[Via Chicago]

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..

Absolutely agree.

[VivaLFuego]

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.

I don't agree. I would argue the bigger problem is the idea that demolition is the correct solution to maximize the well-being of the single landowner at the expense of the well-being of the surrounding neighborhood - a key distinction. We should be so lucky that the worst battle preservationists fight is preventing new landmarks from being built on top of demolished old ones (e.g. the Field replacing Home Insurance, etc. - debatable to be sure, but I don't such an example as the very root of the problem).

I mean, it's sort of an academic argument in this instance, since the pessimists among us are probably right: whatever replaces this high-quality mixed-use building at Addison/Sheffield will likely be some type of schlock, a clear downgrade - in which case this is indeed a tragedy. But if it were a high-quality design and a notable increase in density, I just don't see this demolition as nearly on par, in terms of craptitute, with the multitude of architectural tragedies that occur when landmarks are torn down to make way for, say, parking lots, drive-thrus, decreases in density, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating wanton demolition by any means - heck, I'd love to see the structural/procedural changes honte describes put into place to better protect our historical assets. In fact, if such proposals were had a plausible chance of passing, I"d be right there with letter-writing, phone calls, and donations in support. But at least in some cases, just because a building is old doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't be redeveloped to the benefit of all.

[ardecila]

Is it possible that the owner wanted to put rooftop seats on the building? This would square with the removal of residential usage from the zoning, since the second story would have ecome a bar/party room connected to the rooftop seating. Then, he may have discovered that the roof could not bear the weight of the rooftop seating, hence the demolition in preparation for a complete replacement.

[BWChicago]

Well, they wouldn't be very good seats. But it seems plausible.

Vince Michael had some very insightful writing on the demolition issue recently, also citing the Field/Home Insurance issue: http://vincemichael.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/roast-this-chestnut/

[Chicago3rd]

What is hilarious about Sheffield/Addison being torn down (a great building) is that the NIMBYS fought to keep the beautiful 7-11 and parking lots and sport shops alive and well...because of their concern for their neighborhood yet they let this happen. The NIMBYS in that area are only power pigs and don't give a damn about the integrity of the neighborhood.

[Mr Downtown]

the NIMBYS fought to keep the beautiful 7-11 and parking lots and sport shops alive and well...because of their concern for their neighborhood yet they let this happen.

When do you think the NIMBYs would have had the opportunity to express an opinion either way? No public meeting is held for a demolition permit.

[honte]

I don't agree. I would argue the bigger problem is the idea that demolition is the correct solution to maximize the well-being of the single landowner at the expense of the well-being of the surrounding neighborhood - a key distinction. We should be so lucky that the worst battle preservationists fight is preventing new landmarks from being built on top of demolished old ones (e.g. the Field replacing Home Insurance, etc. - debatable to be sure, but I don't such an example as the very root of the problem).

I mean, it's sort of an academic argument in this instance, since the pessimists among us are probably right: whatever replaces this high-quality mixed-use building at Addison/Sheffield will likely be some type of schlock, a clear downgrade - in which case this is indeed a tragedy. But if it were a high-quality design and a notable increase in density, I just don't see this demolition as nearly on par, in terms of craptitute, with the multitude of architectural tragedies that occur when landmarks are torn down to make way for, say, parking lots, drive-thrus, decreases in density, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating wanton demolition by any means - heck, I'd love to see the structural/procedural changes honte describes put into place to better protect our historical assets. In fact, if such proposals were had a plausible chance of passing, I"d be right there with letter-writing, phone calls, and donations in support. But at least in some cases, just because a building is old doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't be redeveloped to the benefit of all.


Actually, I agree with what you have said. My comment was meant primarily to point out that there are many larger issues than simply, "Is it going to be a good building?" (History, resource usage, neighborhood integrity and sense of place, the understanding of Chicago's unique architectural movements, all the rest of it....)

In the last few years, I would mention the Piano Art Institute expansion and the Legacy at Millennium Park as two examples when preservation was not a clear-cut choice on purely artistic grounds. These are the "Corbusier à Paris" situations.

At the museum, you have an internationally-celebrated architect replacing two works by two local architects (one locally very well known and regarded, the other internationally known but not at Piano's level of stardom). I personally was strongly against the plan because I believed not enough effort was being given to the idea that all three could coexist harmoniously, and to the greater benefit of the whole. I will always look at the new building with some regret, however great it might be. I think the same can be said of the Field Building, although it's certainly a masterpiece.

At the Legacy project, you all know the story. After a lot of thought, I was cautiously in favor of the compromise plan to keep the facades and allow the tower.

The main point I'm trying to make is that there should be a lot more consideration given to demolition than simply whether or not the end product is going to be great. If the final product is spectacular, it certainly lessens the pain, but I don't believe that "forgive and forget" is sufficient when the stakes are this high. If all of Chicago were to be torn down and rebuilt with top-notch, truly amazing architecture, I'd still say we would have suffered a great loss. And of course, needless to say, this city is teeming with vacant lots and underutilized spaces that could accommodate all of our building needs for at least 100 years.

[ardecila]

I found a new site plan for Riverside Park (now called Riverside District) on SCB's website. A 2008 date is given on the plan, making it newer than either the first plan by Pappageorge/Haymes or the second plan by Antunovich.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9566/2008siteplan0718xx7.jpg

It shares certain things with the two older plans (including the preservation of the lamentable barrier along Clark :hell:), but overall, it seems to have much more in common with Lakeshore East - it is oriented around a sizable park at the center, and surrounds the park with high-rises. Unlike the previous plans, townhomes are merely kept to mask the towers' parking podiums.

On the one hand, I like this because it places tall towers along the river, effectively extending the density of the Loop southward. On the other hand, towers contain many more units than townhomes and take longer to build, meaning that this development will take far longer to fill in. Also, the existing mega-developments of Lakeshore East, Central Station, and even LaSalle Park/Franklin Pointe are only half-completed, and those developments are far closer to the popular areas of the city than Riverside District will be.

The optimistic projections of the last decade or so of increasing interest in living downtown seem quite absurd now. Clearly, there is quite a sizable interest in living downtown, but I don't think this demand is growing. Even at the peak of the boom, the demand was not enough to fill the buildings that were built. The existing glut of units and the difficulty of obtaining mortgages only serves to severely curb this demand. As much as it pains me to say it, I'd prefer to see this parcel remain undeveloped as a land reserve, in order to facilitate the completion of Central Station and Lakeshore East as planned, which in their lakefront locations are far more significant to the city than Riverside District will ever be. Either a different use can be found for the land, say, as an Olympic Stadium or large park, or the land can be kept undeveloped until the time is right.

[harryc]

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

un f---in real.

[honte]

Riverside Park looks profoundly boring. :( It reminds me a lot of the River East master plan.

But it's better than the fugly French fantasy they were proposing first.

[denizen467]

the preservation of the lamentable barrier along Clark :hell:

Presumably Metra's fault, no?
In any event, the direct connection to 18th Street is intriguing. Are there connections to Roosevelt or do they go under Roosevelt?

My concern would be that they are squandering a chance to really engage with the water - like adding small slips or bays, like I believe Smith+Gill did for the Harrison site.

As it is, it's a boring enough development that it will have to have price points much lower than LSE and Central Station. If they invested a little more in some creative infrastructure, maybe they could have a shot at a few luxury towers and some better density.

[Taft]

When do you think the NIMBYs would have had the opportunity to express an opinion either way? No public meeting is held for a demolition permit.

Do you really think that well-connected groups need a public meeting to "express" their opinions? Not that this behavior is limited to NIMBYs...developers, the city and everyone with connections get their fair share of backdoor meetings. In fact, I'd feel confident saying that most of the important influence peddling in this city happens not in public meetings, but in private conversations. Backdoor politics (even if it isn't illegal or unethical) rules the day in Chicago, IMO.

Taft

[Mr Downtown]

Whether the meeting is public or private, no advance notice is given of demolition permits. So no one had an opportunity to offer an opinion.

[VivaLFuego]

Accepting that Riverside Park is a very challenging site due to poor access, that SCB plan is still a lame attempt. At least reference the one major arterial bordering the site and the waterfront in the site plan! Concentrate the density in the accessible northern end of the site, and leave the forever-secluded no-man's land in the southern end of the site to be Dearborn-Park-Phase-3-cul-de-saced-gated-townhome blight. Maybe they could deign to at least lay out the PD to slightly resemble a Chicago grid-style development?

[honte]

^ I'd rather they not grid it... why not find a more appropriate geometry that works with the "no man's land" and actually makes it a unique and inviting part of the downtown? Grids to nowhere are pretty depressing in my opinion, and we have enough of them. Meanwhile, an interesting layout with some character seems like a fitting and marketable alternative. Not cul-de-sacs, of course, but a little variety is a good thing, especially on a parcel that is being forced not to cooperate with existing city grids anyway. I'd like to see geometry in the planning that cues up more exciting skyscraper forms and more dynamic relationships between spaces.

I also like the idea of bringing the river back into the site a lot. If I had total control, I'd probably restore the course of the river to its pre-industrial route.

By the way, did SCB acquire Kim Goluska's operations? I thought most of the things on their web site were his (and that would explain a lot of things...).

[EarlyBuyer]

Photo taken by EarlyBuyer

Re-painting now near complete on Columbus Drive bridge


http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/6391/dsc0491nz4.jpg

[BVictor1]

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.

I wonder if this involves any work on the lower level?

[the urban politician]

Accepting that Riverside Park is a very challenging site due to poor access, that SCB plan is still a lame attempt. At least reference the one major arterial bordering the site and the waterfront in the site plan! Concentrate the density in the accessible northern end of the site, and leave the forever-secluded no-man's land in the southern end of the site to be Dearborn-Park-Phase-3-cul-de-saced-gated-townhome blight. Maybe they could deign to at least lay out the PD to slightly resemble a Chicago grid-style development?

^ I'm going to reserve judgement until we see more renderings, especially from other perspectives (ie street level views, etc). I can't tell from the given perspective which green spaces are the tops of podiums and which ones are actual ground level parks.

But I agree that I'd like to see more density along Roosevelt, especially since Roosevelt Collection and Target are already flush against that street. Perhaps if this ever becomes a serious proposal city planners will push for such changes.

[honte]

^ There are additional images at www.scbdesign.com

[chicago]

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

History repeats itself. Shot from 1914 before the building in question was erected.

http://memory.loc.gov/ndlpcoop/ichicdn/s0594/s059405.jpg

[denizen467]

History repeats itself. Shot from 1914 before the building in question was erected.

... and immediately after the giant structure in the background was erected.


Well holy cow, nice find.

(pun not intended ;) )

[Chicago Shawn]

Shit, I go out of town for a week and come back to find that Addison/Sheffield is a pile of ruble. I figured that the scaffolding was for a rooftop deck installation. Better be a damn good replacement.


There is something else that has been bugging me since I got back. I spent two days in LA for the first time, and forumers Chris LA and King of the Hill offered to drive me around last Monday to cover more ground. My biggest surprise is that strip malls in LA appear to be the exception, not the rule; and some of the strip malls are even two levels, and I saw at least one with underground parking. I would even wager that Chicago has just as many if not more strip malls than a city whom is vastly more auto-centric. I didn't visit the valley, but I did cover East LA, Santa Monica, Downtown, Koreatown, Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Culver City, Lemiert Park, Angelino Hieghts and Echo Park, and the vast majority of retail comes up to the street. Why do we continue allow this single-story, surface-lot laden substandard strip mall shit to be built here, in a city that has traditionally more pre-war urban fabric and better transit system?

[harryc]

History repeats itself. Shot from 1914 before the building in question was erected.

http://memory.loc.gov/ndlpcoop/ichicdn/s0594/s059405.jpg

That looks like it was taken from the El platform.

[Mr Downtown]

strip malls in LA appear to be the exception, not the rule; and some of the strip malls are even two levels

LA has higher population density, much higher land values, and some semblance of land use planning.

[Taft]

Shit, I go out of town for a week and come back to find that Addison/Sheffield is a pile of ruble. I figured that the scaffolding was for a rooftop deck installation. Better be a damn good replacement.

Having spent a fair amount of time in LA, I'm not sure I agree with this. It is true that most retail in central, walkable areas of LA abuts the street. However, if you follow any of the main boulevards out of those central areas (even just a mile or so), strip malls tend to be ubiquitous. I do think LA gets a bad rap for this, though, especially considering the amount of strip malls built in far flung and suburban areas of other cities (Chicago included). And I agree that Chicago allows way too much of this crap to get constructed.

The main difference in terms of experience, I think, is the decentralized nature of LA as compared to north-eastern cities (and Chicago). In Chicago, it is quite easy to stay in transit-centric areas of the city and never encounter car-centric developments on a day to day basis: the city is quite centralized (or lake-centric, if you prefer). Whether you encounter the car-centric development is very much a factor of where you live and work in the city. In LA, there are a lot of mini-city centers, which require you to drive between them, forcing you to see much more of the car-centric development of the city on a day to day basis.

One thing I never got used to there was the idea that great restaurants could exist in a strip mall. In Chicago, there are a handful of restaurants in strip malls I would ever go to. In LA, it seems like every other restaurant I'd go to was in a strip mall. You've got to change your mindset a bit. There is some great food in those strip malls, though.

Taft

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

LA has higher population density, much higher land values, and some semblance of land use planning.

Wait, what? As of 2006, L.A.'s population density was 8,205/sq mi (3,168/km2). Chicago's in 2007 was 12,649/sq mi (4,816/km2).

[i_am_hydrogen]

^I think he was referring to metro area population densities:

Chicago Metropolitan Area: 1,318/sq mi (509/km²)
Greater Los Angeles Area: 2,665/sq. mi. (1,029/km²)

[Chicago Shawn]

Having spent a fair amount of time in LA, I'm not sure I agree with this. It is true that most retail in central, walkable areas of LA abuts the street. However, if you follow any of the main boulevards out of those central areas (even just a mile or so), strip malls tend to be ubiquitous. I do think LA gets a bad rap for this, though, especially considering the amount of strip malls built in far flung and suburban areas of other cities (Chicago included). And I agree that Chicago allows way too much of this crap to get constructed.


Taft

Perhaps my thinking was slightly biased because I know of all the locations where this strip mall garbage has polluted our urban fabric and was comparing it to what saw in LA. However, I did cover a lot of ground and I saw street after street of retial at the sidewalk. The majority of stripmalls I did see were very small. And we also have major strip malls one mile from our downtown too, such as Roosevelt/ Canal, Division/ Clybourn and North/ Clybourn. Although development as of late has been beter in these locations, we still have more strip malls being constructed, I know of at least two that went to plan commision this year which were large enough to require a PD. Yes I know many of these have replaced vacated industrial land, but we need to demand better. I still am bewildered that Gateway Center was allowed to be constructed right next door to one of CTA's busiest transfer points, while Evanston allows for a 17 story TOD project across the street.

Some good news,
It looks like Columbia is starting construction on the Studio Gang designed film school. Steel piles were delivered to the site this morning.

[VivaLFuego]

^ As MrD, alludes to, there's nothing quite as effective as sky-high land values in ensuring dense development, even when predominantly auto-oriented. Chicago historically has had pretty low land values in most locations, certainly relative to Los Angeles. The higher the land value, the higher the development pressure, and the higher the development pressure, the greater the leverage government has to demand certain forms of development.

In this regard, Evanston was largely successful at using the wild boom years of 2002-2007 to enforce very urban forms in its development. Chicago's results are, at best, a mixed bag. On the plus side, the zoning rewrite ensured commercial development to the lot lines in all but a few commercial zoning districts, saving the lakefront neighborhoods from future stripmall blight. On the downside, the zoning rewrite has also largely resulted in almost every development of any size greater than 1 lot being a Planned Development, meaning any and every land use regulation can get thrown out the window through a largely political process. And further, the complete lack of actual demand in our poor areas (with any remaining value in the land being purely speculative) means that whatever restrictions are in place on development will on the margin be just one more impediment of anyone actually developing anything. Mandating commercial buildings be built to the lot lines in the still-emptying ghettos is at best pointless and at worst counterproductive. But how to make the land valuable and desirable to create development pressure?

[lawfin]

..... Yes I know many of these have replaced vacated industrial land, but we need to demand better. I still am bewildered that Gateway Center was allowed to be constructed right next door to one of CTA's busiest transfer points, while Evanston allows for a 17 story TOD project across the street.

Some good news,
It looks like Columbia is starting construction on the Studio Gang designed film school. Steel piles were delivered to the site this morning.

^^^^Yeah Gateway is a wreck....it is blight...it should be torn down and started over from scratch

[spyguy]

Some photos of Sports Corner being demolished: [1] (http://www.flickr.com/photos/blueyeda73/3139459220/) [2] (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25996588@N03/3142126289/) [3] (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kellyhafermann/3148292145/) [4] (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cgr/3151970572/)
:hell:

[Patel]

Some photos of Sports Corner being demolished: [1] (http://www.flickr.com/photos/blueyeda73/3139459220/) [2] (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25996588@N03/3142126289/) [3] (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kellyhafermann/3148292145/) [4] (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cgr/3151970572/)
:hell:

Damn.

Can one refresh my memory of what is taking it's place.

Thanks in advance.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^^Yeah Gateway is a wreck....it is blight...it should be torn down and started over from scratch

The good thing is that this could actually happen since its so low density. Strip malls are prime targets for future redevelopment!

[jstush04]

man, I wish I cared about sportscorner being gone, but the building was a dump. I like the building next door much more anyway. the one with bacci in it

[the urban politician]

Every big city is building strip malls, you guys are too hard on your city.

In the past several years I've seen tons of multilevel development with streetfront retail go up in Chicago (even if the spaces remain empty). Despite the occasional strip mall, it mostly seems to me that Chicago's "urban" footprint has been expanding, not eroding.

[BWChicago]

I noticed the other day that a sales center for the Nortown Terrace development on the site of the Nortown Theater is open on Devon. They also have a website up. No full renderings, but I think it's interesting that the new building seems to imitate the massing of the old, and that movie theatres are still in the mix, apparently. Architecture by VOA, but still pretty boring looking. I'm surprised this project is moving forward. They had some better images at the office.

http://nortownterrace.com/index.htm

[the urban politician]

7 stories? Nice density

[lawfin]

Great, I grew up in this area. From the pic I only counted 5 or maybe 6 stories, but as TUP noted the website lists 7 levels

Are the photo and the site incongruous or am I just blind?

[Abner]

I also like the idea of bringing the river back into the site a lot. If I had total control, I'd probably restore the course of the river to its pre-industrial route.


I think the problem there is what's across the river: an unsightly, brightly-lit train yard that's not going anywhere. And beyond that, the forgotten bowels of the South Loop/West Loop. Probably the ugliest landscape anywhere near downtown. I'd want to turn my back to that too.

What would the reasoning be for restoring the old kink in the river? Wouldn't it make a good chunk of the Riverside Park land disappear and only create useless and inaccessible land next to the train yard on the west bank?

[ardecila]

From the curve on the river, buildings could visually surround you in a way that they can't do on a razor-straight course. This in turn creates an outdoor "room" and a sense of enclosure.

Or, what if the original course of the river was restored as a Venetian-scale canal, with the main channel remaining? This would create an island on which to do some interesting things.

[honte]

I think the problem there is what's across the river: an unsightly, brightly-lit train yard that's not going anywhere. And beyond that, the forgotten bowels of the South Loop/West Loop. Probably the ugliest landscape anywhere near downtown. I'd want to turn my back to that too.

What would the reasoning be for restoring the old kink in the river? Wouldn't it make a good chunk of the Riverside Park land disappear and only create useless and inaccessible land next to the train yard on the west bank?

Well, yeah, it was just a fantasy.... although not a particularly thought-out one.

I think ardecila hit it on the head about why this would be a nice thing to do. But there are also other reasons... "Natural" accuracy, and the fact that the perfectly straight river at that point feels more like a canal and less like a natural resource. It wouldn't necessarily result in lost land, if you replaced it on a one-for-one basis (eg the State or whoever controls the waterways would have to deed over some of the land that is currently river - not easy to do, I imagine).

Canals are also intriguing - in fact, I am surprised this has not been done before. A development with marina space in each tower and even some townhouses with docks would draw a lot of interest, I'd guess. Smith+Gill (and Goldberg and Weese before them) obviously clued into this. Considering that we live on such a giant body of water, the opportunities to own a home with any kind of riparian rights are incredibly few.

[brint82]

I noticed the other day that a sales center for the Nortown Terrace development on the site of the Nortown Theater is open on Devon. They also have a website up. No full renderings, but I think it's interesting that the new building seems to imitate the massing of the old, and that movie theatres are still in the mix, apparently. Architecture by VOA, but still pretty boring looking. I'm surprised this project is moving forward. They had some better images at the office.

http://nortownterrace.com/index.htm

Anyone know the developer? The site seems to intentionally brush over this important piece of information.

[BWChicago]

Anyone know the developer? The site seems to intentionally brush over this important piece of information.

A November 5, 2006 article lists Amrit J. Patel (http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/apr/08/business/chi-blago-bd08apr08) as developer. Six stories, 70 units, and "The developer will build 9,940 square feet of retail space on the ground floor. Of that, about 8,040 square-feet will be a two-screen movie theatre with 306 seats. The remainder will be leased to one or more retailers.

About 80 parking spaces for residents will be on the second floor, Patel said. "

See also http://crd50.org/pd/pd1038.html for an elevation diagram.

[the urban politician]

^ Nice, although the website gives floor plans for 7 storys.

Anyhow, Devon Ave badly needs a Bollywood cinema

[ardecila]

I went and explored the West Loop a few days ago. It's a neighborhood that I've always neglected to visit - for some reason, I've always stopped on its edges. It was bitterly cold, so I didn't see as much as I wanted to, but it seems like the neighborhood has a wonderful historic building stock and is making distinct progress. Far from the empty wasteland I expected, it has plenty of auto traffic and bus riders passing through, and I imagine it would have plenty of pedestrian traffic were it not for the cold weather. The complaints of WLCO about a lack of retail seem somewhat justified - I didn't see much retail in the West Loop at all, since all the new condo developments have gone up without retail space at the ground level. The few that do have retail space have seen it snapped up by professionals and realtors, so essential services like corner stores and cleaners cannot move in.

The thing I liked the most was Randolph Street. With its 2 landscaped allees of trees dividing the road into 3 distinct sections, it's extremely Parisian and has the potential to become the showpiece of the neighborhood if development along the street is planned properly.

Are there any plans for Randolph Street anytime soon? It'd be nice to convert it into a two-way road and reduce the speed limits. Another good idea would be to create bike lanes along it, since the West Loop doesn't have many dedicated bike lanes, and the ones that are there only lead eastbound. I imagine that, because of the huge width of Randolph, the bike lanes could in fact become something heavy-duty, with generous space and a raised divider separating it from auto traffic.

[the urban politician]

^ I imagine adding that L station at Morgan will also help

[harryc]

Often overlooked, the maintenance crews keep up their continuous task.
Dec 29,
Lake st Bridge
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SV39lafTfgI/AAAAAAABBrc/kJ0u0bQB2VE/s800/P1190370_68_69.jpg

LaSalle st - fixing a metal pothole.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SV39rkmbN0I/AAAAAAABBro/XJuT8F6L63E/s800/P1190395.JPG

Dec 31 - Riverwalk work from lower Michigan/Wacker.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SV3-Cka8RKI/AAAAAAABBsI/eVpfqpcMXpM/s720/P1190629.JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SV3-Ec8uuuI/AAAAAAABBsU/AZXlmibyytw/s800/P1190630.JPG

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SV3-_meeO6I/AAAAAAABBtQ/Og1_nO-U3xc/s800/P1190639.JPG

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SV3-GwLh6ZI/AAAAAAABBsg/_ctZ7MtGjcs/s720/P1190632.JPG

Form and Rebar for a large footing, I would guess this is going to be placed in the water first, then the concrete poured.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SV3-Q55sP8I/AAAAAAABBss/Pf8OSynWWew/s800/P1190627.JPG

Old School
Pilings , with an I-Beam bolted on, covered with concrete.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SV3-ZIp7STI/AAAAAAABBtI/UnIDOt63tXo/s800/P1190636.JPG

Long section of squarred, not ribbed, rebar that was at the core of an old wall.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SV3_RIQ1e8I/AAAAAAABBtw/FMeUwrfFnQ4/s720/P1190646.JPG
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SV3_S4sfskI/AAAAAAABBt8/0gfG-hasgX8/s720/P1190647.JPG

[VivaLFuego]

Far from the empty wasteland I expected, it has plenty of auto traffic and bus riders passing through, and I imagine it would have plenty of pedestrian traffic were it not for the cold weather. The complaints of WLCO about a lack of retail seem somewhat justified - I didn't see much retail in the West Loop at all, since all the new condo developments have gone up without retail space at the ground level. The few that do have retail space have seen it snapped up by professionals and realtors, so essential services like corner stores and cleaners cannot move in.

If there were market demand (e.g. higher population density, either through reduced vacancy of existing units or increased supply of new units) for such stores, such stores would easily outbid the professionals/realtors for the space.

If anything, West Loop is lucky that outright vacancy isn't even higher (it's still quite prevalent), as is the case in other neighborhoods with overbuilt retail like Roscoe Village (see Belmont) or further west by United Center. West Loop is lucky that retail spaces have been concentrated along specific streets like Madison, Halsted, Randolph, Van Buren, rather than scattered willy nilly, which would allow for even lesser critical mass of retail activity.

I still don't get this idea that neighborhood groups have that the problem with a lack of retail is the lack of governmental involvement, as if whining to the aldermen or newspapers will magically make a kooky coffee shop or clothing boutique appear. A dearth of retail represents a combination of either 1) insufficient market demand or 2) too much restriction/cost to make taking the risk of opening a business or franchise an attractive endeavor. Solving both usually means getting NIMBY groups the heck out of the way.

The only way involving politicians can allow the neighborhood to custom-tailor its retail mix is through the use of business subsidies via either TIF or SSA, but that's an inefficient scheme that will eventually collapse on itself for any number of political or economic reasons.

[emathias]

...
Long section of squarred, not ribbed, rebar that was at the core of an old wall.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SV3_RIQ1e8I/AAAAAAABBtw/FMeUwrfFnQ4/s720/P1190646.JPG
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SV3_S4sfskI/AAAAAAABBt8/0gfG-hasgX8/s720/P1190647.JPG

Wow, who knew that in the old days they reinforced concrete with paper clips!

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

A dearth of retail represents a combination of either 1) insufficient market demand or 2) too much restriction/cost to make taking the risk of opening a business or franchise an attractive endeavor. Solving both usually means getting NIMBY groups the heck out of the way.

Exactly. And what's the best way to increase market demand? Increase the population density!

[ardecila]

Where are all the residents of West Loop going right now when they need milk? Maybe I was just looking in the wrong places, but a lack of critical retail services is not a problem of limited density. You can find immigrants who are willing to open a hair salon, cleaners, or corner store in almost any neighborhood, and West Loop is denser than most. You can't tell me it's less dense than Wicker Park (it was in 2000, but now after 8 solid years of nonstop new construction?)

I don't think it's a problem of government, though - just a failure of developers to provide enough space. Those professionals/realtors pay a lot more for their space than a traditional retail tenant would, so developers need enough to space to satisfy them and then additional space to create a group of retail stores.

[StatenIslander237]

The thing I liked the most was Randolph Street. With its 2 landscaped allees of trees dividing the road into 3 distinct sections, it's extremely Parisian and has the potential to become the showpiece of the neighborhood if development along the street is planned properly.

Are there any plans for Randolph Street anytime soon? It'd be nice to convert it into a two-way road and reduce the speed limits. Another good idea would be to create bike lanes along it, since the West Loop doesn't have many dedicated bike lanes, and the ones that are there only lead eastbound. I imagine that, because of the huge width of Randolph, the bike lanes could in fact become something heavy-duty, with generous space and a raised divider separating it from auto traffic.

I completely agree with you. I recall exploring the West Loop in my travels last year while living there, and I felt the same way about that section of Randolph Street. It's really a diamond in the rough. What I also recall is that it is lined with warehouses for the most part, and it would need some truly extensive redevelopment to embody what you and I would like to see there.

All I can say is that I hope such occurs. In due time...

[VivaLFuego]

Where are all the residents of West Loop going right now when they need milk? Maybe I was just looking in the wrong places, but a lack of critical retail services is not a problem of limited density. You can find immigrants who are willing to open a hair salon, cleaners, or corner store in almost any neighborhood, and West Loop is denser than most. You can't tell me it's less dense than Wicker Park (it was in 2000, but now after 8 solid years of nonstop new construction?)

I don't think it's a problem of government, though - just a failure of developers to provide enough space. Those professionals/realtors pay a lot more for their space than a traditional retail tenant would, so developers need enough to space to satisfy them and then additional space to create a group of retail stores.

In terms of unit density and population density, West Loop is less dense than Wicker Park.

West Loopers presumably go to the Dominick's at the base of Skybridge at Madison/Halsted for milk and such - and now they've got the nice new Jewel at the K Station development, as well (most of them drive, anyway).

[spyguy]

In terms of unit density and population density, West Loop is less dense than Wicker Park.

West Loopers presumably go to the Dominick's at the base of Skybridge at Madison/Halsted for milk and such - and now they've got the nice new Jewel at the K Station development, as well (most of them drive, anyway).

There's also Walgreens, CVS, 7-Eleven, White Hen, and those smaller grocery stores like Athens Grocery, Presidential Market, etc. I suppose others drive to the Whole Foods on Roosevelt as well.

[spyguy]

http://www.gazettechicago.com/index/?p=115

Jones location, enrollment may change
By Kathy Hills

The Chicago Board of Education has announced a plan to build a new facility that will relocate Jones College Prep to the lot directly south of the current school instead of renovating the present structure as originally planned. The existing school likely will be sold for development, and enrollment may be opened to neighborhood youngsters.

...The new school will have a full-service library, pool, and gym. The enrollment will be increased from 800 to 1,000 students.

...Planning is in the early stages. Powers said, “We’re waiting for the architects to get back to us with the details on this seven-story, $130 million project on State Street. They talk of breaking ground this spring with completion in 2011, but to my knowledge the board has not approved the project.”

[spyguy]

http://www.ward42chicago.com/in_the_news.html

Development Project Update: Poetry Foundation at Superior and Dearborn Streets
December 5, 2008

The Poetry Foundation will be constructing their new headquarters at 720 North Dearborn Street, at the southeast corner of Superior and Dearborn. While some details are still being finalized, the overall design calls for construction of a 21,000-square-foot, two-story building, with the first floor featuring galleries, a reading room and poetry library to be open for public use, and the second floor containing office space for the Foundation. The design also calls for an open garden to be located at the building's entrance, and the installation of a green roof.

The existing building at this site is currently being demolished. New construction is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2009, with the building to be opened for use in the spring of 2010. This initiative is privately funded by the Poetry Foundation, a not-for-profit independent literary organization.

[Busy Bee]

The Poetry Foundation is the one that 500 million donated rencently and they're throwing up a two story building. You'd think all that poetry would make them romantic visionaries. Guess not.

[the urban politician]

What's being demolished?

[ardecila]

The Poetry Foundation is the one that 500 million donated rencently and they're throwing up a two story building. You'd think all that poetry would make them romantic visionaries. Guess not.

IIRC, John Ronan is designing the building, so it's not like it will be some Belmont Ave faux-loft turd.

[honte]

What's being demolished?

A Victorian rowhouse (actually taller and more dense) that got a bad PoMo nip/tuck, probably 1980s. There might have been something left over under the Dryvit shell, but I presume it was a total loss already.

VivaL reported that another smaller building to the west was also taken down, however. That one was intact and quite nice. Not sure if it was for this project.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

IIRC, John Ronan is designing the building, so it's not like it will be some Belmont Ave faux-loft turd.

...but it's also not like John Ronan doesn't have experience with adaptive reuse.

Have there been any renderings released? I couldn't seem to find any on his website.

[ardecila]

Nope, no renderings. If you google "John Ronan poetry" the 3rd or 4th result will be the Architect Selection Announcement from the Poetry Foundation. He was chosen over Rafael Vinoly and Tod Williams Billie Tsien.

[aic4ever]

If there were market demand (e.g. higher population density, either through reduced vacancy of existing units or increased supply of new units) for such stores, such stores would easily outbid the professionals/realtors for the space.

If anything, West Loop is lucky that outright vacancy isn't even higher (it's still quite prevalent), as is the case in other neighborhoods with overbuilt retail like Roscoe Village (see Belmont) or further west by United Center. West Loop is lucky that retail spaces have been concentrated along specific streets like Madison, Halsted, Randolph, Van Buren, rather than scattered willy nilly, which would allow for even lesser critical mass of retail activity.

I still don't get this idea that neighborhood groups have that the problem with a lack of retail is the lack of governmental involvement, as if whining to the aldermen or newspapers will magically make a kooky coffee shop or clothing boutique appear. A dearth of retail represents a combination of either 1) insufficient market demand or 2) too much restriction/cost to make taking the risk of opening a business or franchise an attractive endeavor. Solving both usually means getting NIMBY groups the heck out of the way.

The only way involving politicians can allow the neighborhood to custom-tailor its retail mix is through the use of business subsidies via either TIF or SSA, but that's an inefficient scheme that will eventually collapse on itself for any number of political or economic reasons.

Retail is a difficult proposition in the West Loop right now, in my opinion. I've done a few feasibility studies on some gut/rehabs over there and have had to research the rates for commercial, retail and residential in the area.

Retail space over there is going at office space kind of rates (cheap). While this might seem fantastic on the surface, as in, why wouldn't retailers jump at it, the opposite is the case. Since market rates on leasing are so low in the general area, the only spaces that become commercially acceptable to the owners or potential owners are those that are already existing and in ready to move in condition. The necessary renovations to existing spaces do not currently receive an acceptable payback from the retail leases, and certainly new construction will not receive an acceptable payback at the current rates.

[aic4ever]

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!!

Seriously? Do I need to explain simple economics to you? Perhaps you live in some sort of a bubble where the government is capable of producing its own capital to build, maintain and renovate things like parks?

Don't put the cart before the horse here. Chicago businesses and citizens are not in Chicago because they like Grant Park. Grant Park is there because the city grew on the shoulders of its taxable businesses and citizens and the city decided to build a park. The city continues to maintain the park via funds collected from its taxpaying citizens and businesses.

People relaxing in the park, save for those patronizing the small handful of vendors scattered about, are not in the process of producing revenue into the city's coffers, and therefore should be considered secondary to the people commuting to and from their places of business, many of whom are patronizing other tax-paying entities we call cabs.

I consider myself lucky to enjoy Grant Park. It is a huge part of why I love this city. But I don't for one second turn a blind eye to why Grant Park exists in the first place and to how it remains maintained. When I have the time to relax, I am perfectly happy to stand at the crosswalk at Columbus for a minute until the light changes and I can cross, knowing that the people who are not relaxing at that point in time are providing a value to the economy resulting in tax revenue to the city that allows us the luxury of the park.

My apologies for not considering the means to the end a nuisance.

[cbotnyse]

GMAFB. you're not going to convince me I should be forever grateful for Columbus Ave and all of they great tax revenues it provides because of all the traffic it allows.

while you may be happy to stand and wait at a crosswalk for 8 lanes of traffic to clear in the middle of a park to get to the lakefront...more power to you.

I think it sucks and we don't need it.

You don't see massive highways cutting through Central Park do you? I think the economy of NYC is getting along just fine without that.

[aic4ever]

GMAFB. you're not going to convince me I should be forever grateful for Columbus Ave and all of they great tax revenues it provides because of all the traffic it allows.

while you may be happy to stand and wait at a crosswalk for 8 lanes of traffic to clear in the middle of a park to get to the lakefront...more power to you.

I think it sucks and we don't need it.

You don't see massive highways cutting through Central Park do you? I think the economy of NYC is getting along just fine without that.

I never said I was going to try to convince you to be happy to wait for the traffic. You said you had never heard anything so absurd as my post, so I explained it to you.

I think there's nothing so absurd as you and others saying we should bury LSD and Columbus for the sake of a bit more green space and easier access to the lake because you feel inconvenienced by the traffic. I've got no issue with bridges if they can make them work, but get serious. Move out of the city if you hate the traffic so much. It's not going away.

As to your comment about Central Park, it's not even remotely a fair comparison. Central is dead in the middle of a vast amount of residential, rather than commercial and does not have two major highways feeding the city's busiest economic sector emptying directly into its heart (290 dumps onto Congress, straight to the middle of Grant Park, and 55 onto LSD). Move Central Park down to Wall Street with the Brooklyn Tunnel at one end and the Holland Tunnel stuck in its side and you might have something to argue about.

You apparently never drive or you'd understand how necessary Columbus is as a relief valve to LSD and Michigan Ave. That street is a godsend to the people who have to drive. Michigan and LSD are absolute disasters when the summer festivals close off Columbus.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

People relaxing in the park, save for those patronizing the small handful of vendors scattered about, are not in the process of producing revenue into the city's coffers, and therefore should be considered secondary to the people commuting to and from their places of business, many of whom are patronizing other tax-paying entities we call cabs.

Do property taxes and sales taxes count for nothing? Last I checked, simply by living in Chicago are you filling its coffers.

[aic4ever]

Do property taxes and sales taxes count for nothing? Last I checked, simply by living in Chicago are you filling its coffers.

Of course. But I've got to believe the amount of revenue generated by commercial activities far outweighs residential property taxes, especially given the city's inefficiencies in collecting new property taxes. I'm going on two years now without having gotten a bill!

Hell, it's not like the city's doing right by us with our money lately anyway.

[cbotnyse]

You apparently never drive or you'd understand how necessary Columbus is as a relief valve to LSD and Michigan Ave. That street is a godsend to the people who have to drive. Michigan and LSD are absolute disasters when the summer festivals close off Columbus.bullshit. total bullshit. I drive all the time and live just north of the river on Michigan. LSD and Michigan are just fine when Columbus is closed.

and dont tell me to move out of the city if I dont like traffic. I am talking about Grant Park here. not some side street where I live.

I'm not suggesting getting rid of Columbus. I'd like it to be 2 lanes in each direction and the speed limit 20MPH, not 45MPH.

[Taft]

As to your comment about Central Park, it's not even remotely a fair comparison. Central is dead in the middle of a vast amount of residential, rather than commercial and does not have two major highways feeding the city's busiest economic sector emptying directly into its heart (290 dumps onto Congress, straight to the middle of Grant Park, and 55 onto LSD). Move Central Park down to Wall Street with the Brooklyn Tunnel at one end and the Holland Tunnel stuck in its side and you might have something to argue about.

I'm not sure you really understand the demographics of either Chicago or NY, given these statements.
-The southern end of Central Park abuts Midtown the single largest CDB in the US. As you go north, the city becomes more residential but you can say the same thing about Chicago, too (see the next point).
-The eastern side of the loop (abutting Grant Park) is by far the most diverse area of the loop and is trending to the residential. To the North and South of the park is almost completely residential. South loop is also mostly residential. The commercial "heart" of the loop is probably now on Franklin or Wacker, "far" from Grant Park.

Further, I think you should consider that central park isn't the impenitrable barrier that has been stated here. You couldn't divide the most dense island in the US in two and not allow traffic to flow across. Accordingly, central park has many ways to get through from one side to the other (and even to go through the park north-south). The difference between CP and GP is this: CP actually makes an attempt to hide or lessen the impact of the roads in the park while GP let's its roads (and tracks) stand out like horrible eyesores.

For instance, most roads through CP are two lane and have low speed limits. Some are below grade and tunneled in portions (see the 86th Transverse road). Most are well segregated and shielded from the park (by topology and foliage).

Contrast this to GP and congress. GP is as flat as a pancake and makes no effort to hide the 6-8 lanes (!!!) of traffic running through its heart. Similarly, extensions of loop roads (monroe, etc.) are generally 4 lanes and not at all hidden.

You apparently never drive or you'd understand how necessary Columbus is as a relief valve to LSD and Michigan Ave. That street is a godsend to the people who have to drive. Michigan and LSD are absolute disasters when the summer festivals close off Columbus.

That may be the case, but I don't think many people really advocate completely tearing up Columbus or LSD. If I had to guess, I think most people would advocate just lessening the impact of those roads to the flow and enjoyment of the park. For instance maybe reducing Columbus by 2 lanes and dropping it below grade in some areas of the park. Or tunneling some walkways under LSD for greater lake shore access by pedestrians in the park.

Taft

[aic4ever]

bullshit. total bullshit. I drive all the time and live just north of the river on Michigan. LSD and Michigan are just fine when Columbus is closed.

and dont tell me to move out of the city if I dont like traffic. I am talking about Grant Park here. not some side street where I live.

I'm not suggesting getting rid of Columbus. I'd like it to be 2 lanes in each direction and the speed limit 20MPH, not 45MPH.

You're too far north to know how bad Michigan and LSD are when Columbus is closed, then. I'm talking south of the Art Institute here. I lived at IIT for four years before spending a few in Rogers Park, then was at the south end of grant park for two years, and am back down in Bronzeville now. I've had a car in the city the entire time and have driven Michigan, Columbus and LSD in all manner of occasions. I drive up Michigan to get to work every morning and it is an unequivocal log jam whenever they close Columbus. And god forbid you ever need to drive it in the middle of the day at those times.

Anyway, I'm not trying to have a pissing contest with you about traffic volume. I think Columbus is a vital relief valve and pertinent to keeping business traffic flowing freely throughout the day, you don't. That's fine.

I don't feel Columbus can be made smaller without hurting mid-day business traffic and north-south delivery traffic that isn't allowed on LSD. You feel the park is more important than the traffic. That's fine, too. I can't say as I'd be opposed to closing Columbus on weekends, though, when it's not as necessary to traffic flow.

[i_am_hydrogen]

My vehement anti-Columbus Drive stance has led me to observe, from work, the amount of traffic at different times throughout the day. I've checked during the morning rush, middle of the day, and afternoon/evening rush on many occasions. My conclusion is that there is always very little traffic on Columbus, hardly enough to justify allowing it to cut through the park.

[aic4ever]

I'm not sure you really understand the demographics of either Chicago or NY, given these statements.
-The southern end of Central Park abuts Midtown the single largest CDB in the US. As you go north, the city becomes more residential but you can say the same thing about Chicago, too (see the next point).
-The eastern side of the loop (abutting Grant Park) is by far the most diverse area of the loop and is trending to the residential. To the North and South of the park is almost completely residential. South loop is also mostly residential. The commercial "heart" of the loop is probably now on Franklin or Wacker, "far" from Grant Park.

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I meant to be. I wasn't discussing the demographics so much as I was discussing the volume of commuting traffic into the area. Central Park is smack in the middle of a large amount of density and does not have major highways flowing into it. The Hudson and the FDR flow along its sides, as well as Broadway and Park Ave, and it is bordered on its ends by 57th and 110th. These are the major surrounding arterial roads that accept the Hudson and the FDR first, and the traffic is then able to disseminate onto other more secondary streets before approaching the park.

My major point comparing the two is that 290 and 55 both feed their traffic directly to the edges of Grant Park. 290 dumps onto Congress, and while some of that does branch into the Loop prior to Michigan, there is a tremendous amount of volume still spilling straight into the heart of Grant Park. 55 dumps onto LSD and that first main intersection is at LSD & Roosevelt. Primary traffic again has to get through or around the park withough any preliminary dissemination.

This was my point about moving Central Park down to Wall Street to make the comparison fair. It had more to do with location of the feeding highways than actual demographics.


Further, I think you should consider that central park isn't the impenitrable barrier that has been stated here. You couldn't divide the most dense island in the US in two and not allow traffic to flow across. Accordingly, central park has many ways to get through from one side to the other (and even to go through the park north-south). The difference between CP and GP is this: CP actually makes an attempt to hide or lessen the impact of the roads in the park while GP let's its roads (and tracks) stand out like horrible eyesores.

For instance, most roads through CP are two lane and have low speed limits. Some are below grade and tunneled in portions (see the 86th Transverse road). Most are well segregated and shielded from the park (by topology and foliage).

Contrast this to GP and congress. GP is as flat as a pancake and makes no effort to hide the 6-8 lanes (!!!) of traffic running through its heart. Similarly, extensions of loop roads (monroe, etc.) are generally 4 lanes and not at all hidden.

I can't disagree with the desire to try to "hide" more of the traffic through the park, but I think we would need to see a major reengineering of the flow of traffic from 290 into the city prior to a reengineering of Columbus and subsequently the park. Certainly, though, I really think we can do a lot to hide the trains via creative landscaping and new recreational construction opportunities.

As to the cross streets, I can certainly see several of those getting chopped out eventually assuming we do some good pedestrian bridges and/or tunnel crossings at LSD and get rid of all the damn stop lights over there; probably Balbo and either Monroe or Jackson, although I don't know if they could do all three and keep reasonable access to the Art Institute without an absolute disaster area on Michigan between Jackson and Monroe.

[VivaLFuego]

I'd be curious to see the official daily and hourly traffic counts for the various movements along, on to, and off of Columbus. Anecdotally, I've found that LSD at least tends to flow more smoothly on festival days when all the Grant Park streets are closed, when all traffic is headed through rather than on or off LSD. Can't comment on Michigan, since I try not to be insane enough as to drive on Michigan on festival days to begin with.

Personally, I'd rather see Columbus as a paved and landscape pedestrian mall (so it can still serve host to festivals), at least between Congress and Monroe. Traffic would survive. Keep it more or less as-is south of Congress and north of Monroe, maybe slightly narrower but otherwise providing enhanced access to/from LSD and and Lakeshore East respectively.

[aic4ever]

I'd be curious to see the official daily and hourly traffic counts for the various movements along, on to, and off of Columbus. Anecdotally, I've found that LSD at least tends to flow more smoothly on festival days when all the Grant Park streets are closed, when all traffic is headed through rather than on or off LSD. Can't comment on Michigan, since I try not to be insane enough as to drive on Michigan on festival days to begin with.

Personally, I'd rather see Columbus as a paved and landscape pedestrian mall (so it can still serve host to festivals), at least between Congress and Monroe. Traffic would survive. Keep it more or less as-is south of Congress and north of Monroe, maybe slightly narrower but otherwise providing enhanced access to/from LSD and and Lakeshore East respectively.

I would be very interested in it as well. Would be cool to see if Columbus could be dropped to half or a quarter of the lanes.

[emathias]

There's also Walgreens, CVS, 7-Eleven, White Hen, and those smaller grocery stores like Athens Grocery, Presidential Market, etc. I suppose others drive to the Whole Foods on Roosevelt as well.

When my brother lived there, he drove to the Whole Foods and the Dominicks on Roosevelt.

[Jibba]

Some Wicker Park/Bucktown projects:

Vision (on Division--cool...not):
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1530/dsc061149204149yy7.jpg

Urban Sandbox (slightly better name, but still cringe-inducing):
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/5636/dsc060849439636or1.jpg
http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/9696/dsc060899453285pp0.jpg
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8281/dsc060949394314uz5.jpg
http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/2201/dsc060939480616bt3.jpg
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/9773/dsc060909470318qx0.jpg

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

I think Vision will turn out to be a much better addition to the area than anticipated. The Polish Triangle could be such a fantastic space if given the proper treatment. Given the current plans in the pipeline for the area, such as Alderman Flores's plans for landmarking a substantial portion of the buildings surrounding it and the proposed re-routing of the portion of Milwaukee that feeds into it, and given the disapproval of plans for a non-urban Walgreen's to replace the shuttered Pizza Hut on Ashland, I would say that the area has a chance to become a fantastic anchor for that area in the same way that Damen/Milwaukee/North anchors Wicker Park and Bucktown.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ Thanks for the update of those two, Jibba. I'm thrilled about Urban Sandbox's progress; it's going to make a great addition to an area which has had its fair share of abysmal developments in the past few years. I generally agree about Vision, but from a purely aesthetic point of view wish it were at least another floor taller. I'm also a bit wary of the weird driveway or whatever depicted in the renderings along the western elevation.

There's another development in the works a few more blocks to the west on Division. (I meant to post a rendering but can't remember if I ever actually got around to it...?) It's modern and glassy and I believe the parking garage is to be buried. :tup:

[honte]

^ Can you detail that bit about reworking Milwaukee? I hadn't heard about that.

Also, what's wrong with Urban Sandbox? I think it's pretty fresh and certainly bold. The same architects have produced some very nice work around that area lately - only drawback I can see is the repetitiveness and loss of some historic buildings. But I cannot argue with the design, which I think is solid, while not masterful.

Cruising around WP / Bucktown today, I was thinking someone should do a photo tour of that area. There is a lot of decent new construction going on there - much more than just a few projects.

Also noted that HP Bank is putting up a very handsome building (so at least it looked in passing) on Elston just south of Courtland. Anyone have details on that?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ I thought he was referring to the name? Er, hoped, anyway...

[spyguy]

^First, thanks for all the photo updates.

It's still too soon to know for sure, but Vision looks overwhelmed by the MB building while the architecture is underwhelming.

As for the Urban Sandbox, I especially like that 4 story midrise on Wolcott. I hope the developer continues to work with Miller Hull on new projects around the city.

[ardecila]

^ Can you detail that bit about reworking Milwaukee? I hadn't heard about that.

Also, what's wrong with Urban Sandbox? I think it's pretty fresh and certainly bold. The same architects have produced some very nice work around that area lately - only drawback I can see is the repetitiveness and loss of some historic buildings. But I cannot argue with the design, which I think is solid, while not masterful.

Cruising around WP / Bucktown today, I was thinking someone should do a photo tour of that area. There is a lot of decent new construction going on there - much more than just a few projects.

Also noted that HP Bank is putting up a very handsome building (so at least it looked in passing) on Elston just south of Courtland. Anyone have details on that?

There is a plan to close the small stretch of Milwaukee between Ashland and Division, thus enlarging the "Polish Triangle" and allowing for some sort of more elaborate plaza there. I'm hoping the design will be something vaguely Parisian, with planters, trees, and cafe tables, as well as a more grand entrance to the subway. This will probably worsen the traffic in the area, though, since through traffic on Milwaukee now will have to make 3 turns to get through the intersection.

Conceptual picture:
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/1884/milwaukeeng6.jpg

If you want more photos of the smaller projects going on in Wicker Park, then I would suggest checking out YoChicago. Despite the often-icy relationship between us and them, they have comprehensive coverage of all the new condo buildings lining Chicago's arterials.

[Jibba]

Yes, Ch.G, Ch.G, I was referring to the name, not the project. I definitely realized the ambiguity of the statement when posting it, but for whatever reason I decided to leave it as-is. So, to be clear, I, too, like the project from an aesthetic and functional standpoint (with minor caveats attached to that opinion).

And also, Ch.G, Ch.G, I believe I know the project on Division that you referred to above. I was biking back from that area today, and on my way home I noticed something that would match your description, but I failed to grab a picture of it. Next time I am in the area (which is often) I will make sure to photograph it. Also, concerning your sentiments about Vision, I think your wariness will be assuaged once I get some better shots of the vehicle entry area--the space more resembles an alley than the minor parking lot conveyed by the renderings, and this is likely due to the fact that the rendering does not show neighboring structures to the west of the development that border the entryway off nicely.

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

honte, the plan that I referred to above regarding Milwaukee Avenue was an idea proposed by a consulting firm, and the information was published in this (http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=6459&TM=270.669) article of the Chicago Journal. I guess it is more of a random idea than a firm proposal, but it would dovetail quite nicely with Alderman Flores's plans for a landmark district for the same area.

Edit: in the time it took me to edit this once, ardecila already posted what you need. I'll just leave it here anyway.

[honte]

^ OK, thanks guys. I appreciate the info / clear ups.

At risk of being labeled a car-loving, solar system-destroying NIMBY, I want to say that this closure of a major thoroughfare looks like an absolutely idiotic idea to me. It's going to create an insane nuisance for very little benefit, in my opinion.

Many of the shoppers going to the Milwaukee Corridor take Kennedy there and get off at either Division or Augusta, and then head toward Milwaukee. I can already see the misery now. It's a serious case of biting the hand that feeds.

Noble Square (the actual square) has tons of other problems to deal with... traffic seems to be hardly the most pressing.

____

Also, ardecila, I was suggesting the photos for the benefit of the other forumers who don't get to see these projects. I am in that area every day, so I have a pretty good knowledge of what's going on.

[honte]

As for the Urban Sandbox, I especially like that 4 story midrise on Wolcott. I hope the developer continues to work with Miller Hull on new projects around the city.


I thought those were Studio Dwell projects. Am I mistaken?

[Jibba]

^^I am going to respectfully disagree, and this opinion is spoken from the viewpoint of a biker/walker in the area. Taking cross-walks from Milwaukee/Division to get to Dusty Groove on Ashland was a harrowing experience for me, and I have always felt that the intersections around the Polish Triangle are some of the most treacherous that I have biked and walked through (and I have biked the North and Clybourn shitstorm many times). Additionally, Ashland at that point is practically treated as an expressway by the drivers of it, and the wideness of it resulting from the boulevard-like design surely contributes to the speed that drivers feel like they can get away with there. There is really a chance for that area to thrive as a pedestrian anchor, but currently the traffic is just too wild, and the re-routing of Milwaukee would tame the vehicle traffic quite nicely even if that means slowing down the same amount of cars to do so.

At first glance, it would appear that re-routing Ashland at the Triangle would make the most sense especially considering that to get from the Division Blue Line stop to the public square (er, triangle) requires crossing Ashland. However, the turning angles created by using Milwaukee as a detour for Ashland are much sharper, and this is likely to be a much more accident-prone scheme (and therefore a much less desirable one). Also, speaking from the viewpoint of someone who has driven the chopped-up lanes of the Damen and Fullerton intersection, the truncated lanes in the Polish Triangle area are likely to be dangerous and chaotic no matter what.

[ardecila]

Noble Square (the actual square) has tons of other problems to deal with... traffic seems to be hardly the most pressing.

____

Also, ardecila, I was suggesting the photos for the benefit of the other forumers who don't get to see these projects. I am in that area every day, so I have a pretty good knowledge of what's going on.

Well, my recommendation applies to any other forumers. I highly recommend to anybody interested in Chicago development that they check out the Yo. It's invaluable. Since I don't really live in Chicago anymore, I can't exactly do a photo tour myself.

Also, I thought Noble Square was the park a few blocks northwest?

[BWChicago]

Well, my recommendation applies to any other forumers. I highly recommend to anybody interested in Chicago development that they check out the Yo. It's invaluable. Since I don't really live in Chicago anymore, I can't exactly do a photo tour myself.

Also, I thought Noble Square was the park a few blocks northwest?

Yeah, I don't think it is Noble Square, this didn't even become a park/plaza until the subway was constructed.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I thought those were Studio Dwell projects. Am I mistaken?

I think it's actually a triad: Osterhaus McCarthy + Miller Hull + Studio Dwell .

[aic4ever]

I think it's actually a triad: Osterhaus McCarthy + Miller Hull + Studio Dwell .

Based on the informaton available on Ranquist's website, the architects for Urban Sandbox are as follows:

1621 N. Wolcott - Studio Dwell
1623 N. Wolcott - Studio Dwell
1627 N. Wolcott - Osterhaus McCarthy

They also list 1615 and 1617 N. Wolcott as part of the Urban Sandbox, although they don't have PDF's posted for those outlining who the involved parties are.

[Taft]

At risk of being labeled a car-loving, solar system-destroying NIMBY, I want to say that this closure of a major thoroughfare looks like an absolutely idiotic idea to me. It's going to create an insane nuisance for very little benefit, in my opinion.

Many of the shoppers going to the Milwaukee Corridor take Kennedy there and get off at either Division or Augusta, and then head toward Milwaukee. I can already see the misery now. It's a serious case of biting the hand that feeds.

Meh. Normally, I'd agree with your sentiments regarding a major disruption of traffic, however Milwaukee north through Wicker Park is already a NIGHTMARE. I believe all this would do is to encourage drivers onto other streets, which actually might clear up Milwaukee a bit. Of course it would slightly worsen the backup at Milwaukee and Division headed north. I'm not sure how devastating this would be.

Of course, the question I have about this is: why? Unless they are going to do something really amazing with that little park, I question the wisdom of disturbing the existing traffic flow.

Taft

[VivaLFuego]

Milwaukee is the least awful street at that intersection. Ashland and Division are both treacherously wide at that point - if anything should be done to make the triangle more pedestrian-friendly, focus on narrowing those streets, not removing Milwaukee.

[headcase]

Based on the informaton available on Ranquist's website, the architects for Urban Sandbox are as follows:

1621 N. Wolcott - Studio Dwell
1623 N. Wolcott - Studio Dwell
1627 N. Wolcott - Osterhaus McCarthy

They also list 1615 and 1617 N. Wolcott as part of the Urban Sandbox, although they don't have PDF's posted for those outlining who the involved parties are.

My understanding was that Dwell did the four single family homes and the condo midrise was done by Miller Hull. Looking at Studio Dwell's site and Ranquists they do differ on what they are calling the addresses, SD has the 4 SF's as 1615-1623, while Ranquist has them as 1621-1627. I have seen the midrise listed as 1615 so I guess believe the developer?

SSDD

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Yes, Ch.G, Ch.G, I was referring to the name, not the project. I definitely realized the ambiguity of the statement when posting it, but for whatever reason I decided to leave it as-is. So, to be clear, I, too, like the project from an aesthetic and functional standpoint (with minor caveats attached to that opinion).

And also, Ch.G, Ch.G, I believe I know the project on Division that you referred to above. I was biking back from that area today, and on my way home I noticed something that would match your description, but I failed to grab a picture of it. Next time I am in the area (which is often) I will make sure to photograph it. Also, concerning your sentiments about Vision, I think your wariness will be assuaged once I get some better shots of the vehicle entry area--the space more resembles an alley than the minor parking lot conveyed by the renderings, and this is likely due to the fact that the rendering does not show neighboring structures to the west of the development that border the entryway off nicely.

Thanks, Jibba. That does make sense-- about the renderings. And I'm sure that was the development you biked past. Maybe a block or so east of Penelope's? I think they might still be working on the framing.

[headcase]

Thanks, Jibba. That does make sense-- about the renderings. And I'm sure that was the development you biked past. Maybe a block or so east of Penelope's? I think they might still be working on the framing.

I think you are talking about the one just West of Moonshine? The are still framing that one, but I can't honestly remember what the finsihed product is supposed to look like.....

SSDD

[emathias]

There is a plan to close the small stretch of Milwaukee between Ashland and Division, thus enlarging the "Polish Triangle" and allowing for some sort of more elaborate plaza there. I'm hoping the design will be something vaguely Parisian, with planters, trees, and cafe tables, as well as a more grand entrance to the subway. This will probably worsen the traffic in the area, though, since through traffic on Milwaukee now will have to make 3 turns to get through the intersection.

Conceptual picture:
...

If you want more photos of the smaller projects going on in Wicker Park, then I would suggest checking out YoChicago. Despite the often-icy relationship between us and them, they have comprehensive coverage of all the new condo buildings lining Chicago's arterials.

Seems like you could reduce lanes on Ashland, which would also help a lot, if you bolstered the Blackhawk/Paulina corridor, extended Marshfield to Milwaukee and bolstered Haddon/Marshfield corridor, and carved out a couple left-turn lanes on Milwaukee to support those. Even bigger thinking might including putting an auxillary exit from the interstate onto Crystal and pushing that through all the way to Ashland, or making Augusta interface with 90/94 in all directions. Even just pushing Potomac through from Greenview to Ashland and making it bi-directional would probably go a long way toward alleviating certain traffic. The biggest issue in that area may be the existence of so many superblocks, and a lack of enough local streets, not the proximity of the interstate.

Another thing that would almost certainly help is pushing August all the way to connect to Oak, or Blackhawk all the way through to Halsted, including overpasses and bridges.

[Jibba]

^Yes, as you have just laid out, there are plenty of alternatives to explore. In general, though, that space of the Triangle will never be inviting for any pedestrians until the traffic is tamed. Also, traffic issues notwithstanding, the area of the space is also not sufficient for the functioning of a viable pedestrian space, either. The only way to achieve this is to poach some of the existing roadway space that surrounds it.

[spyguy]

I think you are talking about the one just West of Moonshine? The are still framing that one, but I can't honestly remember what the finsihed product is supposed to look like.....

SSDD

This one?
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7110/249069gb5.jpg

The FedEx building on Division by Studio Dwell is also quite nice and different from everything else around it.
----

Since we're on the topic, I posted this about a year ago on SSC, but probably forgot to post it here

OWP/P’s client controls a land parcel on Chicago’s Near North Side. With a majority of the property zoned for parking under existing Planned Development, our client is interested in obtaining Aldermanic and City approval to increase the allowed density in the site’s zoning.

OWP/P studied five development alternatives for the site—each with different configurations and densities of residential, retail and parking—and prepared sketch plans for our client to use in arguing its case for changes to the zoning.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3958/11x17divisionviewfinalga2.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/2883/11x17divisionviewenlargle7.jpg
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3696/alleyviewcrop1yj1.jpg
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9202/streetscapefinalhj3.jpg

[left of center]

At risk of being labeled a car-loving, solar system-destroying NIMBY, I want to say that this closure of a major thoroughfare looks like an absolutely idiotic idea to me. It's going to create an insane nuisance for very little benefit, in my opinion.


I entirely agree. Milwaukee is such an important thoroughfare, disrupting it like that would back it up for miles in each direction. The triangle that is there is a little small, sure, but its a big enough size where you will see people sitting on the benches and generally enjoying the fountain and the shade provided by the trees in the summer. We dont need to do anything as drastic as reroute Milwaukee. Its a waste of money, IMO.

I dont get why this city hates diagonal streets so much. We've lost numerous miles of diagonal streets in Chicago over the years. Some where for the best (Ogden Ave in Lincoln Park). Stuff like this though just seems like a shortsighted alderman pet project.

[Mr Downtown]

We've lost numerous miles of diagonal streets in Chicago over the years.

We have? I can only think of a tiny bit of Fifth Avenue at the Eisenhower, Cottage Grove through McCormick Place, a half-mile of Blue Island through the UIC campus and about a mile of Ogden through Old Town (which had only been built 40 years previously).