and the uses the city needs.I understand, but the way you made it sound didnt make sense to me. Its not a neighborhood park, and I dont care if it is even designed as one, the area just needs more access to the lakefront, for everyone.

[Loopy]

The $35 million was negotiated into the parking lease deal and comes directly from Morgan Stanley, not the Park District budget.

[wrabbit]

Were Calatrava's sketches for Queen's Landing ever made public?

They were certainly floating around, but I'm not sure if the city released them.
Anyway, as a reminder:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/5380a.jpg
http://www.site-design.com/urban/5380.htm

[StatenIslander237]

I'm slow coming into this discussion, but I just read over the last three pages of the forum, and honestly, I'm all for giving the peds access to the lakefront. God knows we need it.

BUT, I don't understand why they need to redesign Daley Bicentennial Plaza. I loved that part of the park, and the existing Cancer Survivors Garden (the view to the Museum Campus from there was completely unmatched), when I lived in Chicago, and I don't understand what's wrong with that section of the park right now.

Also, I worry about how many of the well-aged trees in that area will be felled for the "relandscaping" that will occur. I recall that the trees in the park are sparse in some places (and in Millennium Park, the youth of the trees still gives it that "new" look, which doesn't quite strike you as a classic Chicago park...not YET anyway), and I feel that "relandscaping" one of the most well-vegetated and shaded areas of the park would be an unnecessary mistake. :(

[Loopy]

^There is a parking garage below the entire expanse of Daley Bi that was recently leased (sold off) to Morgan Stanley. It leaks and the concrete is spalling. Every bit of park above the garage will need to be grubbed off to allow for access to the "roof" of the garage to install a waterproof membrane. Morgan Stanley has agreed to kick in $35 million for removal and replacement of the parkspace. The issue is what to replace it with now that there is an opportunity for a new design.

[ardecila]

Morgan Stanley also thinks they can do the whole re-waterproofing for $60 million, including concrete repair and, I assume, replacement of lighting, electrical, and fireproofing systems.

[ChiPsy]

^There is a parking garage below the entire expanse of Daley Bi that was recently leased (sold off) to Morgan Stanley. It leaks and the concrete is spalling. Every bit of park above the garage will need to be grubbed off to allow for access to the "roof" of the garage to install a waterproof membrane.

Will the new membrane prevent them from having to do this again, in another 35-40 years? If not, does that also mean Millennium Park plantings will have to be uprooted in that time frame?

Or have they markedly improved the concrete and/or waterproof membranes they're using?

[aic4ever]

what do you mean no plan in place? did you read the link spyguy posted?

I think there should be a crossing at Queen's and at Randolph, either above or below ground, doesn't matter to me.

The more I think of it the more I hate how Columbus and LSD just kill Grant Park. Do we really need 16 lanes of traffic cutting through the heart of the park?

I did read the link he posted. Did you read what I wrote? Because I didn't say there is no PLAN in place. I said the EXPANSION is not in place. Which means that if someone is standing in Millenium Park today, they are closer to Michigan Ave. than they are to the lake.

As to your argument about all that traffic on LSD and Columbus "killing Grant Park," let's step back into the realm of reality. I would argue that the necessity for moving vehicular traffic (Read: BUSINESS traffic) north and south through/around Grant Park mightily trumps the necessity for relaxing pedestrians to cross the street from one side to the other. The park is not there without taxpayer money, and that money needs to be stolen from people who are working in the first place.

[aic4ever]

Will the new membrane prevent them from having to do this again, in another 35-40 years? If not, does that also mean Millennium Park plantings will have to be uprooted in that time frame?

Or have they markedly improved the concrete and/or waterproof membranes they're using?

If Morgan Stanley has $60 million to do work to the parking garage for waterproofing and concrete along with MEP's, I would imagine they will be designing better drainage overall that will aid in preventing infiltrations. Newer Waterproof Membranes will work very well when layered properly and fed to proper drainage systems, but overall, that 35-40 year timeframe is probably pretty realistic for the next replacement no matter what they do with it this time.

[aic4ever]

They were certainly floating around, but I'm not sure if the city released them.
Anyway, as a reminder:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/5380a.jpg
http://www.site-design.com/urban/5380.htm

This would be fantastic, but I would bet this design would push $20 million all on its own, depending on how much work would have to happen on either side of LSD, and on how much of the operations would require ridiculously expensive double-time night work.

[spyguy]

1307 W Wrightwood
19 units
LEED Platinum
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/1452/130703ax7.jpg

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ Why do "green" developments always insist on pergolas?

[honte]

Wrabbit, thanks for posting the Calatrava proposal. After seeing that, I'm a touch less wistful.

[cbotnyse]

As to your argument about all that traffic on LSD and Columbus "killing Grant Park," let's step back into the realm of reality. I would argue that the necessity for moving vehicular traffic (Read: BUSINESS traffic) north and south through/around Grant Park mightily trumps the necessity for relaxing pedestrians to cross the street from one side to the other. The park is not there without taxpayer money, and that money needs to be stolen from people who are working in the first place.are you just playing devil's advocate, or do you really believe that?

I think Burnham and Ward are rolling over in their graves.

[Mr Downtown]

Ward, maybe, but not Burnham, who first drew Lake Shore Drive (at least downtown). The Plan of Chicago was primarily about handling the growing commercial traffic of what Burnham thought was destined to become the largest city in the world.

[cbotnyse]

Did Burnham also draw up Columbus Ave? Burnham also wanted the lakefront to be a natural escape for the people, and that's what Grant Park has turned into. I dont recall any 8 lane highways cutting through his network of islands. (and please dont be annoying and post some long obscure passage from the Plan.)

I'd rather hear if you, or anyone, actually agree with aic4ever. To be honest I can't believe his insane post didn't get a plethora of replies.

Especially where he says vehicular traffic through/around Grant Park mightily trumps the necessity for relaxing pedestrians.

and I don't even know what this means, The park is not there without taxpayer money. Should we be grateful for all the traffic and the tax generating dollars it provides?

I find that to be the most absurd post I've ever read on these boards. I've always found it funny that people will fight with their last breath to keep a Children's museum, built underground, out of the park, but 16 lanes of traffic and a 45MPH speed limt with no pedestrian crossing? no problem!!

[Loopy]

CBOTNYSE, we all make ludicrous statements on the forums sometimes, there is no need to create a dialogue from every possible position put forth here.

The only point made in his post that I feel is worthy of a reply is his supposition that Grant Park "is not there without taxpayer money".

I wish it were true. Due to the new trend of "Public-Private Partnerships", Grant Park is on the cusp of being completely subdivided and sold off to corporations for their marketing programs. This worries me considerably more than the through traffic.

The citizens already have a very low level of influence of Grant Park matters and the rising involvement of corporations will dilute that even further.

[cbotnyse]

^CBOTNYSE, we all make ludicrous statements on the forums sometimes, there is no need to create a dialogue from every possible position put forth here.what does this mean? no need to create dialogue? this is a freaking discussion forum! :haha:

The only point made in his post that I feel is worthy of a reply is his supposition that Grant Park "is not there without taxpayer money".

I wish it were true. Due to the new trend of "Public-Private Partnerships", Grant Park is on the cusp of being completely subdivided and sold off to corporations for their marketing programs. This worries me considerably more than the through traffic.

Now, the invested corporations will have an equal voice with citizens to decide the future of the park.why does that worry you? If private money wants to come in and make the park better, thats fine by me. Its not like they are turning sections of the park private for their personal use.

furthermore, do you agree with the statement that vehicular traffic mightily trumps the necessity for relaxing pedestrians?

[jstush04]

cbotnyse, I tend to agree with aic4ever, at least partially. This is the city that works, and LSD is responsible for a lot of north/south traffic. Columbus, however, could definitely be cut down by 2-4 lanes with a lower speed limit

[Loopy]

why does that worry you? If private money wants to come in and make the park better, thats fine by me. Its not like they are turning sections of the park private for their personal use.

furthermore, do you agree with the statement that vehicular traffic mightily trumps the necessity for relaxing pedestrians?
If Aon and Chase cough up millions to have pedestrian bridges over LSD built in their honor, do you think they are then going to support any planning to put LSD underground?

It's already happening in the South Grant Park improvement process. The corporate donors for the Agora sculpture installation have put the squeeze on the Park Comissioners to protect their "investment" from any relocation in further planning.

[cbotnyse]

cbotnyse, I tend to agree with aic4ever, at least partially. This is the city that works, and LSD is responsible for a lot of north/south traffic. Columbus, however, could definitely be cut down by 2-4 lanes with a lower speed limitI'm not suggesting getting rid of LSD or Columbus, but there needs to be a pedestrain under or over passes to the lake, or a few of them. And if it were up to me, I'd make Columbus one (maybe 2) lane in each direction, with a 20mph speed limit. There is def no need for 8 lanes.

If Aon and Chase cough up millions to have pedestrian bridges over LSD built in their honor, do you think they are then going to support any planning to put LSD underground?if there are pedestrain bridges, why would LSD need to be underground?

[brian_b]

How much would it cost to sink LSD underground for just the block between Balbo and Jackson? I would imagine that you could use Columbus to reroute traffic during construction and then have the opportunity to do all the work quickly without the headaches and extra costs of rebuilding something while it is in use.

[Loopy]

if there are pedestrain bridges, why would LSD need to be underground?

It wouldn't need to be from am immediate practical point of view. But ultimately, the future of the park demands the removal (or burial) of either Columbus or LSD IMO.

[cbotnyse]

It wouldn't need to be from am immediate practical point of view. But ultimately, the future of the park demands the removal (or burial) of either Columbus or LSD IMO.I'm with you on that. A bridge would be a good start, and would make sense if financed by corporations. (Aon Bridge, i.e.)....I would think the city would be on the hook for any road alterations.

[wrabbit]

How much would it cost to sink LSD underground for just the block between Balbo and Jackson? I would imagine that you could use Columbus to reroute traffic during construction and then have the opportunity to do all the work quickly without the headaches and extra costs of rebuilding something while it is in use.

Lots, because of the water table. But we're about to get a big infusion of federal dollars, nation wide, for public works projects, so who knows what may come to pass?

[jpIllInoIs]

^ It wont be used for LSD. Think expansion of BRT and Central Area Circulator, maybe Red Line ext. Thats about all the money there willbe.

[laro3]

I heard from a kid last night who works for the park district at daley bi centen. and he said he heard they wanted to extend Frank Gehry's bridge across Lsd...has anyone heard of this before?

[Loopy]

Well yeah, sorta. The talk is to create an LSD crossing more or less in line with the Amoco bridge. I haven't heard that it was to be designed by Gehry to complement Amoco. Is that what you heard?

[honte]

I wish it were true. Due to the new trend of "Public-Private Partnerships", Grant Park is on the cusp of being completely subdivided and sold off to corporations for their marketing programs. This worries me considerably more than the through traffic.

The citizens already have a very low level of influence of Grant Park matters and the rising involvement of corporations will dilute that even further.

Loopy, you are entirely right. This is a point I hadn't given much thought to.

Well yeah, sorta. The talk is to create an LSD crossing more or less in line with the Amoco bridge. I haven't heard that it was to be designed by Gehry to complement Amoco. Is that what you heard?

Hmm, I really hope they don't do ths. I'm not a big fan of the bridge to start, but really it is an independent sculptural object and having a similar "complement" won't make it any stronger.

I like the Richard Rogers idea much better.... with Piano and Gehry bridges already, GP could be a park with many different versions of the same motif by top designers.

[cbotnyse]

how can you not be a fan of that bridge? it is a work of art.

[nomarandlee]

I heard from a kid last night who works for the park district at daley bi centen. and he said he heard they wanted to extend Frank Gehry's bridge across Lsd...has anyone heard of this before?

As much as I appreciate the aesthetics of the Gehry bridge I hope they wouldn't make a complementary one as impractical and convoluted as the current one. It seems the length of the bridge is twice as long as the distance it actually covers.

[honte]

how can you not be a fan of that bridge? it is a work of art.


Actually, in the holiday spirit, I was being gracious. But let's not go there - this thread's already got you plenty riled up. ;)

[cbotnyse]

Actually, in the holiday spirit, I was being gracious. But let's not go there - this thread's already got you plenty riled up. ;):haha: I love discussing opposing opinions to my own. it makes me see things differently....but come on, this bridge is beautifully done, world class, and well placed.

[denizen467]

Ok, so what's with this dynamic light art piece covering the side of the State-Lake el station? Up close it does not necessarily look like it was just installed this year, but I certainly had never noticed it before last night.

[BWChicago]

As much as I appreciate the aesthetics of the Gehry bridge I hope they wouldn't make a complementary one as impractical and convoluted as the current one. It seems the length of the bridge is twice as long as the distance it actually covers.

It's that long to decrease the slope so that it's accessible and less fatiguing. Also gives it more changing vistas, etc.

[Abner]

It wouldn't need to be from am immediate practical point of view. But ultimately, the future of the park demands the removal (or burial) of either Columbus or LSD IMO.

I've always thought that the park would be an order of magnitude greater if Columbus could just be turned into a pedestrian mall. Somewhat narrower, maybe brick-paved. It already serves that function sometimes in the summer. Of course there would still be crossings at the east-west streets, but it would still really tie together the east and west halves of the park. Burying LSD might be nice, but not nearly as important in terms of making the park cohere (not to mention less realistic).

[laro3]

It sounded like countinuing the curved bridge style over LSD.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I've always thought that the park would be an order of magnitude greater if Columbus could just be turned into a pedestrian mall. Somewhat narrower, maybe brick-paved. It already serves that function sometimes in the summer. Of course there would still be crossings at the east-west streets, but it would still really tie together the east and west halves of the park. Burying LSD might be nice, but not nearly as important in terms of making the park cohere (not to mention less realistic).

I totally agree. :tup:

[Mr Downtown]

The primary raison d'être for the BP Bridge is to shield the Pritzker Pavilion from traffic noise on Columbus Drive. That's why the west approach snakes so much.

[sammyg]

I've always thought that the park would be an order of magnitude greater if Columbus could just be turned into a pedestrian mall. Somewhat narrower, maybe brick-paved. It already serves that function sometimes in the summer. Of course there would still be crossings at the east-west streets, but it would still really tie together the east and west halves of the park. Burying LSD might be nice, but not nearly as important in terms of making the park cohere (not to mention less realistic).

Or even if they just closed it to cars on the weekends, when there are more people in the park and no need to get commuters in and out of the loop.

[honte]

^ Walter Netsch (RIP) pushed for an idea similar to this after he retired from SOM and was working at the Park District.

[pip]

at Addison and Sheffield there was a nice old building that has been torn down. Hope something other than a three story building with two stories of parking goes up or even better yet it is left vacant for years or a 7-11 with nice parking in front. I'm surprised that building was torn down.

http://www.growingchicago.com/addison.JPG

[honte]

^ That is a huge loss. I saw the scaffold up but was hoping it would be a rehab. I can't believe it was taken down either.

I have a close friend doing scholarly research into Art Nouveau and this building was suspected to be one of the first of a particular strain. It was designed by Samuel Crowen, who has many landmarked structures in Chicago.

:( :( :( I was hoping the weak economy would have one silver lining (decreasing demolitions) but it doesn't seem to be helping much.

[dvidler]

^ That is a huge loss. I saw the scaffold up but was hoping it would be a rehab. I can't believe it was taken down either.

I have a close friend doing scholarly research into Art Nouveau and this building was suspected to be one of the first of a particular strain. It was designed by Samuel Crowen, who has many landmarked structures in Chicago.

:( :( :( I was hoping the weak economy would have one silver lining (decreasing demolitions) but it doesn't seem to be helping much.

The building where the Sports Corner is was torn down??

[pip]

yup

like honte I thought when I saw the scaffolding it was going to be a rehab. Then last week the top part of one floor was exposed then I began to have my doubts. Today it is about gone.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ What? How the hell did that happen? How did that community let it happen? Has anyone even heard of what's supposed to be going there?

[honte]

^ Sadly, unless one follows these matters very closely, it might be surprising to learn that buildings of this magnitude fall in Chicago at a rate of about 1 per week.

How did it happen? Well, there is still no protection nor any public notification for demolition of buildings in Chicago, unless they are official landmarks or given a Red or Orange rating in the Historic Resources Survey. The Survey-listed buildings will generate a 90-day delay (which is useless anyway about 90-95% of the time).

Unfortunately, the Survey, while useful, is woefully inadequate. The passing of the Demo Delay Ordinance, which gave the Survey its protective power, also gave people a false impression that every worthy structure would have a measure of protection, which is clearly not the case. This building was not identified within the survey in any capacity. It's a frequent problem in architecture-rich neighborhoods: The survey skipped many structures simply because of limited time / resources, and also in an attempt to produce "parity" across different areas of the city.

For people who didn't know this building, the coolest parts are not showing in the photo above. These were Art Nouveau details in the oversized cast-iron corner column and other elements. The ornament was done with an emerging personal style that evolved to be very distinctive in Crowen's architecture from this period.

[Via Chicago]

Unbelievable.

[pyropius]

What's going up in its place?

[the urban politician]

Beyond irritating. I hate that shit

[VivaLFuego]

^ Sad news... a very high quality building.

Is there a silver lining? Well, the zoning on this site is very high and permissive: B3-5, allowing an FAR of 5.0. The replacement could, potentially, be very dense (e.g. 6-7 stories, 70+ feet tall) as of right, requiring no Planned Development process.

[OhioGuy]

Wow, this took me by surprise. Addison is my local el station and I'd been assuming this entire time that they were gutting in the inside while keeping the exterior. To actually tear down all of it is disappointing. Hopefully what they build there in its place isn't something immensely pathetic.

[Tom In Chicago]

From today's Trib. . . this has always been a pet-peeve of mine as it has such a negative impact on all the pedestrian tourist traffic. . .

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-michigan-avenue-bridgedec27,0,5646846.story

Michigan Avenue bridge set to reclaim some of its ancient luster
Handrails, sidewalks will be restored over next six months, officials say

By James Janega

Tribune reporter

December 27, 2008

Beginning in January, the city will restore decorative handrails on the Michigan Avenue bridge to a design reminiscent of their original 1920s Beaux Arts pattern while also replacing sidewalks on the bridge with non-skid fiberglass decking.

The project will restore a stroke of beauty to one of the city's most iconic tourist and pedestrian landmarks and address one of Chicago's iciest river crossings. But it also promises to snarl pedestrian traffic for up to six months as first one side of the bridge and then the other is closed in the $3.5 million face-lift.

"This is something that has been planned for at least a couple of years," said Chicago Department of Transportation spokesman Brian Steele. Because pedestrian counts are lower now, he added, "winter is a better time to handle this type of construction."

The bridge was designed by Chicago architect Edward Bennett. One of the first priorities of the plan was the double-deck bridge finished in 1920 to link the north side of Michigan Avenue with the southern end and downtown. The interlaced diamond pattern of the original railings will be recreated (though with smaller gaps in the lattice, bringing them up to modern code) as new deck plates are installed to reduce the ice-rink quality the bridge has had in recent years.

If Venice has its Bridge of Sighs, Chicago has on Michigan Avenue its Bridge of Muttered Curses. Four years ago, metal deck plates were covered with a polyurethane non-skid surface, Steele said. "Because of the high traffic on that bridge, it has deteriorated."

Though conceptually simple, renovating one of the city's landmark bascule-style bridges involves painstaking attention to detail. To open and close properly, the weight of each bridge leaf must be balanced with a counterweight hidden below the streets on either side of the river.

[emathias]

^ Sad news... a very high quality building.

Is there a silver lining? Well, the zoning on this site is very high and permissive: B3-5, allowing an FAR of 5.0. The replacement could, potentially, be very dense (e.g. 6-7 stories, 70+ feet tall) as of right, requiring no Planned Development process.

Unfortunately, it almost certainly won't be. I'm guessing it'll be a 2-story building of about the same height as the 3-story building was. There was a permit application in October (http://chicago.everyblock.com/building-permits/by-date/2008/10/10/1478211/) to gut renovate it from a commercial+domestic unit building to just a commercial building. If they decided to just turn it into commercial, then the chances of it being multi-story, in that location, seem to me to likely be zilch.

[honte]

^ I wonder what changed? A few scenarios I've seen play out before:

1. Contractor doing gut rehab does something idiotic and the building becomes unstable.

2. Architect or contractor is lazy and makes the case that it would be easier and cheaper to just knock it down.

3. Owner files for rehab permit to show "good community intentions," but the true idea is that he will knock it down and make a bank on a new development. Then, owner claims there were unexpected structural problems that required demo. Later, owner uses sad story and existing good will in attempt to gain favor for a larger development.

[jjk1103]

^ I wonder what changed? A few scenarios I've seen play out before:

1. Contractor doing gut rehab does something idiotic and the building becomes unstable.

2. Architect or contractor is lazy and makes the case that it would be easier and cheaper to just knock it down.

3. Owner files for rehab permit to show "good community intentions," but the true idea is that he will knock it down and make a bank on a new development. Then, owner claims there were unexpected structural problems that required demo. Later, owner uses sad story and existing good will in attempt to gain favor for a larger development.

...I vote for option 3

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ So kind of recourse is there? I don't feel like just venting my frustration and disappointment on here. And this is beyond appalling. Write the alderman? The developer? I'm sure I could get some of my friends to. If enough of us do it...?

[honte]

^ I'm thrilled you're interested in doing something, but what exactly would you ask for?

One of the hardest problems with preservation is that a fair percentage of the community does in fact care, but usually only once it's too late. They may not have known about the threat, or may not have realized the particular damage to the streetscape that would occur with a certain loss, or didn't consider the environmental implications, whatever. Then people get angry for a while, complain to their alderman if they're really ticked... but pretty soon it's business as usual.

What is needed are holistic changes to the system. Better public notification, more power in the Landmarks Commission, stronger preservation / reuse policies, better incentives for adaptive reuse, possible zoning flexibilities that make renovations more attractive, etc. But these are changes that are mostly beyond the aldermanic level and would require a huge effort to effect (based on past experience).

I believe this is Tunney's ward, and he's generally been a pretty good advocate for preservation (not ideal by any means, of course). I think in this case he would have tried to broker a deal (probably facadectomy) if he knew about it in advance, although this is just more speculation on my part. I really don't know anything about what transpired here.

I'm not trying to discourage you from writing, but simply trying to shed light on the complexities of the beast. The preservation community has not been very successful in creating the major changes that are needed to protect more of these small-scale neighborhood structures, which largely are off the radar of the art historians, politicians, and the less-in-tune civilians who use them. This is because the preservationists are overwhelmed with more visible projects, and because these policy changes that I've mentioned above are so difficult to achieve.

[lawfin]

I agree that this is a loss, but this jumping up and down should wait until after we find out what is going to replace it. At this point I have not seen anyone put forward any confirmed plan of what is going to replace the building, it might be crap, it might be ok, it might be great. I fear the first is the most likely, but hope for the third given the underlying zoning that is available to this sight as of righht

[honte]

^ Given all of the negatives involved + the fact that a vertical addition on the old structure was a definite possibility, I'd have to wager that the replacement will need to be pretty damn great to justify the demolition.

Don't take this the wrong way please, but the opinion that demolition is the correct solution, provided the replacement is ok, gets right to the root of the problem. Our society, and Chicago in particular, is set up to encourage "out with the old" and usually very little thought is given to these decisions on a broader scale.

Just my opinion; sorry to hog so much airspace.