[Jibba]

Riverwalk construction from tonight:
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/8449/dsc068781872094lb8.jpg
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3978/dsc068801884058gc0.jpg

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

Nice find about the railing improvements for the Michigan Ave. bridge, spyguy. If given the proper treatment, that design could look quite nice.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ For $3.5 million, it damn well better.

[Jibba]

^Yes, it should be, but this is Chicago, remember...

So I also took a picture of this tonight:
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/3060/dsc068863891140ha7.jpg

It is in the plaza by the Tribune Tower east of Michigan. How long has this been there? The plaque said 2005, but it is highly unlikely that this has been there since then and I have simply not noticed. If it has been there that long then I feel like an ignorant fool somewhat, but whatever.

[BWChicago]

^Yes, it should be, but this is Chicago, remember...

So I also took a picture of this tonight:
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/3060/dsc068863891140ha7.jpg

It is in the plaza by the Tribune Tower east of Michigan. How long has this been there? The plaque said 2005, but it is highly unlikely that this has been there since then and I have simply not noticed. If it has been there that long then I feel like an ignorant fool somewhat, but whatever.

http://www.lynnbecker.com/repeat/johnsongothic/johnsongothic.htm

[ardecila]

I'm not too clear on the South Loop Elementary debacle, other than the much-ridiculed argument over a fence designed to keep children on the playground.

At Jones, however, the new building will have space for additional students and the city is proposing to fill this space with neighborhood children, who won't need to take a test to get in. It's unclear whether these neighborhood residents would be in the same program that the magnet students are in; the city might set up a separate program within the same building for these neighborhood children. They will definitely benefit, however, from the high-quality facilities at Jones, which will be shared between both types of students.

This move by CPS could be controversial. I don't know if it's been done before in the CPS system, but creating a group of second-class citizens within a high school student body sounds like a bad idea to me. These students will be overwhelmingly black and Hispanic, since white children tend to go to private school when they cannot get into a magnet school.

Also, Jones is the most selective high school in the CPS system. Some parents will surely cry foul when they learn that some students got into Jones simply because they live near downtown.

[VivaLFuego]

At Jones, however, the new building will have space for additional students and the city is proposing to fill this space with neighborhood children, who won't need to take a test to get in. It's unclear whether these neighborhood residents would be in the same program that the magnet students are in; the city might set up a separate program within the same building for these neighborhood children. They will definitely benefit, however, from the high-quality facilities at Jones, which will be shared between both types of students.

This move by CPS could be controversial. I don't know if it's been done before in the CPS system, but creating a group of second-class citizens within a high school student body sounds like a bad idea to me. These students will be overwhelmingly black and Hispanic, since white children tend to go to private school when they cannot get into a magnet school.

Nothing new, this describes Kenwood Academy (where I went) and Lincoln Park High School, to name just two schools with both magnet and neighborhood programs/curricula and mixed student populations. I believe Curie H.S. also fits this description, as does Von Steuben. Probably a few others as well... does Lane Tech?

[Jibba]

http://www.lynnbecker.com/repeat/johnsongothic/johnsongothic.htm

Thanks for the link. It seems as though it was created down in Florida and then shipped here very recently. Thankfully, I am not losing my mind.

Another image I grabbed of it for those who are interested:
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/126/dsc068845077361yb9.jpg

[ardecila]

Nothing new, this describes Kenwood Academy (where I went) and Lincoln Park High School, to name just two schools with both magnet and neighborhood programs/curricula and mixed student populations. I believe Curie H.S. also fits this description, as does Von Steuben. Probably a few others as well... does Lane Tech?

I couldn't say... I lived in the suburbs during high school, and my only interaction with CPS was at Northside College Prep, where I had several friends and visited a few times, and Lane Tech, for the same reasons. I am unaware of the programs at Lane, but its sheer size would seem to indicate a mixed population.

The whole system seems a bit confusing to someone who grew up in a suburb where the "school choice" was always between one public school and one Catholic school. The whole business of charter schools and Renaissance 2010 has further complicated the system and blurred the distinctions between public and private schools.

[amfleisch]

Lane Tech is a selective enrollment school. so the over 4,000+ kids that go to Lane apply and take a test to get in.

the other 8 selective enrollment schools are Whitney Young, Payton, Northside, King, Jones, Brooks, Westinghouse, and Lindbloom.

http://www.selectiveenrollment.org/

when i was in 8th grade i was able to apply to 4 of those schools, and i had to rank them from 1st to 4th choice. i only had to take one test. this was in 2001, so it has probably changed.

many neighborhood high schools have IB programs. those schools take students from both the community and through out the city.

http://www.cpsmagnet.org/schools/?dir=IB%20Diploma%20Programme&rn=7667251

[Jibba]

A small, but satisfying, recent development: sheltered, in-station bike storage at the Damen Blue Line stop (finally):
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9434/dsc069609510787qh2.jpg

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chicago-biz-navy-pier-garretts-jan14,0,962726.story

Garrett, other retailers to open on Navy Pier
By Kathy Bergen | Tribune staff reporter
12:06 PM CST, January 14, 2009

.........Plans for a new, much larger Ferris Wheel, similar to the gargantuan London Eye on the Thames River, continue to move forward. Proposals from private developers should be received later in the first quarter, the spokeswoman said.

kbergen@tribune.com

..

[harryc]

Work continues - Jan 12
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SW5VoINdMBI/AAAAAAABCoU/tmdI_M0oEbc/s800/P1200491_2_3.jpg

[andydie]

..

not sure if i would like a larger ferries wheel there. Think the old one is fine for the place:

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj269/andydie/Chicago%20Trip/100_1671.jpgby me

[ethereal_reality]

^^^That's great news concerning the LARGER ferris wheel.
I thought that dream bit the dust months ago.

I think Chicago needs a ferris wheel at least
the same size as the 1893 ferris wheel
(which was the world's FIRST, right here in Chicago)

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/2812/zferrisctribku3.jpg
Chicago Tribune

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=46&SubSectionID=154&ArticleID=6816&TM=2487.472

Cityside
Ben Myers and Jessica Pupovac

Village Theater landmarked

The Commission on Chicago Landmarks has approved official landmark status for the Village Theater, at North and Clark, according 42nd Ward Alderman Brendan Reilly's newsletter. Preliminary status was granted in April.

Reilly initiated landmarking for the 93-year-old theater, along with the neighboring Germania Club, after New York-based Kimco Realty Corp., a shopping mall specialist, bought up the corner. Reilly told Skyline at the time that he perceived an "imminent threat."

[VivaLFuego]

An imminent threat to a vacant, blighted eyesore (The Village, not the Germania, the latter of which is a great structure and definitely deserved landmark status)? Unlike Reilly, I actually have to live next to the thing. The theater was indeed a nice amenity, but seeing as that's a non-economical use, I hope he's got something up his sleeve for a decent adaptive re-use so this area doesn't wind up like Hyde Park with rotting monuments to NIMBYism all over the place.

I'm open to being convinced that the POS is worth saving (BWChicago?) but as I see it the only thing of any merit is the very nice terra cotta on the facade, which could have been incorporated into a redevelopment. A nice facade alone does not warrant landmarking an entire structure.

[emathias]

An imminent threat to a vacant, blighted eyesore (The Village, not the Germania, the latter of which is a great structure and definitely deserved landmark status)? Unlike Reilly, I actually have to live next to the thing. The theater was indeed a nice amenity, but seeing as that's a non-economical use, I hope he's got something up his sleeve for a decent adaptive re-use so this area doesn't wind up like Hyde Park with rotting monuments to NIMBYism all over the place.

I'm open to being convinced that the POS is worth saving (BWChicago?) but as I see it the only thing of any merit is the very nice terra cotta on the facade, which could have been incorporated into a redevelopment.

I'm vehemently anti-Reilly. I think if he had his way, downtown would become Naperville, and that scares the living daylights out of me. Naperville is nice and all, but if I wanted to live there, I'd move there.

[Taft]

An imminent threat to a vacant, blighted eyesore (The Village, not the Germania, the latter of which is a great structure and definitely deserved landmark status)? Unlike Reilly, I actually have to live next to the thing. The theater was indeed a nice amenity, but seeing as that's a non-economical use, I hope he's got something up his sleeve for a decent adaptive re-use so this area doesn't wind up like Hyde Park with rotting monuments to NIMBYism all over the place.

I'm open to being convinced that the POS is worth saving (BWChicago?) but as I see it the only thing of any merit is the very nice terra cotta on the facade, which could have been incorporated into a redevelopment.

I'm unconvinced that the myriad of small theaters that have shut down in Chicago over the last 5 years couldn't have been adapted to better uses. Are megaplexes really the only economically viable way to show movies anymore? I like the model of the Music Box and the Vic, both of which use revenues from non-movie productions (theatre in the case of Music Box and live music in the case of the Vic) to allow movies to be shown (granted they are second-run or cult movies...but still nice to have, IMO).

Maybe this is just nostalgia getting the best of me, but I have to think there is a way to make such places work. We've just lost too many local theaters lately.

Taft

Edit: all that said, I don't see much of a reason to preserve this particular building (unless I'm ignorant of some architectural or historical component).

[honte]

An imminent threat to a vacant, blighted eyesore (The Village, not the Germania, the latter of which is a great structure and definitely deserved landmark status)? Unlike Reilly, I actually have to live next to the thing. The theater was indeed a nice amenity, but seeing as that's a non-economical use, I hope he's got something up his sleeve for a decent adaptive re-use so this area doesn't wind up like Hyde Park with rotting monuments to NIMBYism all over the place.

I'm open to being convinced that the POS is worth saving (BWChicago?) but as I see it the only thing of any merit is the very nice terra cotta on the facade, which could have been incorporated into a redevelopment. A nice facade alone does not warrant landmarking an entire structure.

It has unfortunately been well-demonstrated in Chicago that landmarking does not preclude facadectomies. The chances of that happening without the landmark status, however, are few.

We've had this discussion before, but I'm frankly still surprised that you are not seeing the bright side of this designation.

[VivaLFuego]

It has unfortunately been well-demonstrated in Chicago that landmarking does not preclude facadectomies. The chances of that happening without the landmark status, however, are few.

We've had this discussion before, but I'm frankly still surprised that you are not seeing the bright side of this designation.

I'm thrilled that the Germania Club is landmarked. It's a neighborhood treasure and anchor. If landmarking the Village is what it took to ensure protection of the Germania, then I'll take it, but I don't see why that's the case. I'd love to see re-use of the Village, but unlike say any of a myriad number of 3-story mixed-use structures throughout the city, I'm not convinced that there's any likely economically viable use for the building without injecting a great deal of public subsidy - it's not even a question of "highest and best use" which is often a weak but persuasive argument in favor of demolishing old buildings. I'd be fine with it being a concert venue, but I imagine all the smog-belching trolls I have for neighbors would be mortified. If it were viable as a cinema again, then why hasn't it reopened already? It could physically host live theater, but I suspect only with substantial subsidy to pay for facilities costs.

The Music Box has a much better interior than the Village, and also has easier weekend evening parking which I unfortunately concede is important for things like theaters. The Vic is in a much better location for such a movie/live concert venue, not to mention it can serve alcohol which I suspect is a no-go at the Village between the neighbors and being across from a school.

I guess the Farwell precedent indeed suggests a facadectomy is possible - I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the preservation ordinance, can't certain elements be landmarked, including/excluding the interior, etc.? Like I said I'm open to convincing that there is something in the interior worth saving, but I've seen nothing. If the facade were saved and new, active retail built behind it, I'd be thrilled - though it's hard to imagine retailers who would want such a large, deep site with such little street frontage. While the Farwell precedent is unsettling, it actually would change my view of this particular landmarking if it means the preservation and restoration of the Village's cool facade while allowing true reactivation of the space behind it. If that's the end result, then yes honte I'm pleased.

[alex1]

I'm vehemently anti-Reilly. I think if he had his way, downtown would become Naperville, and that scares the living daylights out of me. Naperville is nice and all, but if I wanted to live there, I'd move there.

be as vehemently anti-reilly as you must, but use words that help advance your argument and open up an honest and mature debate.

logical fallacies need not apply.

[lawfin]

be as vehemently anti-reilly as you must, but use words that help advance your argument and open up an honest and mature debate.

logical fallacies need not apply.

Umm can you point out the logical fallacy here. I am not saying it is we;; argued, it is quite obviously not meant to be, but I do not see a logical fallacy

[alex1]

Umm can you point out the logical fallacy here. I am not saying it is we;; argued, it is quite obviously not meant to be, but I do not see a logical fallacy

yes.

"I think if he had his way, downtown would become Naperville and that scares the living daylights out of me".

This statement is unfounded and over the top.

For a list of logical fallacies: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[sammyg]

An imminent threat to a vacant, blighted eyesore (The Village, not the Germania, the latter of which is a great structure and definitely deserved landmark status)? Unlike Reilly, I actually have to live next to the thing. The theater was indeed a nice amenity, but seeing as that's a non-economical use, I hope he's got something up his sleeve for a decent adaptive re-use so this area doesn't wind up like Hyde Park with rotting monuments to NIMBYism all over the place.

I'm open to being convinced that the POS is worth saving (BWChicago?) but as I see it the only thing of any merit is the very nice terra cotta on the facade, which could have been incorporated into a redevelopment. A nice facade alone does not warrant landmarking an entire structure.

Yeah, how is the Village more of a landmark than the Esquire was?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

A derelict Village Theater is better than an empty lot, and, IMO, still better than anything that would likely replace it. Anyway, aren't there plenty of other sites ripe for development in that area?

[VivaLFuego]

A derelict Village Theater is better than an empty lot, and, IMO, still better than anything that would likely replace it. Anyway, aren't there plenty of other sites ripe for development in that area?

1. Yes, I'd rather it be a derelict theater than a vacant lot or parking lot, granted.

2. The zoning is B3-5 so if combined with Michael's restaurant to to the north this site could actually have a development of some size and density, all the moreso if also included the decent but unremarkable two-story yellow brick structure that fronts North Ave... buuut the Lakefront "Protection" Ordinance covers the site and gives Reilly the power to kill anything regardless of the underlying zoning.... meaning...

3. No, there aren't any other sites ripe for development in the area. While Wells Street also has good zoning, it really should be a landmark district candidate since a lot of quality stuff has already been lost, there are still several great contributing buildings, but they're all basically unprotected. I don't envision the lousy gas stations nearby getting redeveloped particularly in light of the local 42nd and 43rd alderhacks' disdain for anything resembling density, and the crappy one story Booger King on the SW corner of North/LaSalle was already just redeveloped into a crappy one story Fifth Third Bank. Moody Church enjoys its taxpayer-subsidized surface parking lot at the NW corner of North/LaSalle, I don't see anything happening with that. There's very little else in the vicinity that could or should be redeveloped to a better use. Possibly the Boston Market at SW corner of North/Wells, but I think the same owner owns the profitable parking lot adjacent to it so redevelopment seems unlikely. There's the bank on the NW corner of North/Clark, but that's a (justifiable) landmark candidate and also falls under the LPO so couldn't be redeveloped to any sort of density anyway.

[BWChicago]

The Music Box and Esquire are in totally different classes of theater history, I don't think they're relevant to the Village. And you REALLY can't go comparing one landmark to another to judge merit, it's always about individual merit. The Esquire's non-landmarking in the 80s was mostly political and also because of the substantial alterations that occurred. I think it's landmark-worthy regardless, but that's not how Chicago's landmarks program is set up.

That said, I agree that the facade is probably the only thing really *left* there, and it is worth preserving both on its own merit and to keep the corner to some pedestrian scale. If you really look at the building the only eyesore part of it is the terrible marquee; otherwise it has some really cool, unique detailing. I think a small performance venue would probably be viable - more than that, I think it could be a great shell for a restaurant. There aren't any decently large restaurants in the area. Nowhere to have a banquet after an event at CHS. There are a lot of things you can do with a theatre besides theatre. And I think parking is a non-issue there; don't forget the History Museum manages to scrape by somehow, and you could probably valet at Pipers too if necessary.

As to the interior of the Village: http://mekong.net/random/cinemas/highres/village_aud_img0066.jpg is the only image I've seen of the original interior. Some really interesting plaster work there, but no telling what's left. I know at least two of those huge sconces are at the Theatre Historical Society in Elmhurst, but it's hard to say how extensive the damage from dividing is. If it is in good shape, it's one of only a few remaining in the city of its class, the late-period nickelodeon. And it was one of the more elaborate of these. So it kind of depends what's left. But remember landmarking didn't save the Biograph's interior, so I won't hold my breath.

-

This is sort of unrelated, but I thought this a good time to mention that the 3 Penny looks like it's going to be a concert venue. There is a PPA application outside for Chris Schuba (Schuba's) and other license references to Lincoln Hall.

[lawfin]

yes.

"I think if he had his way, downtown would become Naperville and that scares the living daylights out of me".

This statement is unfounded and over the top.

For a list of logical fallacies: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Ummm...No actually .....

as I was trying to point out ....his statement was not an argument....It was an explicit statement of opinion....a belief, an example of quite obvious hyperbole....

an argument may have logical fallacies....a belief cannot.....a belief may be based on a logical fallacy; but the belief itself is not logically fallacious

enough with phil 101 & logic 201....been a long time; nonetheless its off topic

[the urban politician]

Originally posted: January 16, 2009
Art Deco darlings; Survey aims to find and preserve city's gems (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/01/art-deco-darlings-survey-aims-to-find-and-preserve-citys-gems.html)

Art Deco buildings are rare in this city of right angles and “less is more” sobriety. So it makes sense to preserve them, not only downtown but also in Chicago’s neighborhoods. More need to be identified and protected before they are demolished or defaced.

That is the persuasive premise of the Chicago Art Deco Society, a revitalized non-profit that has embarked on the first complete survey of Art Deco in the city. The style had its heyday during the 1920s and 1930s and is most visible in such landmarks as the Chicago Board of Trade Building.

[honte]

^ That is good news, but I still take issue with people claiming that Art Deco is rare in Chicago. Really, we have more of it than any other city I've been to, if one includes storefront architecture.

Nevertheless, good news there.... I'm curious to see exactly how complete their survey turns out to be, as most of these efforts seem to stop far short of true thoroughness, which actually hurts their own cause. Landmarks Illinois did a similar survey of North Shore Modernism which is a good effort, but woefully inadequate. And the City's own Historic Resources survey is also amazingly lacking.

[emathias]

yes.

"I think if he had his way, downtown would become Naperville and that scares the living daylights out of me".

This statement is unfounded and over the top.

For a list of logical fallacies: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

As someone else pointed out it was hyperbole, however your claim it's a fallacy is also incorrect since you've provided no support of that claim. The best you can rationally do without evidence is say I'm wrong. You apparently can't even be bothered to identify which fallacy you think I've violated.

I could probably come up with a list a couple dozen items long that reflect the desire of Reilly to create an environment that is more reflective what what is in suburban cities than what is the ambient environment of downtown Chicago or an appropriate fill-in extension of what exists downtown.

Even though my statement wasn't an argument per se, it wasn't fallacious and I think the spirit of it can be supported by fact.

This will be my last post on the subject of "fallacy."

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=32651

Loyola in JV for classroom/retail building
By Samantha Sleevi, Jan. 16, 2009

Loyola has formed the venture with J. B. Realty Inc., which owns the property at 20-24 E. Chicago Ave., a university spokeswoman confirms. The 6,600-square-foot site now has a small building that until recently housed a Dunkin’ Donuts and another restaurant. That structure will be replaced with a five-story, 28,000-square-foot building, says John Balourdos, a principal at Chicago-based J. B. Realty.
----
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/8485/projectseducation41nbl4.jpg
Two floors of retail is pretty good, plus it will get rid of that ugly one story building. Hopefully some day that McDonald's will be demolished too.

[Jibba]

^Still a little less ambitious than I would like to see coming out of a Red Line stop, but at least it will help get the ball rolling for development along that corridor of Chicago (with the momentum heading west, obviously). I was still worried that they were going to replace the Dunkin' Donuts et al. with this (a design so ridiculous that it looks like it was placed there by an Adbusters foot soldier):

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/8147/1426669207sc5.jpg

[spyguy]

...will help get the ball rolling for development along that corridor of Chicago (with the momentum heading west, obviously). I was still worried that they were going to replace the Dunkin' Donuts et al. with this (a design so ridiculous that it looks like it was placed there by an Adbusters foot soldier):


Heh.

I'm still a bit worried that future Loyola developments will knock down those nice lowrise buildings on State near Lawson YMCA, especially the corner building.

[Jibba]

^Yeah, I have been really worried about that, too. Especially because it is part of a large plot of nothing else, isn't it? It is rare that developers bend over backwards to work around those kind of buildings on sites like that, especially when they are occupying what would be prime retail space for a new building.

I really can't stand the constant sterilization of the "real" Chicago, especially when the BS supplanting it makes less-efficient use (as far as usable area per footprint goes, probably not energy-wise) of the land. I would think (correction: hope) that there would be somewhat of a fight to save those, but the neighbors probably need the last of their drive-through needs to be met in that area (what's missing, drive-through massage therapy?). And it's also "too dense" (I could honestly see some idiot making this claim), "too much like New York", "too dirty", "too rat-infested", "too poor-looking", "too full-of-character-and-charm", etc.

[honte]

^ Actually, various community groups specifically asked Alderman Natarus and the Landmarks Commission several times (numerous times) to landmark those buildings, for exactly these reasons, but the city would do nothing.

Reilly might be a goon, but I say, take him for what he's worth. There is an alderman now, finally, who is willing in certain cases to consider supporting landmarking, so perhaps now is a time to revisit this issue.

[VivaLFuego]

I'm still a bit worried that future Loyola developments will knock down those nice lowrise buildings on State near Lawson YMCA, especially the corner building.
Apartment tenants in that corner building have been told that their leases will only be renewed through 2010, for what that's worth. I suspect that stretch of buildings along State is toast, unfortunately.

[Jibba]

^ Actually, various community groups specifically asked Alderman Natarus and the Landmarks Commission several times (numerous times) to landmark those buildings, for exactly these reasons, but the city would do nothing.

Reilly might be a goon, but I say, take him for what he's worth. There is an alderman now, finally, who is willing in certain cases to consider supporting landmarking, so perhaps now is a time to revisit this issue.

Very true, and thanks for providing a little info about some of the people's sentiments around that area. My comment is tinged from the bad taste in my mouth left from that article about the proposal on Chestnut that failed.

Viva: interesting about the leasing arrangement in that building, hopefully the landlord just wants out of that business, but it doesn't sound too good...

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

In other news:

Developer pitches multilevel garage

By IAN FULLERTON
Contributing Reporter

Officials and neighborhood groups in Wicker Park and Bucktown are vetting a new proposal from one of the neighborhoods' most active developers.

Krzysztof Karbowski, head of MCM Properties, is asking area residents to support a zoning change that would allow him to build a parking garage at 1616-26 N. Milwaukee, close to the Northwest Tower, 1600 N. Milwaukee, where he plans to build a hotel. The five-story garage would be built as an addition to the historic Hollander building.

Current plans call for 9,000 square feet of retail on the first floor, with a parking structure for 140 parking spaces located on the second through fifth levels.

In October, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted Karbowski a permit needed to develop a hotel in the Northwest Tower. The permit was approved over the objections of 32nd Ward Alderman Scott Waguespack, who said the hotel proposal lacked detail.

Waguespack is opposing the latest plans from Karbowski, setting up a showdown about the zoning changes. Chicago's aldermen traditionally control zoning in the wards they represent.

"For good urban planning, the worst thing you can do is put a parking garage at an intersection like this," Wauguespack said.

The Northwest Tower is situated at the corner of the Milwaukee, Damen and North intersection, a popular commercial and cultural center that sees heavy vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

Parking in the area was discussed throughout last year. Waguespack said he believes the neighborhood's parking problems can be solved by opening up residential areas for parking during the day, changing schedules for loading zones and encouraging businesses to share them. The area currently relies on surface lots and metered and unmetered street parking.

The garage idea has been met with mixed reaction. Some are excited by the prospect of the garage accommodating increased visitors to the neighborhood. Others opposing the project cited risks to pedestrian safety and traffic congestion.

Craig Norris, head of the Wicker Park Committee's planning and development sub-committee, said he believes Karbowski just wants the zoning change so that he can get the highest speculative value from the property.

"A parking garage is one of the only lucrative kinds of projects these days, with commercial and residential in their current state," he said. "That's what drives developers."

Norris referenced the application that Karbowski brought before the zoning board in October, which indicated the hotel project wouldn't require him to build additional parking. He said MCM said at the time it planned a spa in the Hollander building.

Karbowski and his team went before members of the Wicker Park Committee last week to discuss the plan. Members voiced concerns over the garage's location, and were particularly skeptical of a proposed exit that would filter cars onto North Avenue. Others questioned the gravity of the parking problem in the area.

"There isn't a shortage of parking supply in the neighborhood," said committee member Payton Chung. "There's only shortage at certain times."

MCM's garage is one of two in the works for the area. CG Development is proposing to build 134 spaces at 1611-1619 N. Damen. Consideration of a zoning change for that project was deferred from last December's Zoning Committee agenda. Waguespack is opposing CG's project as well.

Philip Edison, president of the Bucktown Community Organization, or BCO, said he will likely support Karbowski's garage from a business perspective, although he is wary of possible congestion.

"For us it's more of a balancing test," he said. "If the positives outweigh the negatives, then the garage will have our support."

Karbowski and his staff presented his plans to the BCO last weekend.

Some members of the organziation were concerned about the exit onto North and the risk to foot traffic at the intersection.

One member of the group, Sam Marts, asked how the development would serve people in the neighborhood who aren't using the hotel.

Karbowski said he would like to build a restaurant on the first floor of the Hollander building, which would be available for public events such as banquets and weddings.

Karbowski noted that the project would generate much-needed construction jobs.

"This project will keep a lot of guys busy," Karbowski said. "Sixty days of work could make the difference of whether or not they lose their house."

Paula Barrington, executive director at the Wicker Park & Bucktown Chamber of Commerce, supports the project but wants the Hollander building's historic façade left in tact.

"To Karbowski's credit, he has been meeting with the community and hearing them out," Barrington said. "It's important that he comes back with a final plan that addresses everyone's concerns."

Nicholas Ftikas, a project attorney, said MCM is in the process of scheduling a traffic review with the Chicago Department of Transportation. Karbowski will then meet with the city's Department of Planning before the Zoning Committee considers his request for changes.

MCM also plans to request a zoning change for 1628-32 N. Milwaukee, the building northwest of the proposed garage that once housed the Segundo Ruiz Belvis Cultural Center.

MCM project manager Frank Tholke said that the team is still exploring financial options for the construction of the hotel and garage.

http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=6833&TM=68948.96

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

It sounds to me like the garage is going to be a facadectomy. I'm going to contact the BCO and see if I can get some more info about it.

Sorry, but Karbowski is pure scum is you ask me. He has been behind just about every single loathsome, neighborhood-compromising development around the area.

"Sixty days of work could make the difference of whether or not they lose their house."

He seriously had the audacity to play the pathos card with this BS?

[Nowhereman1280]

Apartment tenants in that corner building have been told that their leases will only be renewed through 2010, for what that's worth. I suspect that stretch of buildings along State is toast, unfortunately.

Loyola has no current plans as to what they are going to put on that lot. We'll see what ends up happening. I have a feeling that Loyola will want to raze the whole lot because its the largest continuous open lot in the area. They would probably want to use it to make some sort of "campus" feel downtown. They tried to get their hands on Quigley so they could convert it to (or retain it as) classroom space. They really wanted it because of the courtyard (which would give Loyola some actual campus space) and Chapel space.

[honte]

^ But how much richer their little quad would be with historic buildings lining it, rather than a big, bad intersection?

This leads me to introduce, :hell: Honte's Four Levels of NIMBY Hell :hell::

1) Small user is attracted to certain neighborhood due to native merits of the place.
2) Small user becomes big user by virtue of benefits of said special place.
3) Big user feels empowered and desires to remake special place in its own image.
4) Special place is no longer special.

WLCO or Loyola, I don't see the difference.

(:) That was fun.)

[denizen467]

http://i43.tinypic.com/32znoqr.jpg
Holy shit, that is a dynamite improvement! I've always thought that bridge should be as classy as the buildings around it, and this is certainly a cost-effective way of getting there.
As usual, nice job finding a pic of this project spyguy.

[Abner]

^ That is good news, but I still take issue with people claiming that Art Deco is rare in Chicago. Really, we have more of it than any other city I've been to, if one includes storefront architecture.

Nevertheless, good news there.... I'm curious to see exactly how complete their survey turns out to be, as most of these efforts seem to stop far short of true thoroughness, which actually hurts their own cause. Landmarks Illinois did a similar survey of North Shore Modernism which is a good effort, but woefully inadequate. And the City's own Historic Resources survey is also amazingly lacking.

I imagine people say Chicago doesn't have much Art Deco because they're thinking of the Chrysler Building or CBOT. There's not that much Deco downtown and not much "big" Deco elsewhere. And I always thought that pound for pound, Detroit was the region's capital of Art Deco. What neighborhoods would you say are especially dense with Art Deco? Besides Uptown.

[pyropius]

How about the Carbon and Carbide Building?

[honte]

^ It's really a widespread phenomenon. As I mentioned briefly before, it depends on how strict you are in defining the term. Does it include Art Moderne? Does it include facades, or only "3D" buildings? Does it have to be a "pure" example, or can it play into other motifs of the day, such as Egyptian Revival? Many of the buildings of this period had a number of very definite design influences. Also a number of them, particularly commercial storefronts, have been pretty severely altered over the years.

You can find Art Deco facades literally all over the city, on most of the commercial arteries. Neighborhoods that had a lot of development in the 1920s, naturally, would be the best location. Off the top of my head, Lawrence heading west, 63rd Street on the Southwest Side, Archer Ave heading SW, parts of Milwaukee... I've never kept strict tabs on this in particular, so I've probably missed a number of the big ones in this random, midnight list.

Many factories, schools, banks, etc were also done in the style. For small-scale housing, I suggest the Beverly area or the far NW Side. Houses are harder to find, and also there was some bleed-over into the Modern period with some architects who were unwilling to consider International Style modernism (or its variants) for housing, so some of these actually date as late as the 1950s. This too would be up for debate as to whether or not they belong in an official survey of "true" Art Deco.

Concerning Detroit, I think their Art Deco stock is phenomenal and particularly beats Chicago's when it comes to polychromy in their highrises. However, I would be surprised if the "pound for pound" thing really holds up. We have many classic Art Deco skyscrapers here, not the least of which are the Palmolive, Field, CBOT, Motor Club, etc.

[lawfin]

^ But how much richer their little quad would be with historic buildings lining it, rather than a big, bad intersection?

This leads me to introduce, :hell: Honte's Four Levels of NIMBY Hell :hell::

1) Small user is attracted to certain neighborhood due to native merits of the place.
2) Small user becomes big user by virtue of benefits of said special place.
3) Big user feels empowered and desires to remake special place in its own image.
4) Special place is no longer special.

WLCO or Loyola, I don't see the difference.

(:) That was fun.)

Other than about 33 stories or so give or take ...and several rather dense high rises....as well as being a resident in two of the denser neighborhoods in the city......

.....I agree with you additionally WLCO sway covers a much greater area....at least in terms of covering the "west loop"...an oxymoron...given their interpretation...versus the relatively small mag mile impact loyola hold sway over....


Loyola may have not been ideal....but WLCO is an urban damnation....there is no comparison

[honte]

^ My point was never to say that Loyola compares to WLCO. I am pointing out an annoying pattern.

Who the hell needs a "campus feel" in the middle of downtown, and why should the rest of us suffer through it? Sounds like Moody Bible Institute to me.

[Nowhereman1280]

^ My point was never to say that Loyola compares to WLCO. I am pointing out an annoying pattern.

Who the hell needs a "campus feel" in the middle of downtown, and why should the rest of us suffer through it? Sounds like Moody Bible Institute to me.

AH! Don't worry about it becoming Moody Bible institute! If anything Loyola will feel compelled to tear down those buildings so they have complete freedom of design on that site so they can specifically avoid walling off whatever little quad dealy they have in mind from the street. Loyola's planning department is very aware that many of their past buildings turn a cold shoulder to the neighborhood and streetfront and is actively finding ways to prevent this and to open its campus' up to the street and neighborhood. I was told this by the Director of the department and sure enough, they are already moving on it.

For example, that little store thing that is posted above that will be a kind of expansion for 25 E. Pearson, will include (if not right away, eventually, when they get a new auditorium elsewhere) knocking out the blank walls facing the northwest corner of Chicago and Wabash and replacing them with some retail.

Another example is in Rogers Park where they are looking back at their buildings from the 70's and realizing that Mertz Hall and others were built as castles or fortresses to wall off the then declining neighborhood from the campus. There are plans in the works to "fix" Mertz and extend the base to Sheridan Rd. and make an entrance right on the road, instead of only having entrances on campus...

Trust me though, Loyola will never let a Moody Bible Fortress be built as its campus. It wants a campus that is seamlessly nestled in a forest of highrises because its that kind of campus that is extremely impressive to prospective business students.

[honte]

^ OK, but the point is that it wants some kind of "campus" that doesn't exist there presently (ok, fine, but not needed IMO), and which somehow negates what is there presently (not so fine), and which probably will end up in its own way deurbanizing or sterilizing the area. Furthermore, I suspect this will benefit Loyola far more than the rest of the city, or even the rest of the residents of the area.

Generally when any party tries to "remake an area" in its own image, the end result is worse. It's contradictory to the nature of a city.

That's what I'm reacting to. I doubt it will end up looking like Moody Bible, for better and for worse. We'll have to wait and see, but overall I don't like the feeling I'm getting, and this comes from experience.

[Jibba]

As a visual reference to the article posted on the previous page about the Bucktown parking garage proposal adjacent to Northwest Tower, here are some pictures I took of the buildings in question that are potential candidates for re-zoning:

1616-26 N. Milwaukee (Hollander warehouse building):

As adjoined to 1600 N. Milwaukee (Northwest Tower--location of proposed hotel):
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3780/dsc070628454419kd5.jpg

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5787/dsc070598222193kk0.jpg
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1183/dsc070608442929eg2.jpg
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7034/dsc070618236488hr2.jpg
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/5225/dsc070638467988uw6.jpg

1628-31 N. Milwaukee (cultural center, also houses/ed the Open Door Gallery):
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/2938/dsc070648251479uk3.jpg
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/7251/dsc070658479187vh0.jpg

There is a parking lot in between 1616-26 and 1628-31, but it may or may not be owned by MCM. I wonder if the proposed garage is to be built mostly in this lot with a part of it in the Hollander or if it is going to take up the entirety of both properties.

[Nowhereman1280]

Generally when any party tries to "remake an area" in its own image, the end result is worse. It's contradictory to the nature of a city.


Well its not even like they are remaking anything if they are only tearing down those corner buildings. I mean that parcel of land that they own is 75% parking lot, so they are essentially remaking the area from parkinglot hell to highrises.

And I know I'll get flamed for this, but I don't see anything all that special about those buildings. I would much rather have a 30 story mixed use high rise on top of one of the biggest stops on the Red line than a short row of 3 story corner buildings. Elsewhere in the city, I can see their merit, but it seems to be like a huge underutilization of that space. Imagine that corner with retail and an entrance to classrooms, dorms, and condos on top. Think of how much foot traffic it would generate. Think of all the hundreds of students being sold on mass transit and urban living. Is it really worth giving that up in the name of "preserving the character" of one or two corner buildings?

For example, if the building were at the northeast corner of state and pearson, I would be completely against tearing it down.

[Jibba]

^I understand the point you are trying to make, but I still wish for the survival of that last little chunk of history there. Sometimes a building's value is determined from other factors than land utilization. That stretch of State has been abused pretty badly, and the section of old building stock in question is a pleasing remnant of the past that should remain to provide a historical point of reference for the urban experience of its vicinity. It's a part of Chicago that is all too frequently forgotten and then thoughtlessly squandered.

[Nowhereman1280]

Yes State does not have much left in the area, but if you go over just a block or two to Dearborn, Clark, and LaSalle, or north one block to Chestnut, you find dozens of buildings as nice as or nicer than these ones. Its areas like that which I would rather see preserved. Having tree filled, less dense districts surrounding dense nodes at transit stops is ideal in my mind.

[Jibba]

^Again, I am finding it hard to disagree with you too much from a practical standpoint, but part of me is still clinging to the romanticized view of State Street as "that great street". In stating this I am admitting that my motives for wanting to preserve the buildings are emotionally-charged, and accordingly they could be considered selfish to those advocating a more efficient use of that block for the greater good (or at least they would likely try to front their true intentions with such a notion [developers mostly, not those such as yourself with genuine intentions]). However, with the perceived clip at which Chicago is losing the material identity of its most robust and thriving years through the piece-by-piece destruction of plots like the one in question, I think that whatever is left of buildings solid enough to be worth saving are, well, worth saving.

[wrabbit]

^ That is good news, but I still take issue with people claiming that Art Deco is rare in Chicago. Really, we have more of it than any other city I've been to, if one includes storefront architecture.

Nevertheless, good news there.... I'm curious to see exactly how complete their survey turns out to be, as most of these efforts seem to stop far short of true thoroughness, which actually hurts their own cause. Landmarks Illinois did a similar survey of North Shore Modernism which is a good effort, but woefully inadequate. And the City's own Historic Resources survey is also amazingly lacking.

Yes - an inadequate survey would empower the potential developer of an unlisted Deco artifact to raze through its omission - not listed = not important = okay to raze.

.....You can find Art Deco facades literally all over the city, on most of the commercial arteries. Neighborhoods that had a lot of development in the 1920s, naturally, would be the best location. Off the top of my head, Lawrence heading west, 63rd Street on the Southwest Side, Archer Ave heading SW, parts of Milwaukee... I've never kept strict tabs on this in particular, so I've probably missed a number of the big ones in this random, midnight list.

Many factories, schools, banks, etc were also done in the style. For small-scale housing, I suggest the Beverly area or the far NW Side. Houses are harder to find, and also there was some bleed-over into the Modern period with some architects who were unwilling to consider International Style modernism (or its variants) for housing, so some of these actually date as late as the 1950s. This too would be up for debate as to whether or not they belong in an official survey of "true" Art Deco.....

Good to know - thank you. Funny on the timing of Kamin's article, because I'd just started to seek out Chicago buildings in these styles. I think you are right, Honte, that if one includes storefronts (and especially some of the terra cotta confections), then Chicago has quite an assortment. Almost all are crying out for a survey, and some attention, protection & love.

Edgewater also has some great stock. I was up on Bryn Mawr yesterday to ogle the Belle Shores, which has some vibrant Egyptian Revival polychrome platered on the facade. Zany.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/belleshores2.jpg

.....Concerning Detroit, I think their Art Deco stock is phenomenal and particularly beats Chicago's when it comes to polychromy in their highrises. However, I would be surprised if the "pound for pound" thing really holds up. We have many classic Art Deco skyscrapers here, not the least of which are the Palmolive, Field, CBOT, Motor Club, etc.

The Guardian Building in Detroit is about the best polychrome Art Deco skyscraper on the planet.

Chicago's towers (as opposed to the storefronts) are more polite - is it the Indiana limestone?

[honte]

The Guardian Building in Detroit is about the best polychrome Art Deco skyscraper on the planet.

Chicago's towers (as opposed to the storefronts) are more polite - is it the Indiana limestone?

Yes, I think the limestone has a lot to do with it. It was generally considered a superior material (for obvious reasons) and I suppose at the time the designers were sacrificing flash for quality. I don't know this for a fact though.

There are some colorful Deco skyscapers here though, such as Trustee Systems Service in brick, Cabide and Carbon in terracotta, that one up on Bryn Mawr you shot, etc.

Also, I thought last night that I should have mentioned the awesome collection of Deco Post Offices that are scattered around the city.

[honte]

Well its not even like they are remaking anything if they are only tearing down those corner buildings. I mean that parcel of land that they own is 75% parking lot, so they are essentially remaking the area from parkinglot hell to highrises.

And I know I'll get flamed for this, but I don't see anything all that special about those buildings. I would much rather have a 30 story mixed use high rise on top of one of the biggest stops on the Red line than a short row of 3 story corner buildings. Elsewhere in the city, I can see their merit, but it seems to be like a huge underutilization of that space. Imagine that corner with retail and an entrance to classrooms, dorms, and condos on top. Think of how much foot traffic it would generate. Think of all the hundreds of students being sold on mass transit and urban living. Is it really worth giving that up in the name of "preserving the character" of one or two corner buildings?

For example, if the building were at the northeast corner of state and pearson, I would be completely against tearing it down.


I don't see why your vision for this area, which is fine, and the existing building(s) are contradictory. Does an entrance absolutely have to be at a corner? Of course not. Does the nice vintage building have something to say to students that prevents them from being sold on mass transit and urban living? I think your approach is too cut-and-dry.

Yes, there are other buildings like this in the city, but this is the base fabric of Chicago's vintage neighborhoods. And these buildings on State are probably the largest group of Commercial Queen Annes in the downtown area. This building type generally is not the same type of building found in other areas nearby that you identify, although some are scattered around.

Frankly, I think a 30 story building on a giant lot is an underutilization of the space - as well as the surrounding air and light at that intersection. As always, I'd rather see a thin 60 story building alongside a preserved historic one - and a solution like this would be perfectly feasible on this site.

I suspect that the desire to tear down the corner building has more to do with some boneheaded "branding" opportunity than any practical issue with a future development.

[spyguy]

I would much rather have a 30 story mixed use high rise on top of one of the biggest stops on the Red line than a short row of 3 story corner buildings.

One 30 story tower seems awfully small for such a large site. If this isn't a very tall building or there aren't multiple towers on this site, I don't see why the corner building has to go (see honte's post above).

[emathias]

I have to say I'm a bit surprised by the level of demolition activity continuing despite the credit and housing crisis. These two on Orleans near the Brown Line track were recently removed:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1536+n.+orleans,+chicago+il&sll=41.91039,-87.637542&sspn=0.006771,0.008057&g=orleans+and+schiller,+chicago+il&ie=UTF8&ll=41.910485,-87.637564&spn=0.006771,0.008057&t=h&z=17&iwloc=addr&layer=c&cbll=41.910471,-87.637545&panoid=HlZigpQZm-QC6wqEGeBvzA&cbp=12,100.11336890053411,,0,4.771360967903418

On Sunday I noticed something got torn down there, but I didn't know what it had been - thanks for the link. Those are cute little buildings. I hope they were torn down for a good reason and not "just because"

[VivaLFuego]

On Sunday I noticed something got torn down there, but I didn't know what it had been - thanks for the link. Those are cute little buildings. I hope they were torn down for a good reason and not "just because"

There were permits posted for an 8 unit residential building (which, offhand, is consistent with the R5 zoning in the area), but it doesn't appear that construction has started. No renderings of course, but I imagine if built that it will look like most other new construction in R5 zones such as comparable buildings nearby on Hudson and Cleveland.

[the urban politician]

O'Hare hotel market a 3-for-all (http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/1388841,CST-FIN-roeder21.article)
REAL ESTATE | Father-son team gets OK for 1,000-room complex

Recommend (1) Comments
January 21, 2009
DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com
The hotel market has followed the rest of the economy into the dumps, but that hasn't dissuaded a father-son team from plotting to build nearly 1,000 new rooms for the O'Hare Airport market.
Ravinder and Anshoo Sethi own the Chicago O'Hare Garden Hotel at 8201 W. Higgins. It sits lazily on nearly three acres off the Kennedy Expy. So the Sethis have gotten the approval of the Chicago Plan Commission to tear down the building and replace it with a three-hotel complex.

City officials said the Sethis have a tentative deal with Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc. to operate two of the hotels. The brands would be Element, an all-suites offering, and Four Points by Sheraton. The third hotel, city officials said, would be operated by Boutique Hotels and Resorts International. The tallest building would be 19 stories.

The Sethis could not be reached, but they are clearly banking on the travel market becoming more robust starting in about 2011, when their first new property could open.

MORE FOR RENTERS: BJB Partners LLC, a major property owner in Lincoln Park and Lake View, has asked the city for permission to expand a building at 554 W. Diversey, the northeast corner of Diversey and Broadway. That's where a one-story retail structure is in front of a 20-story apartment building.

BJB wants to replace the low-rise with an eight-story building with 57 apartments. Sean Barry, partner at BJB, said the new configuration would allow an expansion of an existing Walgreens while also adding to a parking garage. Plans call for the spaces to increase to 315 from 191.

Barry said BJB can get bank financing for the roughly $13 million project because of the strength of the area's apartment market. Construction could start in the spring of 2010 to accommodate the Walgreens lease, he said.

Not moving as quickly is a plan for a 40-story apartment building at the northeast corner of Michigan and Randolph. Barry said the project is on hold until the market for its large units looks better. In the meantime, BJB wants to expand retail space connected to the Doral Plaza, 151 N. Michigan, by 20,000 square feet.

[Nowhereman1280]

One 30 story tower seems awfully small for such a large site. If this isn't a very tall building or there aren't multiple towers on this site, I don't see why the corner building has to go (see honte's post above).

When I said 30 story building, I made a conservative estimate of the size of the building that they would probably put right on the corner, there would probably be 1 or 2 other towers linked by low or midrise buildings with some sort of open space like a plaza or small quad in the middle or somewhere else in the plan, maybe near the end of the stub that Pearson makes there. Loyola has plans to turn that segment of Pearson and the one between State and Wabash into a pedestrian mall anyhow. It would be a nice terminus for that.

I don't see why your vision for this area, which is fine, and the existing building(s) are contradictory. Does an entrance absolutely have to be at a corner? Of course not. Does the nice vintage building have something to say to students that prevents them from being sold on mass transit and urban living? I think your approach is too cut-and-dry.

Frankly, I think a 30 story building on a giant lot is an underutilization of the space - as well as the surrounding air and light at that intersection. As always, I'd rather see a thin 60 story building alongside a preserved historic one - and a solution like this would be perfectly feasible on this site.

I suspect that the desire to tear down the corner building has more to do with some boneheaded "branding" opportunity than any practical issue with a future development.

^^^ It has a lot less to do with "branding" and a lot more to do with the fact that leaving the building there and putting an akward dent in an othewise square lot would add a ton of costs that really aren't necessary in the eyes of the university. Also, what if they want to put a tower on each corner of the lot (one at Chicago/State, Pearson/State, and one on Chicago next to the YMCA) and have a quad or plaza in the middle surrounded by Midrise classroom and campus buildings? Preserving that building would make that much more expensive.

Yes, if Loyola had balls they could do something sweet like cantalever a sweet 60 story glass crystal over that building and make themselves look awesome, but unfortunately Loyola is very tame in their tastes. I've been trying to convince them that building a radical iconic building would be well worth the money because of the attention it would give them. I also told them to look at University of Chicago and Northwestern and other high caliber Universities the ranks of which LUC strives to someday join and see the groundbreaking and radical designs that grace their campus'. I argue that getting a renowned building would be a great way of saying "we've arrived" as a university, but I just don't think they are ready to spend money on that kind of thing yet.

[spyguy]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/01/the-official-name-is-the-robert-f-carr-memorial-chapel-of-st-saviorbut-architecture-buffs-know-it-as-the-god-boxthe-build.html#comments

Restoring the "God Box": Harboe discusses the project today at CAF
Blair Kamin

The official name is the Robert F. Carr Memorial Chapel of St. Savior, but architecture buffs know it as the "God Box." The building in question is at 3201 S. State St. at the Illinois Institute of Technology. It's Mies van der Rohe's only building designed specifically for religious services. And it has always been, well, very controversial. Postmodernists lambasted it for having all the spiritual presence of a factory.

On Wednesday, January 21, Gunny Harboe, principal at Harboe Architects, will speak about the chapel's planned restoration at the Chicago Architecture Foundation, 224 S. Michigan Ave. His 12:15 p.m. talk is free and open to the public.

[Nowhereman1280]

I just got word from a friend that works at the Sears Sky Deck that they are knocking out the windows on the west side of the deck and pushing them out 4 feet over Wacker Drive. The extension from the building will basically be a glass cube, even the floor will be glass.

These renovations are going to happen ASAP, as in NOW.

[pyropius]

MORE FOR RENTERS: BJB Partners LLC, a major property owner in Lincoln Park and Lake View, has asked the city for permission to expand a building at 554 W. Diversey, the northeast corner of Diversey and Broadway. That's where a one-story retail structure is in front of a 20-story apartment building.

BJB wants to replace the low-rise with an eight-story building with 57 apartments. Sean Barry, partner at BJB, said the new configuration would allow an expansion of an existing Walgreens while also adding to a parking garage. Plans call for the spaces to increase to 315 from 191.

If this is profitable now then maybe there's hope for the stripmall crapfest on Clark between Wellington and Halsted.

[spyguy]

^What the hell? How did such a major alteration go unnoticed until now? I wonder how it will affect the look of Sears from certain angles.

[Jibba]

^I was literally about to type exactly "What the hell?" to that as well. I presume they are trying to recreate a looking-down-from-above experience a la CN Tower. Interesting, but sounds compromising to the looks of the building.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I doubt it will seriously alter the looks of the building, its only one floor and only 4 feet out from the side. Remember, this is going to 1350' off the ground, its going to be very hard to see a glass enclosure from the ground.

[honte]

^ No, this sucks. Sorry, that's all I have patience for typing at the moment.

[VivaLFuego]

^^^ I doubt it will seriously alter the looks of the building, its only one floor and only 4 feet out from the side. Remember, this is going to 1350' off the ground, its going to be very hard to see a glass enclosure from the ground.

I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it. This doesn't sound good.

[the urban politician]

Image is in the article (I still don't know how to cut and paste images in an iMac)

1/21/2009 10:00:00 PM
Owners seek to draw renters to refurbished building (http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=6877&TM=33460.2)

By KATE GARDINER
Medill News Service

A former appliance warehouse built in 1924 has been declared the city's first landmark of 2009.

The owners of the Lindmann and Hoverson Company Showroom and Warehouse, located at 2620 W. Washington in East Garfield Park, applied to the Commission on Chicago Landmarks in August for the status, giving its approval in January.

Owner and developer Lawrence Kerner said he combined the city's historic landmark preservation ordinance and the U.S. Green Building standards to expedite permits needed to build-out the warehouse.

Kerner said his motivation, other than his concern for the environment, was to reduce costs of the building's construction. He said given the state of the economy, he was extremely concerned with the financing behind the project. The project almost didn't get started.

"We finally got funding approved in July," Kerner said. "We had financing arranged several times, but until JP Morgan Chase approved a loan for the full construction costs, we were wavering."

Kerner said he and his partner, Bold Ventures, intend to keep the 68-unit apartment building, and that the renovation shows that consideration. "We're putting quality into the building to save ourselves the money later," he said.

According to a preliminary report filed by the landmarks commission, the warehouse was constructed by Chicago architect Paul Gerhardt, Sr., who designed reinforced concrete buildings including Cook County Hospital.

The U.S. Green Building standards required the developers to invest in energy-efficient heating and air conditioning, as well as insulation and new windows.

Kerner said the hardest part of the renovation was bringing the requirements of the Landmarks Commission together with those environmental standards, "They just don't match up," he said. "It's really hard to coordinate."

"The units have great light because of the windows - they're seven by 15 feet, and on the corner units, the walls are all windows," said Kerner.

Such amenities could help draw artists and other creative professionals to the structure. "We expect to attract creative types from nearby," he said.

Kerner said he expects the apartments and a 3,800 square-foot retail space will be available for lease in April or May.

Rent for the one-bedroom loft apartments will be between $900 and $1,000 per month; the two-bedroom units will go for about $1,400.

[the urban politician]

^ Here's the image:

http://www.chicagojournal.com/SiteImages/Article/6877a.jpg

[wrabbit]

^ Great news.

I just got word from a friend that works at the Sears Sky Deck that they are knocking out the windows on the west side of the deck and pushing them out 4 feet over Wacker Drive. The extension from the building will basically be a glass cube, even the floor will be glass.

These renovations are going to happen ASAP, as in NOW.

The World Financial Center in Shanghai has a glass-floored observation deck - also, the Grand Canyon skywalk. This is a trendy option. They must want the refresh to keep their ticket sales up.

I wonder why the West face? Maybe this is the most vertiginous view down. Or did Sears think that the alteration would be less noticeable there?

[Nowhereman1280]

Great news about the landmarking! There's one example of economic incentives to landmark working out well!

In other news:
There is a construction fence up around that 1 story retail next to Loyola's 25 E. Pearson Building. This is where that short retail/classroom project is going to be built. Here is the rendering again if you don't remember:

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/8485/projectseducation41nbl4.jpg


I wonder why the West face? Maybe this is the most vertiginous view down. Or did Sears think that the alteration would be less noticeable there?

The West face of the Sears tower is the only face that is uninterrupted by setbacks. In other words, its the only side you can see straight down.

I understand Honte's concerns and feel like I've just been losing major preservation points around here lately, but I just don't see what is so bad about punching out one row of the original windows at the very top of the building. I suppose there is the slippery slope argument that "if you let them do that than something far worse is bound to happen later". Also, I don't view the Sears as a once in 1000 years masterpiece as I do the Hancock. If they tried this with the JHC I would flip shit. But I do, in principle agree that the Sears should be protected, I just think that this is such a minor modification that it shouldn't be a big deal. Interested to hear what Honte has to say.

[Mr Downtown]

The west side is also generally the least crowded with visitors. At peak times, it's hard to get to an eastern or northern window, but for some reason that's seldom a problem on the west wall.

[ardecila]

I was walking around in the South Loop a few weeks ago and I had an idea... what if the asphalt was stripped away to reveal the old cobbles, on Dearborn, Financial, and Plymouth between Congress and Polk (basically Printers' Row). You can still see these cobbles on a little stub of LaSalle Street across from Folio Square.

This would accomplish two goals: 1) it would add character to the neighborhood without resorting to the sorts of ugly fake-brick that one typically sees, and 2) it would slow traffic through the neighborhood, and who can disagree with that?

I can see a few potential problems... crosswalks would need to be paved with a better material for ADA compliance, and the cobbles would have to be grouted to avoid problems with snow-plowing.

This has been done successfully on St. Joseph Street here in New Orleans. It's a little anachronistic to see modern yellow lane dividers on an old cobbled street, but the result is beautiful. I understand it's also been done in NY (I've seen photos) and they have similar problems with snow, so clearly the problem can be dealt with.

Also, I don't know if there are streetcar tracks underneath the asphalt, but those would be cool to see as well if they in fact exist there.

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer


http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/8003/dsc0354fg1.jpg


http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/3719/dsc0402jm6.jpg


http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/7042/dsc0401ru0.jpg

[AdrianXSands]

god those are absolutely pathetic.

[Mr Downtown]

what if the asphalt was stripped away to reveal the old cobbles

I think a fair number have been removed over the years as the street was opened up for utility work. Though streetcar tracks remain under the asphalt on some Chicago streets, the ones in South Dearborn were torn out shortly after service ended.

Be sure you're not confusing brick pavers with cobblestones. Chicago has a few remaining brick streets (and Wilmette has a bunch). Bricks are tolerable, but cobblestones are pretty miserable for bicyclists and for folks living nearby (from the tire noise).

[HowardL]

Be sure you're not confusing brick pavers with cobblestones.What's the difference between the two? I sort of always, mistakenly, used the terms interchangeably.

[honte]

I was walking around in the South Loop a few weeks ago and I had an idea... what if the asphalt was stripped away to reveal the old cobbles, on Dearborn, Financial, and Plymouth between Congress and Polk (basically Printers' Row). You can still see these cobbles on a little stub of LaSalle Street across from Folio Square.

This would accomplish two goals: 1) it would add character to the neighborhood without resorting to the sorts of ugly fake-brick that one typically sees, and 2) it would slow traffic through the neighborhood, and who can disagree with that?

I can see a few potential problems... crosswalks would need to be paved with a better material for ADA compliance, and the cobbles would have to be grouted to avoid problems with snow-plowing.

This has been done successfully on St. Joseph Street here in New Orleans. It's a little anachronistic to see modern yellow lane dividers on an old cobbled street, but the result is beautiful. I understand it's also been done in NY (I've seen photos) and they have similar problems with snow, so clearly the problem can be dealt with.

Also, I don't know if there are streetcar tracks underneath the asphalt, but those would be cool to see as well if they in fact exist there.


I believe that Wilmette's experience with the brick pavers has been quite positive - they retain them and recycle them when work is done on their streets. This is time consuming, but apparently the pavers are actually quite expensive, so it's preferable. They were one of the very best bricks ever manufactured.

The city's policy, as Mr. D says, has been to rip these out. I see this happening quite often, to my dismay. The pavers are a natural deterrent to crazy driving (instead of the dangerous and annoying humps you find all over the city now), are aesthetic, and very durable.

I think the problem with them in the city is that the roads get torn up and worked on in such an incredibly frequent manner. I can't see a policy working that would allow them to exist on very many Chicago streets. Just look at how many patches there are in any street around Chicago.

I believe there might be a campaign going on now in Maywood to bring back the pavers in a major way. Keep your eyes peeled.

[honte]

The West face of the Sears tower is the only face that is uninterrupted by setbacks. In other words, its the only side you can see straight down.

I understand Honte's concerns and feel like I've just been losing major preservation points around here lately, but I just don't see what is so bad about punching out one row of the original windows at the very top of the building. I suppose there is the slippery slope argument that "if you let them do that than something far worse is bound to happen later". Also, I don't view the Sears as a once in 1000 years masterpiece as I do the Hancock. If they tried this with the JHC I would flip shit. But I do, in principle agree that the Sears should be protected, I just think that this is such a minor modification that it shouldn't be a big deal. Interested to hear what Honte has to say.

Well, my thoughts on this are many; thanks for caring about my viewpoint.

I would say that this proposed expansion is a distant cousin to the alteration of a storefront space for a specific retail use. Generally, if you look through the history of the city, few buildings have been improved by such alterations. There are definitely a few notable counterexamples to this, such as the killer Deco and Moderne storefronts that went up on some of the major commercial buildings. But even then, the building looks altered, tinkered with, just kind of a mess. Most alterations of this nature always end up being regrettable, and usually the building is never restored properly. Almost all restorations of parts of buildings like this end up being pretty pale in comparison to what was really there originally. Check out the new storefront windows on the Biograph theatre, restored to "landmark quality," etc.

Of course, Sears was altered at its base twice: Once by the original architects, another time by a team that had worked for SOM earlier. These alterations have been fairly successful, but they are in keeping with the original spirit of the building or were built as additions to the structure rather than all-out modifications.

Now, you will argue that Sears is not an old, ornate building, and that this is not a storefront. This is true, but there is no way to tell what will be easy to achieve in the future, so there is no way to tell what this alteration's long-range impact will be.

We don't interface with Sears directly at that level on the exterior, but it is a critical visual moment that, of course, is experienced far more often than the usual building's cornice line. In fact, most people probably care more what Sears looks like and how it performs at the top than at the bottom.

Your slippery slope theory is also exactly correct, so I won't address that. Look at poor Marina City, which sadly has been unable to stop the bleeding despite the pleas of the neighbors and many residents.

A major part of the Sears Tower experience is looking up the facade and seeing it, uninterrupted, nearly disappear into the perspective. It's a sublime experience, something you can't replicate on the newer breed of supertalls that have all these setbacks and wild designs. Some people would go so far as to say that this is in fact the defining moment of the Sears Tower. It's abstract art on a level rarely matched.

One day, people will look at Chicago and realize (now that the WTC is no longer) that we are the only city on the planet with real supertalls in the International Style. This will be significant.

When this outcropping is built atop the Sears Tower, it's going to mar the unique street-level vantage, among others. It will terminate the now-endless tower and will shatter one of its special qualities. You might think it is a small alteration that could just slip past the average viewer, but I'd remind you what a profound change the spire atop Trump has made. I think you'll be thinking "WTF?" for miles around.

So, no, I don't think this is a good idea at all. I'm pretty afraid of what will happen to Sears and Aon in the future. Both of them are slipping, amazingly, into a kind of obsolescence. It reminds me of what happened to many of the great Victorian Mansions: From grand private palaces, to boarding houses and flophouses, to abandoned relics no one could afford to heat, to vacant lots and 4+1s.

[Abner]

Oak Park has also started repaving a few streets in brick (generally new brick, although I think at least one downtown street might have been paved in old brick). On suitable streets, when it's time to resurface, they let the residents decide whether they want to pay extra to pave it in brick. It's much more resilient than asphalt--I've heard the bricks can lie there for many decades, then get flipped over and reused--and it slows down traffic, but it's definitely no fun to bike on. It sure looks nice though:

http://www.wjinc.com/SiteImages/PGallery/785.jpg

In my opinion brick is more practical than cobblestones, which are terrifying to walk on when wet. Cobblestones are the ultimate in character though.

[Jibba]

I don't really know how much interest there was with this issue, but I have some more information about the proposed garage in Wicker Park/Bucktown that, if built, would be adjacent/adjoining to the Hollander warehouse building to the NW of the Northwest Tower. The information published in the Chicago Journal article about the proposal didn't make very clear exactly how the proposed garage would be built within/around/adjacent-to the Hollander building, and a variety of quotes from various members of the community led me to believe that it would be a facadectomy, similar to the approach that they are taking with the Farewell Building on Michigan Avenue. I spoke with the president of the Bucktown Community Organization, Philip Edison, and I was able to gather a little more information about the proposal (see pictures I posted on a previous page for accompanying images to the properties mentioned):


the BCO gave very firm recommendations to MCM Development about keeping the Hollander building intact
because the Hollander has many interior columns that must stay in place for the structure to remain sound, no ramps would be constructed inside of the Hollander building, and hence no automobiles would be parked inside of it
the majority of the parking structure would be built to the NW of the Hollander, replacing a single-story brick garage and occupying a surface lot to the NW of the Hollander property
the proposal includes plans for a restaurant to occupy the ground level of the Hollander building
Philip emphasized that the plan does not propose a facadectomy or complete demolition of the Hollander building
the parking structure that would be built adjacent to and would adjoin the Hollander building was originally designed to mimic very closely the design of the Hollander building as far as the aesthetic goes (and the scale, I am assuming, since it would be about the same number of stories), but the BCO urged Karbowski to redesign this aspect of the design
the proposal also included plans to significantly alter the windows of the Hollander, but the BCO also firmly rejected these alterations
the project is still in a preliminary stage, but there will be a public meeting available for anyone to attend at the Bucktown library on Milwaukee Avenue on the third Tuesday of February


I know this isn't the biggest project, and I certainly have a heightened interest in it since I live about two blocks from the property in question, but I thought some of you might want to know this additional information and/or attend the meeting in February. Considering that the Milwaukee Avenue corridor has some of the best intact building stock in the entire city and that Manny Flores is drafting plans for transit-friendly zoning for the portion of Milwaukee Avenue running through his ward, Bucktown/Wicker Park/Logan Square really has a chance to blossom as a ped-friendly/transit-embracing community. However, Karbowski's previous developments as well as this current plan for a parking garage really threaten to counter that momentum with crappy, self-serving projects. Philip definitely agreed with me that Karbowski's "contributions" to the area have been anything but beneficial, and he assured me that the BCO is remaining very wary of any plan Karbowski cooks up, and they are scrutinizing his every move with watchful eyes.

[Jibba]

A major part of the Sears Tower experience is looking up the facade and seeing it, uninterrupted, nearly disappear into the perspective. It's a sublime experience, something you can't replicate on the newer breed of supertalls that have all these setbacks and wild designs. Some people would go so far as to say that this is in fact the defining moment of the Sears Tower. It's abstract art on a level rarely matched.

One day, people will look at Chicago and realize (now that the WTC is no longer) that we are the only city on the planet with real supertalls in the International Style. This will be significant.

Many excellent points made, honte, but I excerpted this set of thoughts because these are the points that are the most resonant with my own opinions on the matter. You articulated what, in my head, was a jumbled soup of passionate (mostly angry) thoughts.

[ardecila]

That's why I suggested a cobblestone restoration only in Printers' Row. South of Congress, these streets carry only very local traffic, since they dead-end into Dearborn Park I. Clark and State carry most of the through traffic, and they would remain untouched.

I'll find some pictures of St. Joseph Street down here so y'all can see how it works. I'm pretty sure these are indeed granite cobbles/Belgian blocks (here they are referred to as "ballast blocks" since they were used as ballast for empty ships returning from Europe).

This image from DUMBO in Brooklyn shows exactly the kind of thing I'm hoping still exists below the asphalt of Dearborn.
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/1835/flickrshawpatrick800sg8.jpg

[wrabbit]

Perhaps the city is worried about snow removal on the uneven surface of the cobblestones? I don't know - I'm just speculating.

[BWChicago]

On the Sears:

I'd like to see some plans of how they're doing this. If it's just a tacked on box outcropping, I think it's probably a bad idea, but if you angled the wall so it was like - leaning on a gentle taper out from the facade, it might not be noticeable.

[Mr Downtown]

I think the problem with [pavers] in the city is that the roads get torn up and worked on in such an incredibly frequent manner.

If the crew knows how to do it, pavers actually make subsurface access easier. You just pull the pavers, dig down and do the repair, then pour in some sand and reset the pavers. This is how nearly all sidewalk and many street repairs are done in Europe. But that's a pretty big if :haha: , requiring a patient, well-trained worker to reset the pavers at the proper level.

But pavers are expensive, unpleasant for cyclists and noisy for those living nearby. Cobblestones or Belgian block was used in the 19th century to give draft horses better traction. They are downright dangerous to elderly pedestrians, the disabled, or women in heels. And snow removal is a huge problem.

[emathias]

If the crew knows how to do it, pavers actually make subsurface access easier. You just pull the pavers, dig down and do the repair, then pour in some sand and reset the pavers. This is how nearly all sidewalk and many street repairs are done in Europe. But that's a pretty big if :haha: , requiring a patient, well-trained worker to reset the pavers at the proper level.

But pavers are expensive, unpleasant for cyclists and noisy for those living nearby. Cobblestones or Belgian block was used in the 19th century to give draft horses better traction. They are downright dangerous to elderly pedestrians, the disabled, or women in heels. And snow removal is a huge problem.

This is interesting because I'd thought that returning most of River North to brick and/or pavers would be desirable. Yes, they cost more initially, but I don't think the long-term cost is much different than asphalt, because they can last many decades with proper maintenance. In some parts of River North, the asphalt could just be taken off (there are machines made that do this) and the underlying brick could just be refitted and they'd be good to go.

When I was in Madrid, in one neighborhood they were doing some major plumbing repairs in the street. Every night they tore up the surface, worked on the system, and then relaid the stonework. During they day, you couldn't even tell there was work being done at the site. Obviously not every kind of subsurface repair could be done that way, but it would still be nice to be able to do that for the repairs where it was possible.

I would think pavers are also more energy-efficient, since the best ones don't use petroleum products and don't require a heat source to be installed. Wouldn't that be a nice green spin for Daley?

Pavers aren't really that much noisier on the sorts of lower-speed roads that they're best suited for. In fact, well-laid brick may even be quieter than asphalt. As for snow removal, they remove snow in Europe, so there must be solutions. I know that for brick streets, just using a rubber blade instead of a steel one is often the only change that needs to be made. One thing I'm not certain about is the interaction of salt with various types of pavers.

I think you overstate the problem of bikes on pavers - if that were really a problem, why would Europe have both a stronger paver culture and a stronger bike culture than the U.S.? And properly laid, I don't think they're any more hazardous to the elderly than any other road. Have you seen some of Chicago's "paved" streets? I can't imagine even poorly-laid pavers would be any worse to walk on than some fo the many run-down streets here. And women in heels? Come on - women Europe wear heels, too, and again, I think you overstate the problem. And even if you don't - seriously, we have to base infrastructure decisions on a type of sexist footwear?

Here's some nice paver-laid streets in Bergen, Norway, which gets a lot of snow:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3023/3009639316_883c6564ac.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3278/3009641590_bc4a5130d0.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/3008796267_329e630328.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3245/3009642362_794958e7d9.jpg

You can also see many, many photos of people happily biking on pavers/cobblestone/brick roads if you search on Flickr.

[Via Chicago]

This Sears Tower thing worries me from an aesthetic standpoint. I can't believe this hasnt been officially reported by Blair Kamin or elsewhere.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I don't know why it hasn't been reported, but according to my friend at the SkyDeck they are ready to start it NOW. Maybe they are worried that some people like us might freak out and get in the way.


I'd like to see some plans of how they're doing this. If it's just a tacked on box outcropping, I think it's probably a bad idea, but if you angled the wall so it was like - leaning on a gentle taper out from the facade, it might not be noticeable.

Nope, no gentle taper, its one floor and one floor only and being designed as a rectangular box that pokes out and allows a vertical view down.

Well, my thoughts on this are many; thanks for caring about my viewpoint.

When this outcropping is built atop the Sears Tower, it's going to mar the unique street-level vantage, among others. It will terminate the now-endless tower and will shatter one of its special qualities. You might think it is a small alteration that could just slip past the average viewer, but I'd remind you what a profound change the spire atop Trump has made. I think you'll be thinking "WTF?" for miles around.


I enjoy your opinions honte, so of course I care what you have to say. I hadn't thought of the view up the side issue before, but I doubt that this will be noticeable from a mile. Also, if this really is a glass box with no frame at all, it should disappear at most times when its not packed with people. Also, it does give us a view down the side in exchange for a view up the side.

I dunno, I guess it depends on exactly what their plans are. I'm still itching to get on the roof of Sears, my friend says he can let me up on the 90th floor roof, maybe the 108th floor roof if he can get one of the security guards to let us up there.

[Mr Downtown]

I would think pavers are also more energy-efficient, since the best ones don't use petroleum products and don't require a heat source to be installed.

Don't forget the embedded energy to make brick pavers. Cutting Belgian Block is probably pretty energy efficient, though.

I think you overstate the problem of bikes on pavers - if that were really a problem, why would Europe have both a stronger paver culture and a stronger bike culture than the U.S.?

Poverty. For many years after the war, an auto was out of reach for many Europeans. But they've been catching up fast.

I simply speak from personal experience as a cyclist (not a biker). Whether actual cobbles in Berlin or brick in Wilmette, I quickly look for an alternate route.

[photolitherland]

WTf are they doing to the sears? Holy Crap, someone needs to stop that from happening!!! It would be a freakin cool view though.

As for the pavers, its hell for road bikes. I was a bike messenger in downtown houston for a little bit and there was one road in Houston that had pavers on it that I always avoided because they can be pretty dangerous. Your tire can get stuck or slip into on of those edges and then bam! youre face hits pavers.

[honte]

I don't really know how much interest there was with this issue, but I have some more information about the proposed garage in Wicker Park/Bucktown that, if built, would be adjacent/adjoining to the Hollander warehouse building....

Yes, I am extremely interested. Thanks for all of your reporting on this issue. Please keep us informed as to the other events happening in your 'hood too if you have time. For instance, what's the deal with the dual facade removals on either side of Milwaukee near Leavitt?

_______

In other WP / Bucktown / West Town / Noble Sqaure news, my understanding is that a group of around 20 community activists showed up at Alderman Burnett's office recently to urge that he move to Landmark and preserve the shuttered St. Boniface Church, which is now threatened by the Archdiocese’s application for a demo permit. As momentum to save the church (once and for all) is growing, I urge everyone to contact Burnett and explain the importance of this building, its importance to the neighborhood, environmental benefits of adaptive reuse, etc - whatever strikes you about the situation if you feel strongly about it.

I believe there is still significant hope that the building might be retained and put to better use than a vacant lot or new, cheaply-built condos.

[Abner]

We should keep straight three completely different things: new brick streets, antique brick streets, and cobblestones. There is also the issue of concrete vs. clay brick. Brick can be an annoyance to bike on--and it can be fine if it's set well--but cobblestone is murder. And brick maintains more traction when wet (concrete more than clay) than cobblestone. The relatively even and constant bumpiness of brick is almost definitely a lot better than the hell that is biking on an asphalt street full of potholes or nearing the end of its life. (Keep in mind the really unpleasant brick streets are often a hundred years old--not really a fair comparison to fresh asphalt.)

It's true that properly trained workers can remove brick or stone very easily, and when they fill the hole back up it will be more "seamless" than asphalt. An extreme example is Prague, where the central part of the city has sidewalks made of very small stones. They just lift it out, pile it up, do the work, and then put it back in. But I would agree that we might not be able to expect the same level of careful work. On the other hand, road work is also much less frequent for brick or stone streets.

I'd be interested to see a comparison, but I'd bet that the embedded energy of brick pavers generates considerably less pollution than asphalt when the lifespan of the material is taken into account. Brick also cuts down on the urban heat island effect, reducing the work that has to be done by air conditioning, and emits fewer volatiles and particulate matter in situ.

[BWChicago]

Amid all the hubbub over the future of Wrigley with the sale - notably Kamin's article in Skyline - I'd just like to share this Chicago Daily News photograph I came across showing the detail of the ironwork grates it had after the 1923 renovations. This is the first detail photo I've seen of them. Leaps and bounds better than the chainlink, infill walls, and brutalist precast concrete panels that are there now. The old awnings, spanish tile, and doublehungs are nice too. Hope the new owner does right by Wrigley and changes it for the better.
http://chsmedia.org/media/dn/s6/0692/SDN-069232.jpg
http://www.productionninja.com/images/wrigley-facade.jpg

[lawfin]

Yeah wrigley ...really basically sucks

[honte]

^ BW, if you haven't done so already, could you forward that photo over to the Landmarks Commission (with the source and any other info that proves it is actually Wrigley Field)? They probably already have a good photo or drawings of the originals, but maybe not. Knowing what a good researcher you are, it seems that finding a good photograph like that isn't an easy task.

These things come in handy when renovations take place, as you know. They will put the photo in the Wrigley file and then use this to verify the feasibility of reconstruction and the compatibility of any changes with the original intent.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ That is from the Daily News online photo archive which I posted the link to in the Historic Chicago thread. I'd imagine that's where he found it and most of those photos come with a caption saying what is going on in them, so its probably pretty certain that it is of Wrigley.

[BWChicago]

^ BW, if you haven't done so already, could you forward that photo over to the Landmarks Commission (with the source and any other info that proves it is actually Wrigley Field)? They probably already have a good photo or drawings of the originals, but maybe not. Knowing what a good researcher you are, it seems that finding a good photograph like that isn't an easy task.

These things come in handy when renovations take place, as you know. They will put the photo in the Wrigley file and then use this to verify the feasibility of reconstruction and the compatibility of any changes with the original intent.

The photo comes from the Chicago Daily News collection at the CHS website, so they probably have it.