[honte]

^ No harm in being doubly sure. They have a huge workload and limited staff, so you never know what they've been able to uncover.

[Jibba]

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?

Philip (of the BCO) told me that he would contact me should any major events happen with the garage proposal prior to the public meeting about the project on the 17th of February.

As far as the facade removals of those buildings on opposite sides of Milwaukee near Leavitt, I know that at least one of them (the one on the east side of Milwaukee adjacent to the Aldi parking lot) is undergoing renovation to luxury lofts, and there is a (very minimal) website for that project that I can look up for you to check out. As for the building across the street, I am not entirely sure but I believe that it is undergoing a similar renovation (I took a peek behind the scaffolding one day and I'm sure I saw some framing installed for new windows). A building adjoining the one on the east side of Milwaukee was demolished completely some time ago (less than a year, though).

I am going to write to Alderman Burnett and voice my support for the preservation of St. Boniface, too, but I really don't have enough information about the structure to form a substantive argument advocating its landmarking. Is there a source that you know of off-hand that you could direct me to that would be a good source for some general info/history? I can certainly research around, but if you have a source that you know of without having to look around that would help. Otherwise, if you know enough good info off the top of your head and could possibly PM me a few bullet points that would work, too.

[honte]

^ You're in luck. In the process of fact-checking some things for you, I stumbled upon this site. I haven't read the whole thing, but what I've seen thus far looks pretty accurate and more thorough than anything I have time to put together.

http://www.saintbonifaceinfo.com/SaintBoniface/Home.html

The site links to Wikipedia's entry on architect Henry J. Schlacks, which is pretty weak. I would add to what you find there that he worked for Louis Sullivan, and was one of the foremost church designers in the Chicago area. Among his structures are the classic St. Gelasius in Woodlawn (now landmarked and happily reused after a very similar attempted demolition move by the Archdiocese), St. Anthony's in Bridgeport, the towering, twin-steepled St. Paul's in Heart of Chicago (greater Pilsen), the stunning St. Mary of the Lake in Uptown, and many others.

Here is a cool photo of the interior: http://seabringer.blogspot.com/2006/09/abandoned-st-boniface-church-chicago.html

I hope everyone has a chance to check out these links and drop a quick note to Ald. Burnett. Here is the e-mail address listed on his web site: wburnett@aldermanburnett.com

_____

If you're really interested, here is a link to the St. Gelasius group that is restoring that building (very meticulously, I might add). There is a lot of good info here. Their budget is pretty daunting, but the work they are doing is probably more lavish than what would go into St. Boniface (which I doubt is in good enough shape any longer to receive a total interior restoration, but I could be wrong).

It's also highly amusing to read their version of the history of the structure, which skips the demo permit application, the public outcry, and the massive advocacy that resulted in the City of Chicago landmarking the building against threats of lawsuits etc. Instead, the site gives credit to "Francis Cardinal George, who had always regretted closing the church, [and] was overjoyed at the possibility of preserving this historic gem." Like Saint Boniface, the building absolutely would not be standing today had there not been community advocacy, leaders who worked tirelessly to raise awareness, and action by the alderman to direct the City toward landmarking. In other words, writing Burnett now to present a strong showing of community support is critical.

http://www.historic-landmark.org/

[Jibba]

^Excellent. Thanks for the link. I will be able to get a letter out by Monday for sure.

[emathias]

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

I hadn't considered the heat necessary in brick manufacturing, but I would imagine that tallying up everything required to create and maintain an asphalt road vs a brick one would tilt increasingly in favor of brick over its lifespan.

[harryc]

301 N LaSalle
Green Roof ? ( Jan 23 )
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXuYIq69ZuI/AAAAAAABD6M/JlbMEzONwfs/s800/P1210750.JPG

421 N Clark - or thereabouts, parking garage foundation going in.
Jan 23
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXuiD1AYQ_I/AAAAAAABD_4/KoEd7TzmgFE/s800/P1210745.JPG

[harryc]

Chicago Riverwalk work.

Jan 22
NOT an Ice Breaker. They were doing repeated runs at the ice, backing up, getting a running start, then buting in another 20ft or so, backing up, repeat .....
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXxw05WBQmI/AAAAAAABECE/4nR2S0uCVxU/s800/P1210530.JPG

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXxw2awILoI/AAAAAAABECQ/S1rltEEQulI/s800/P1210535.JPG

Jan 23
Michigan Ave.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXxw4APhYjI/AAAAAAABECc/OwpL5ZghJ5g/s800/P1210637.JPG

Breaking and removing ice - a nice tool to have.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXxw52TFKvI/AAAAAAABECo/oAl3aujdTVY/s800/P1210643.JPG

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXxw72y2dOI/AAAAAAABEC0/mO17PFEl-f8/s800/P1210644.JPG

Footing being built on site (on barge)
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXxw9PKzUMI/AAAAAAABEDA/YWXp1Grl5mE/s800/P1210675.JPG

Serious pumps - it appears that they will pump out the space between the sheet piles and the old wall at some point.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXxw_DcjDFI/AAAAAAABEDM/JS1HVSV387Q/s800/P1210676.JPG

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXxxBIehClI/AAAAAAABEDY/GhqnSzlMpyc/s800/P1210674.JPG

Old piles for old wall
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXxxDfbZ41I/AAAAAAABEDk/OVk7KIUXAaM/s800/P1210673.JPG

Not so old piles (?)
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXxxFZZ2XDI/AAAAAAABEDw/wwsolEShh-8/s800/P1210680.JPG

River bank is on the left
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXxxHn47ypI/AAAAAAABED8/BRB0zAnzbI8/s800/P1210682.JPG

Michigan Ave bridge railing work.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXxxJFOde6I/AAAAAAABEEM/YqUj79OAL7Y/s800/P1210678.JPG

Wabash, looking under state.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXxxKkggIyI/AAAAAAABEEY/oH91QZlQ1Kg/s800/P1210772_0_1.jpg

Extending a drain pipe
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SXxxLhbjoyI/AAAAAAABEEk/vJKLgoqaQ_Y/s800/2009_01_23r.JPG

[MrLakepoint]

:previous: harryc, "Thanks" for the updates. You just saved me e-mailing CBOTNYSE to see if he had any shots of the bridge and walkway construction. Great shots.:worship:

[Jibba]

^Yes, great detailed shots of the Riverwalk, harry.

Here are some more shots of some stuff around my area:

honte, here are some photos of the aforementioned rehabs on Milwaukee near Leavitt that you were wondering about:

(Rehab on the north/east side of Milwaukee)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3076/3227460950_69501ae091.jpg?v=0http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3080/3227508352_bc472bc18b.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3095/3226651893_72616cba3f.jpg?v=0http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3081/3226596595_fd59281a60.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3335/3226598735_6cb3e9c0f4.jpg?v=0
(backhoe is occupying the site of the previously-mentioned demo'ed building)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3104/3226657065_87b70ef5b7.jpg?v=0http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3349/3227461628_1df6706904.jpg

(Rehab on south/west side of Milwaukee)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/3227454120_81eaaa9c62.jpg?v=0http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3387/3227459818_135e0577c2.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3336/3227457008_f7df1eac85.jpg?v=0http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3336/3226612377_0b49cc4364.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3086/3226614807_6c5624a0a5.jpg?v=0http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3478/3227463714_188e14e48e.jpg?v=0http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3347/3226649005_068b1e9b2e.jpg?v=0

(Project on Division)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/3226592143_5e21df30c0.jpg?v=0http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3379/3227443730_0c0f961ed3.jpg?v=0

(Vision on Division)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/3226562603_cd12c62e43.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3530/3226452021_bf58da7e63_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3452/3227305362_809b265840_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3461/3227304470_ebba08f8db_b.jpg

Sorry for the amount of shots, everyone; I tried to arrange the photos so as to not use up as much length on the page.

[harryc]

Too many photos is a good problem to have - thx for the depth.

[the urban politician]

^ Ya know, I kind of don't mind that "Vision on Division" project. It wouldn't hurt to also redevelop that Wendy's across the street into something a bit nicer

[honte]

honte, here are some photos of the aforementioned rehabs on Milwaukee near Leavitt that you were wondering about:


Thanks, but I think your description of the projects as "rehabs" is far too charitable. I'd prefer to call this neighborhood desecration. Total trash. It's not even possible to call this stuff architecture.

This one was a lovely warehouse with glazed brick.
http://198.173.15.21/AssessorPics/GeoSpan/14313220200000.jpg

The other (now that Purple PoMo People eater) was a rather plain Prairie-era warehouse but far better than that ill-proportioned, generic facade they've put up. When will people learn? I'll never understand what makes people want to rip off the facades of their buildings.

[Jibba]

^Yes, "rehab" was definitely far too charitable. I knew you weren't going to like what I had to post (I find it quite pathetic myself). That white, glazed brick was great, and from what I remember it was in pretty good shape from what I was able to see of it before they put the scaffolding up (which was walking by it 4-5 times a week).

Sadly, the cheap, purple-brick caricature is one of many such hack-jobs of renovated old building stock in the area (West Town has had quite a few that have been particularly awful).

[honte]

^ Rereading my post, I want to say that I was not trying to attack your position or phrasing. Sorry if my anger might have sounded to be directed at you.

Thank you very much for capturing the crime in progress.

Facade removal is a huge problem throughout the city and it's one way building owners are able to sneak around potential protection of buildings - by destroying any historic value prior to any potential review, which is only triggered by demolition (and in that case, only far too rarely as it is). The City has turned a blind eye to this epidemic and the destruction has reached truly amazing levels. Meanwhile, fly-by-night developers and building owners who cash-in at the expense of our neighborhood character are laughing themselves all the way to Scottsdale. :( We need to bring more attention to this issue - it's probably the biggest preservation problem in Chicago now.

[Jibba]

^Don't worry about it; I certainly knew your intentions with the way your words were phrased (reading text makes this difficult, but I know your methods of speech well enough now to know what you mean).

I certainly agree that it's quite a problem--I haven't looked further into the issue in particular, but all I need to do is walk around a few blocks and I will come across multiple examples of the destruction. These actions, along with the mega-mansion cancer that is out of control in gentrifying areas like Bucktown, threaten to erode the character of the neighborhood at an alarming rate.

[Abner]

It's sort of amazing that it hasn't really let up with the economy falling apart. There is no market for vastly overpriced new/"rehabbed" space, yet it keeps being built. What gives?

Honte, I think I know where you stand on this, but I wanted to ask: How much of the modernist residential development in Hyde Park should be protected? Should it become a historic district, and if so, should any of the modernist stuff be excluded to permit redevelopment?

Actually, more generally, in a neighborhood with historic architecture from multiple periods, are there overlapping historic districts or is it all in one district regardless of period?

[nomarandlee]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/01/the-glassy-airport-terminal-from-the-former-meigs-field-and-post-world-war-iihospital-buildings-likely-to-be-demolished-as-pa.html

Originally posted: January 26, 2009

Former Meigs Field terminal, Reese hospital buildings head new "Chicago 7" list of endangered historic places
The glassy airport terminal from the former Meigs Field and postwar hospital buildings that stand in the way of Chicago's plans for an Olympic Village head the list of an advocacy group's seven most threatened historic places in Chicago.

The list, released at noon Monday by Preservation Chicago, also singles out the 105-year-old St. Boniface Church, which the Archdiocese of Chicago wants to tear down; the vacant Art Deco Chicago Motor Club building at 68 E. Wacker Place; and the Bucktown home of the late historic preservationist and photographer Richard Nickel.

Rounding out the list are the Harper Theater in Hyde Park and an unusual choice--the old-fashioned wood window..........
..

[Mr Downtown]

in a neighborhood with historic architecture from multiple periods, are there overlapping historic districts or is it all in one district regardless of period?

All in one district, though you occasionally have a preexisting individual landmark (Dearborn Station) in a later-designated Landmark District (Printing House Row).

[cbotnyse]

Chicago Motor Club building is vacant?? thats surprising to me.

[VivaLFuego]

^ Ya know, I kind of don't mind that "Vision on Division" project. It wouldn't hurt to also redevelop that Wendy's across the street into something a bit nicer

In terms of density/use, Vision is good. I'm not thrilled with the massive curb cut and apparent surface parking in front of the retail, but I guess you win some and lose some. The finished product might be ok. The Wendy's and Pizza Hut across the street would ideally be a large-site mixed use development of decent size (let's say FAR 3.0), which the community group seems to be on board with. The trick there is waiting for the markets to improve. But I'd rather they sit underdeveloped waiting for something good down the road than get filled in with a crap 1-story Walgreens.

[BWChicago]

Chicago Motor Club building is vacant?? thats surprising to me.
It was 90% leased in 1996, then emptied for the condo project, then about 80% rented to dot coms in 2000 on a month-to-month basis. Otherwise it's been empty.

[honte]

Honte, I think I know where you stand on this, but I wanted to ask: How much of the modernist residential development in Hyde Park should be protected? Should it become a historic district, and if so, should any of the modernist stuff be excluded to permit redevelopment?

Actually, more generally, in a neighborhood with historic architecture from multiple periods, are there overlapping historic districts or is it all in one district regardless of period?

Hyde Park has one of the nation's greatest collections of Modernism. Absolutely it should be cherished and protected. There are very few developments there that I would like to see redeveloped, aside from the strip malls, etc. Actually, if you look at purely noncontributing buildings, Hyde Park has many suitable development sites. I don't think we're going to cross the line toward needing to sacrifice nice things for neighborhood growth any time soon (such as St. Steven's, VivaL. ;)).

I disagree with Mr. Downtown's reply to you, as you probably intended for it to pertain to the Modernist stuff and older stock in one district. Generally speaking, historic districts in Chicago do have buildings from multiple eras, but this is only possible when the district remains cohesive for another reason. This could have been a type of use, a particular developer, a certain type of construction, what have you. So, it's rather easy for buildings from multiple eras to get landmarked as a bundle. However, less understood and equally easy is for buildings to be thrown out of districts prior to the designation for the same reasons. The Modern bank on North Avenue and Clark was removed from its proposed designation after objections by the owners - and the cause was this very reason. Off the top of my head, there is only one landmark district in Chicago with protected buildings that date from before and after WWII, and if someone tried to pull a demo permit on one of those, it would be up for debate rather than simply rejected.

For instance, why was the Borg-Warner building left out of the Michigan Avenue district? It's the only Lescaze structure in Chicago (at least, that I know of). But with the district, the redevelopment pressure on that poor building is absolutely immense. I doubt it will survive the next cycle.

Back to your specific question, in general, Modernism is a terribly hard sell for landmarking in Chicago or Illinois. The reasons for this are involved and difficult to explain (I've actually done so to a certain extent in this thread before), but in general the reasons are simply that Modernism is less understood and suffers from a bad image. Some of the great stuff in Hyde Park is still less than 50 years of age as well, which, although entirely arbitrary, further hurts its chances.

If the stuff there manages to hang on for the next 20 years, I could see a city Landmark District happening. But sadly I don't see that happening any time sooner. If you could magically get tons of community support for this and then magically get both Aldermen to get behind the issue in a tremendous way, then you might be able to make something happen.

You know, Hyde Park proper has many highly viable landmark districts of older stock (Woodlawn area, Rosalie Villas, a significant grouping of pre-fire house, Madison Park, the old Quads, and on and on), but even those do not exist. It's amazing so much survives, to be frank.

[aic4ever]

Thanks, but I think your description of the projects as "rehabs" is far too charitable. I'd prefer to call this neighborhood desecration. Total trash. It's not even possible to call this stuff architecture.

This one was a lovely warehouse with glazed brick.
http://198.173.15.21/AssessorPics/GeoSpan/14313220200000.jpg

The other (now that Purple PoMo People eater) was a rather plain Prairie-era warehouse but far better than that ill-proportioned, generic facade they've put up. When will people learn? I'll never understand what makes people want to rip off the facades of their buildings.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Not much more to be said.

Unfortunately with the old facades, you tend to find that all the lintels are completely shot. You get in there and the only thing holding the wall together is the fact that it's still put together in one piece. To take the window out would collapse the rest of the wall. It gets to the point that to replace a window requires that you shore and rebuild almost the whole wall anyway.

Overall it becomes cheaper just to replace it all.

[honte]

^ I've run into plenty of bad lintels and have replaced them. It's not a big deal. There is not enough knowledge out there on how to restore / correct the problems we encounter, but there sure are a lot of people who'd like to take the easy (as in typical) way out. Then there are the salesmen who give crappy advice. This has been going on at least since the 1950s - all the asphalt siding, fake stone, etc that you see is mostly the lingering scars of an amazing marketing campaign.

It's pretty rare that I come across a building whose facade appears to be beyond repair. Even in such cases, if you are concerned, creative, and willing to do a little work, it's possible to take the facade down and rebuild it. Case in point is an 1880s building on 26th that recently was town down, but had the historic facade put right back up on new construction in the same spot. Most people who drive by there will never know anything happened.

Meanwhile, all of these narrow-minded owners and crude businessmen are forgetting that architecture and art have value. Unless they do a very interesting and high-quality facade like the one they are removing (which in my experience is about 1 in 100), they are losing money simply in the reduction of curb appeal, character, etc.

[a chicago bearcat]

Chicago is a difficult place to landmark more obscure pieces of modernism, because Chicago is so chock full of good and abhorrent modernism that the great is well known and not in any real danger in the eyes of chicagoans and to all the rest "they're just knock offs".

I definitely don't agree with this, but I also disagree with the idea of singling modernism out. The recent past is the more appropriate term to refer to post war buildings that tend to be passed over by this generation of the populace much like appreciation for any old building pre Richard Nickel.

Preservationists work for this generation of building as well, it is one of the more difficult sells, and one that is rarely acknowledged when it succeeds.

Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, Preservation Chicago, and the City's Landmarks Department all need our support and input in order to be successful though. So voice your opinion outside of these boards as well.

There's an echo out there, and it does more good.

[aic4ever]

^ I've run into plenty of bad lintels and have replaced them. It's not a big deal. There is not enough knowledge out there on how to restore / correct the problems we encounter, but there sure are a lot of people who'd like to take the easy (as in typical) way out. Then there are the salesmen who give crappy advice. This has been going on at least since the 1950s - all the asphalt siding, fake stone, etc that you see is mostly the lingering scars of an amazing marketing campaign.

It's pretty rare that I come across a building whose facade appears to be beyond repair. Even in such cases, if you are concerned, creative, and willing to do a little work, it's possible to take the facade down and rebuild it. Case in point is an 1880s building on 26th that recently was town down, but had the historic facade put right back up on new construction in the same spot. Most people who drive by there will never know anything happened.

Meanwhile, all of these narrow-minded owners and crude businessmen are forgetting that architecture and art have value. Unless they do a very interesting and high-quality facade like the one they are removing (which in my experience is about 1 in 100), they are losing money simply in the reduction of curb appeal, character, etc.

I can't really disagree with you there. I did a cost analysis on a facade a while back to address all the options for what they wanted to do there. The terra-cotta was in good shape but all the bars and J-hooks were completey disintegrated. Since Landmarks was requiring some re-use of that facade, I determined the best option was to take it down piece-by-piece and rebuild it.

This was compared to leaving it in place, shored similarly to the Baptist Church in Bronzeville, and also compared to knocking it down and rebuilding with new, similar materials.

Given the cost of new terra-cotta and the necessary custom order of brick, there was not much difference in the new construction and the reuse, and the shoring option made building the new hotel next to impossible in terms of access anyway. So the option chosen, at least last I knew, was to rebuild.

A lot of times, as you say, the businessmen are crude, and just freak out with how much work needs to be done, and either run away from it or take the "cheaper" way out.

[spyguy]

http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=6895&TM=84927.45

Saved by land swap?
Fearing imminent demolition, St. Boniface neighbors jam Ald. Burnett’s ward night

By MICAH MAIDENBERG

A land swap between the City of Chicago and the Archdiocese of Chicago might be the best chance for preservation of the St. Boniface campus, according to 27th Ward Ald. Walter Burnett.

That was the news Burnett, who represents the West Town area that includes the St. Boniface church and rectory structures, shared with more than 20 anxious neighborhood residents and preservationist activists who jammed Burnett's office last Thursday night in search of answers.

[spyguy]

http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=6943&TM=84927.45

Boutique hotel on Division Street?
By Jessica Levco and Micah Maidenberg

Details about the possibility of a new hotel opening in Wicker Park will be announced at the Feb. 3 East Village Association meeting.

On Jan. 12, the EVA board unanimously voted not to oppose a special-use zoning permit that the hotel would need to open, according to Scott Rappe, EVA planning director. Rappe described the project as a "boutique hotel."

The hotel is proposed for the building at 1659 W. Division by Third Coast Construction, according to details the company gave EVA. A representative from the company, Dan Sheehy, declined to comment on the proposal. The building falls within the 1st Ward.

[VivaLFuego]

Given the cost of new terra-cotta and the necessary custom order of brick, there was not much difference in the new construction and the reuse, and the shoring option made building the new hotel next to impossible in terms of access anyway. So the option chosen, at least last I knew, was to rebuild.


So to clarify, the Cedar facade is being demolished and being replaced with a facsimile? Or do you mean that the terra cotta is being saved and re-used, albeit after having been removed?

[Via Chicago]

This was a post left on Kamin's blog, re: the Chicago Motor Club building:

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/01/what-to-make-of-preservation-chicagos-chicago-seven-list-of-the-citys-most-endangered-places-.html#comments
I want to add a footnote on the Chicago Motor Club situation; I understand through conversation with the owner that he loves the building and understands its importance. It ain't goin' nowhere.

He was understandably disappointed that Preservation Chicago never contacted him to discuss the status of the project.

He has been looking for a viable partner to develop the property and is commissioning a masonry report on long standing issues.

The owner cooperates with the preservation community by allowing graduate students access to the building to study.

Yes. There has been a restructuring of his financing (these deals can be a web of cross-collateralization) but he is solid.

And he would definitely consider landmark status - at a time it could benefit the re-use plan for the site.

- Keith Bringe
Chicago Art Deco Survey Director

[honte]

^ Uh, this is the same guy who wanted to tear it down (and Weese's church) a few years back?

Not saying that Preservation Chicago shouldn't have contacted him, but with that track record, it seems the building deserves to be on the list anyway.

[Abner]

Hyde Park has one of the nation's greatest collections of Modernism. Absolutely it should be cherished and protected[...]

You know, Hyde Park proper has many highly viable landmark districts of older stock (Woodlawn area, Rosalie Villas, a significant grouping of pre-fire house, Madison Park, the old Quads, and on and on), but even those do not exist. It's amazing so much survives, to be frank.

Honte, thanks for the reply. My question about modernism was triggered by Harper Court, which looks like it will be one of the first major modernist developments in Hyde Park to bite the dust and seems to have nobody willing to say anything very kind about it. (The RFP is still out on it right now.) The University may roll the Harper Theater/Herald buildings into the Harper Court redevelopment, and I'm not at all convinced that any of them are actually so far gone that they require demolition. Neither is Preservation Chicago, which put Harper Theater on its new list of seven.

I've been somewhat concerned that the pro-development movement in Hyde Park, led/documented by the Hyde Park Progress blog, is wildly overcompensating for the neighborhood's past development phobia by almost dismissing the possibility of preserving anything in Hyde Park unless it rises to individual landmark quality. Unfortunately, I find it very hard to believe them or the University when they claim that so many buildings are "beyond repair" or "in imminent danger of collapse," as the University recently did regarding the Harper Theater/Herald buildings, which it's owned for years now--going so far as to say they might not survive the winter. I would have thought these buildings would get more sympathy than the modernist Harper Court. While most of Hyde Park's modernism seems safe for now, the bulldozer-happy approach doesn't seem to set a very good precedent.

One potentially positive development is that the University has bought the now-closed Hollywood Video on 53rd and Lake Park, a thoroughly unpleasant building that should have been a redevelopment target long before Harper Court. I just wish the emphasis could be on lots like that one and the vacant ones on Cornell and the McMobil site.

p.s. happy Pat Quinn day, everybody.

[Nowhereman1280]

^ Uh, this is the same guy who wanted to tear it down (and Weese's church) a few years back?


I thought the motor club has changed hands since then. Didn't someone just buy it like a year or so ago?

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=32807

Hyde Park’s Rosenwald apartment complex on the market

Chicago-based brokerage firm Melvin M. Kaplan Realty Inc. has been hired to sell the Rosenwald, a historic two-building apartment complex with a total of 447 units at 4600 S. Michigan Ave. in Hyde Park, says George Kaplan, executive vice-president with the company. The buildings total 465,544 square feet, with 16,400 square feet of first-floor retail, and are owned by AMA Realty Group LLC, which bought the complex in 2003 for $8 million, according to public records. The complex was built in 1929 by Julius Rosenwald, president of Sears, Roebuck and Co., with the goal of providing quality, affordable housing for working-class families.

[Abner]

At first I thought they were trying to heroically expand the boundaries of Hyde Park, but the link has it changed to "Bronzeville" now.

[BWChicago]

I thought the motor club has changed hands since then. Didn't someone just buy it like a year or so ago?

It went into a foreclosure lawsuit (http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=31562), but a search (http://ccrd.info/CCRD/controller?commandflag=searchByProperty&optflag=SearchCommandForIL&name=&PROP_SEARCH_SELECTED=p&PIN_1=17&PIN_2=10&PIN_3=300&PIN_4=016&PIN_5=&SUBDIV_SHORT_NAME=&BLOCK_NUM=&LOT_NUM=&PART_OF_LOT=&DECL_OF_CONDO_NUM=&BUILDING_NO=&UNIT_NO=&NUM_ACRES=&THIRD_QTR_SECT=&SECOND_QTR_SECT=&FIRST_QTR_SECT=&PART_ONE_CODE=&PART_TWO_CODE=&ONE_HALF_CODE=&imageField=Search+%3E+%3E) of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds shows no transfers.

[Jaroslaw]

Hyde Park is littered with ugly modernist junk. I often used to get aesthetically mugged by the pile of blind-walls crap at the NE corner of Madison Park (the wonderful little neighborhood half a block N of 51st). It even has a plaque! :koko: And then there is that disaster on the S side of 55th between Kimbark and Woodlawn... Someone told me once--seemingly not maliciously--that those turds were built for blind low-income occupants. Which would explain the lack of windows.

The U of C has broken ground on the Regenstein library expansion. Alas.

http://mansueto.lib.uchicago.edu/photo.html

Haven't seen this before:

http://facilities.uchicago.edu/campusconstruction/cpcimages/hosppavilion-north-eleva.jpg

New Hospital Pavillon
57th Street from Drexel to Cottage Grove Avenues

Gross Square
Feet: 1,200,000 SF including 200,000 SF for future development
Floors Above Grade: 10 plus mechanical penthouse
Architect: Rafael Viñoly Architects & Cannon Design
Construction Start Date: 2009
Estimated Completion Date: 2012

Apparently it will span across Maryland. I think the brownstones were torn down a while ago, or am I thinking about the other side of 57th, opposite the IRB?

[harryc]

They are getting ready to pour at the State st. bridge - should make some good photo ops.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYMG3BouQaI/AAAAAAABEoI/MkNqQTQkYZQ/s800/P1220703.JPG

[VivaLFuego]

Thought some of you might be interested in the following report on downtown pedestrian counts:

Executive Summary: http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/PedFINALreportDec08_ExeSummary.pdf

Full Report: http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/PedFINALreportDec08.pdf

[alex1]

Architect: Rafael Viñoly Architects & Cannon Design


UC loves themselves Viñoly no? wish it was someone else, not that Viñoly isn't qualified or talented.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=32817

Developer plans hotel on failed condo site
By Eddie Baeb, Jan. 30, 2009

Developer David Wallach wants to bring a Gen X-oriented hotel to a West Loop site where he faces an overdue construction loan on a failed 100-unit condo project.

Mr. Wallach has an agreement with NYLO Hotels LLC to develop a 179-room hotel for the upstart Atlanta-based company. The NYLO (pronounced Ny-low) hotel would be in two buildings: a seven-story brick warehouse at 123 N. Sangamon St. that Mr. Wallach was converting into loft condos and a new building that would be just south at Sangamon and Washington Boulevard.
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/8483/nylorenderingmi2.gif
----

The previous condo plan partially saved the brick building on this site but this hotel rendering indicates that's not the case anymore.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=32834

Court strikes down city's landmarks law
By: Thomas A. Corfman Jan. 30, 2009

An Illinois appellate court has struck down the city of Chicago’s landmarks ordinance, saying it is unconstitutionally vague, putting in jeopardy the city’s protection of more than 250 buildings and 50 historic districts.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ :omg: How do you even respond to news like that? Wow.

[BWChicago]

^ :omg: How do you even respond to news like that? Wow.

Ooh, that's bad.
Vince Michael's reaction: http://vincemichael.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/appellate-nuttiness/

[Jibba]

Someone has undoubtedly brought about cases like this before, either with ordinances established by the Chicago Landmarks Commission or some such entity in another city, right? I would hope that there is a positive (in favor of preservation) precedent that can be leveraged here.

[the urban politician]

Honte's going to have a fit! ;)

Anyhow, if this means developers will finally have a chance to pressure the city of ward-dictators into reevaluating the system of neighborhood tyranny against development, then I'm all for that aspect of it. I'm vaguely hopeful that, at best, that case will bring this much larger (and incredibly annoying) issue into light.

But no, lets separate good preservation from the real abuses that are out there. The city must have the power to preserve the structures that are vital to its identity.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ If this were a challenge to a height restriction I'd probably agree with you. I imagine it's aimed at a structure deemed historic that the developer either wants to demolish or significantly alter. I really don't see any silver lining in the ruling and just hope the city takes the case to the state supreme court.

[wrabbit]

The landmarking process here is capricious, but, ironically, in ways that favor the developer.

-----

The city really needs to get its act together on this.

[Jibba]

It's just absolutely sickening that because one developer wants to destroy just one plot of land to make a one-time deal on one development they're willing to fuck it up for every other landmarked area of the city for the indefinite future. Unbelievable. These people clearly don't give a damn about the city, and they must be stopped.

[honte]

^ Al Hanna has been at this for years, perhaps decades. It's not his first lawsuit against the landmarks policies of Chicago; quite the opposite. He's a developer and, if my memory is correct, has some background in real estate law. He thinks he's crusading against some kind of evil in the name of a higher cause. He's twisted this in the past into some truly bizarre crap, centered around restrictive land use policies, racism, keeping people out of Lincoln Park, city population decreases, and all the rest of the random excuses you could come up with. Truth is, he's just one greedy SOB who enjoys being a pain in the ass.

Here's what really went down: When the city landmarked the Arlington-Demming district, Al Hanna's house just so happened to be in that area. Hanna, already a huge foe of landmarking, went apeshit. I thought it was pretty bold and respectable of the city to include his property, which is a legitimate part of the district, and not shy away from him just because he meant trouble. Well, now I think we all might be regretting that move.

I have no idea what the future holds now. It's obviously going to be a challenging few months at the landmarks commission. I wouldn't be surprised if their lawyers were writing a revised ordinance as we discuss this. It's been shown time and again that landmarking is legal and desirable in American cities. I don't know enough about these legal matters to comment fully, but I am fairly certain that the City could rework the Ordinance if it really needs to. They also can probably do some Chicago-style maneuvers where they revoke the ordinance by means of another measure that immediately enacts a revised one. I'm guessing this would require the whole thing to go back to court if the new ordinance were challenged, but what do I know?

So, I don't know if we should panic at the moment, but I can't describe how annoying this all is. If this city truly ends up without a landmarks ordinance, I think the writing's on the wall for Chicago architecture. The situation is bad enough as it is, even with the landmarks ordinance in effect.

[wrabbit]

Invaluable input as always, Honte. You are right to point out that the situation is bad even with the current ordinance; I'm thinking that a rework would be desirable even without Hanna's lawsuit. And perhaps a really good new survey is in order - one that takes advantage of current GPS, satellite and mapping technologies - a "shovel-ready" survey project for job-seeking Chicagoans.

[schwerve]

Disorder in the court: Wrong-headed ruling threatens Chicago's architectural treasures (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/01/the-headline-from-crains-chicago-business-is-a-screamer--court-strikes-down-citys-landmarks-law-the-headline-appears-t.html#more)

The headline from Crain’s Chicago Business was a screamer—"Court strikes down city’s landmarks law"—but it also appears to be an exaggeration.

In its ruling Friday, an Illinois appellate court did not strike down Chicago’s 41-year-old landmarks law, which protects more than 250 buildings and 50 historic districts, including architectural treasures by the likes of Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright.

Instead, the court found that the law’s criteria for choosing both landmarks and members of Chicago’s landmarks commission are vague, and that the commission has been given too much power in determining whether buildings should be protected from demolition or defacement. It sent the case back to a trial court, where the law could indeed be overturned. But the city of Chicago has other plans.

[harryc]

Need those I beams for something
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYTW1vWJSgI/AAAAAAABE2s/imIo3ZK9Jx0/s800/P1220700.JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYTW3HjcfrI/AAAAAAABE24/otjAFuPJQoU/s800/P1220711.JPG

Low tech moving ( a pair of pipes to roll it along )
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYTW4aQliQI/AAAAAAABE3E/yg-qejaCfHk/s800/P1220713.JPG

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYTXAzxw31I/AAAAAAABE4M/rylyaEkKIlo/s800/P1220854.JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYTZXk4GY6I/AAAAAAABE5E/959FVrBUGJI/s800/P1220794_2_3.jpg

Cold day on the river.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYTW559yFSI/AAAAAAABE3Q/mFhZT6tRntk/s800/P1220812.JPG


The guiding hand - just got it in place.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYTW7InmCPI/AAAAAAABE3c/W9NjFCa7SEo/s800/P1220817.JPG

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYTW83AUM4I/AAAAAAABE3o/AL78hPHQNqc/s800/P1220828_6_7.jpg


http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYTW-fohtFI/AAAAAAABE30/FudpXdQSKpo/s800/P1220838.JPG

Slippery when icy
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYTW_bfhH3I/AAAAAAABE4A/ygNlm0sVb68/s800/P1220847.JPG



An interesting form ( jan 29 )
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYTWymnQqsI/AAAAAAABE2U/Q1s0jAa1n98/s800/P1220504.JPG

Patterns ( Jan 29 )
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYTW0XXhOXI/AAAAAAABE2g/LWwSXG9wlEk/s800/P1220510.JPG

[photolitherland]

Is there a website where I can view the final version of the Chicago River improvement project?

[honte]

Disorder in the court: Wrong-headed ruling threatens Chicago's architectural treasures (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/01/the-headline-from-crains-chicago-business-is-a-screamer--court-strikes-down-citys-landmarks-law-the-headline-appears-t.html#more)

Thanks, schwerve. I was unaware of Kamin's post, but I think it brings a lot to the conversation. Glad to hear they are considering an appeal (no real surprise there, of course).

Wrabbit, you are correct. Our current landmarks policy is a bizarre patchwork of insufficient surveys, weird amendments, and convoluted political process. But to totally reengineer it would be a hugely complex measure - "The Survey" alone took 10 years to produce, or something like that, and it's still not nearly good enough. Unfortunately, whenever you open up contentious policies like this, there is someone evil lobbying against every good intention.

And let's face it, there will always be a certain degree of subjectivity in the landmarking process. How could there not? Transparency could certainly be improved. Aldermanic prerogative should probably take a back seat to authorities in the planning department, but at the same time, when Aldermen are doing their job, they play a critical role in conveying the neighborhood's message to City Hall. You begin to wonder if the situation hasn't already self-stabilized to something nearly as good as it could be. :shrug: I say that as someone who loses a lot of sleep due to these inadequacies, but I can't see a clear path to improvement, short of reworking the entire aldermanic system.

[Nowhereman1280]

I hope they stall this thing in the courts until the city writes a new legislation that says "All previously landmarked buildings are now forever landmarked" and then they re write the code and make it 10x more strict on idiots like the guy who lobbied against it...

[wrabbit]

Harry, those are some really good pics.

[Jibba]

^ Al Hanna has been at this for years, perhaps decades. It's not his first lawsuit against the landmarks policies of Chicago; quite the opposite...


I was assuming that the current case wasn't unprecedented; thanks for confirming that. Even more aggravating that the guy is so relentless.

[StatenIslander237]

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYTZXk4GY6I/AAAAAAABE5E/959FVrBUGJI/s800/P1220794_2_3.jpg


WOW, you know that is going to add so much more romance and whimsy to an area that is already so enchanting. I always loved being down by the river when I lived there, especially by the Vietnam Vets Memorial or near the fountain at the end of N McClurg Street. The views from both are amazing. I can't wait to come back after this is done, and enjoy it for myself.

Chicago is like the Paris of the United States.

[ChicagoChicago]

Bean sculpture vandalized

February 3, 2009 8:33 AM

Chicago police are investigating this morning after discovering that someone scratched a name into the Bean in Millennium Park.

The scrawl read "Peters," and was found on the northeast quarter of the sculpture on the outside facade, about 3 feet off the ground. It was about 6 inches long and 1 inch tall. A bit above it, the letters "PS" were scratched in as well.


The vandalism was discovered by a park security officer around 1:30 p.m. Monday at the downtown park, 201 E. Randolph St., according to police.

The sculpture is formally known as Cloud Gate. The 110-ton sculpture is made from a series of stainless steel plates, which had to be painstakingly polished.

Police were gathering more details this morning.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/02/cops-name-scratched-into-bean-sculpture.html


I recognize that this isn't a 'development' per se, but I figure it is going to need a rehab of some sort. Sad that people are this fucking stupid.

[Via Chicago]

This is why we cant have nice things.

[Jibba]

Thanks for attempting to immortalize your stupid-ass name, jackass.

[Nowhereman1280]

Its not really a big deal, They'll just get a buffer out and buff it out of the finish. That's the beauty of stainless steel, hard to scratch, easy to buff to finish...

[Patel]

Its not really a big deal, They'll just get a buffer out and buff it out of the finish. That's the beauty of stainless steel, hard to scratch, easy to buff to finish...

But I was thinking on my way home when I heard about it, like oak floors; how many times one can resurface and grind and buff it out before it affects the integrity of the structure.

I hope they factored that in.


Or are we talking about nanometer insults and that I have nothing to worry about for we can re-buff day in and day out for ever?

[Via Chicago]

Dont know where else to post this, so:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/02/fire-at-holy-name-cathedral.html
Fire at Holy Name Cathedral

Flames shot off the roof of Holy Name Cathedral this morning. More than two hours later, firefighters were still pouring water and smoke was still rising.

Jimmy Lago, chancellor of the archdiocese, called the damage "awful."

"It's a tragedy just to see it," he said. "...My heart goes out to the parishioners and those who worship here."


The five red, broad-brimmed cardinals' hats, or galeros, suspended from the ceiling, were soaked, Lago said. Each of those hats was raised to the ceiling on a cardinal's death.


Heavy water could be seen falling into the altar area of the church from the roof where the flames seemed to be concentrated. The cathedral's sprinkler system also activated.

The fire may have been related to some renovation. Lago noted that work was being done on pillars in the cathedral and on some deteriorating wood high in the rafters. He said a worker was present at the time the fire broke out, but didn't know if he was working in the area where the fire started. (Earlier, Lago said no workers were present.)...

I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts this was some careless worker with a blowtorch. The same way we lost Pilgrim Baptist. When are these people going got learn...(yes, im making assumptions, but I really dont see how else this would have happened, especially considering the flames were confined to the roof)

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Speaking of not knowing where to post things, here's a brief, narrated slideshow from BBC News today about the birth of the skyscraper. It focuses on Chicago and New York, and is a bit too simplistic if not inaccurate, but I thought you guys might enjoy it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7858777.stm

[harryc]

Feb 4 - noon
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SYnrVb7htiI/AAAAAAABFLc/BEA2XBBZgXY/s800/P1230942.JPG

[emathias]

...
I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts this was some careless worker with a blowtorch. The same way we lost Pilgrim Baptist. When are these people going got learn...(yes, im making assumptions, but I really dont see how else this would have happened, especially considering the flames were confined to the roof)

From Reilly's report on the incident:

... While the origin of the fire is being investigated by the Chicago Fire Department, the fire started in an area where new beams were being installed for structural improvements. ...

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Is Edward Lifson back in Chicago? I was just looking through his blog and came across this glowing preview-review (http://edwardlifson.blogspot.com/2009/01/renzo-pianos-art-institute-of-chicago.html) of The Modern Wing posted a few weeks ago. It's super thorough and a great read. The city's luck to have him (even if he still, for the time being, calls Los Angeles home).

[wrabbit]

^ Yeah - I saw that too - lots of good pics. Lifson's heart will always be in Chicago, methinks, regardless of where he is living.

And thanks for the BBC slideshow link - always fun to see the city through fresh eyes.

[brian_b]

In case any photographers were interested...

It looks like workers will be installing some of the giant new windows on the trading floor at the Mercantile Exchange Building today. It looked like they were getting ready to do so when I walked by this morning. It will be on the river side.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-retail_notebook_magmilefeb06,0,1204301.story

Chicago Place: No longer a mall, at all

By Sandra M. Jones
February 6, 2009

..."It's not a mall anymore," said Barry Lustig, senior vice president of leasing and development for the mall's New York-based owner Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp. The indoor shopping center is converting to an office building with street-front retail, he said.

Zara and Saks will make up most of the building's Mag Mile frontage, and the upper floors will be used for offices, Lustig said. A third retailer, yet to be named, is slated to go into 11,000 square feet of space in between. All three stores will have doors onto North Michigan Avenue.

Construction will begin in a few weeks for the three-level Zara store—the fast-fashion retailer from Spain that agreed more than a year ago to open at the location. It is taking over the shuttered Talbots location, Lustig said, and is slated to open this fall.

[jpIllInoIs]

^ I always enjoyed the 7th level food court. A real gem with the barrell vaulted ceiling and skyline view. I hope it survives the changes.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ That sounds fantastic!

And thanks for the BBC slideshow link - always fun to see the city through fresh eyes.

:tup:

[Chicago Shawn]

I think this a missed opportunity, because Chicago Place had a unique atrium and lots of available space right on Michigan. I wish something more creative was planned for it, but I suppose occupied office space is still better than a vacant mall, which begs the next question, is there even demand for new Class A office space on Michigan?

[trvlr70]

I think this a missed opportunity, because Chicago Place had a unique atrium and lots of available space right on Michigan. I wish something more creative was planned for it, but I suppose occupied office space is still better than a vacant mall, which begs the next question, is there even demand for new Class A office space on Michigan?

I disagree. The mall portion of the building was contructed very cheaply and it certainly looked it. It has been in decline from the very beginning. Generally, there is a momentum moving away from malls and into more Main St./lifestyle centers anyway. Only the strongest malls will survive this trend.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Gaper's Block linked to a February 3 post on Newcity highlighting some of Chicago's Googie architecture.

http://newcity.com/2009/02/03/exploring-the-googieverse-in-search-of-chicagos-vanishing-architecture-of-the-future/

Some interesting portions:

One reason why Googie architecture never really flourished in Chicago is the number of classic structures that had been designed between 1890-1929. Masters like Louis Sullivan, Henry Hobson Richardson, Wright and many others had already changed the face of modern architecture. Chicago was, in effect, a canvas that had already been painted.

“Chicago is known for its classic architecture, and a somewhat more conservative and serious tone,” Joan Gand of Chicago Bauhaus & Beyond, an organization dedicated to preserving mid-century architecture, says. “You did of course have Mies van der Rohe and the revolutionary modern architecture of his school, but Googie was still considered to be a little too radical, as well as “lightweight” or fun for the Chicago market. So even though Lautner was from Michigan and was influenced by Wright, he and many other Googie architects went out West where they had more choices.”

With its El trains and compact downtown area and old neighborhoods, the influence of the postwar car culture also had far less effect on Chicago. Nevertheless, if you look hard enough you can find a number of Googie structures in greater Chicago.

and

Chicago has recently lost many of its great Googie structures, including The Stars Motel, at Lincoln and Jersey, where only the sign remains. The Seville Motel, 91st and Stony Island, and Pedian Carpets, at Lincoln north of Devon, vanished sometime during the fall. While it was not taken seriously until the 1970s, groups of Googie supporters on the West Coast have rallied to save many Googie buildings, including a Denny’s in Seattle. Googie lovers are hopeful that Chicago can retain structures like The Ohio House and Pride Cleaners, yet the preservation of Googie is up against a unique problem.

“For most buildings to be considered architecturally significant, they have to be at least fifty years old, an age which Googie is just starting to reach,” Gand, who also works in conjunction with organizations like the Chicago Architecture Foundation says. “Yet in recent years organizations have fought to preserve Googie architecture in Los Angeles, and things like the documentary on Lautner may raise awareness for Googie. Hopefully, Chicagoans can save some of their Googie structures, which show us that architecture can not only portray a new, bold vision, but have a sense of fun as well.”

[emathias]

Gaper's Block linked to a February 3 post on Newcity highlighting some of Chicago's Googie architecture.

http://newcity.com/2009/02/03/exploring-the-googieverse-in-search-of-chicagos-vanishing-architecture-of-the-future/
...


Interesting article, but I'm really not convinced we need to "preserve" the Ohio House. Even if it was a respected hotel and not a hooker bang joint, it's not really adding anything to that neighborhood. That and Howard Johnson can be torn down and replaced anytime as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I would rather that the surface lots be replaced first, but after that HoJo and OhHo CanGo.

I mean, are we going to, at some point, start preserving ranch/rambler architecture?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I think in some cases the answer is a resounding yes. I spend a lot of time on buses between Skokie and Howard El and there are a few examples of ranch and rambler style houses that I think should be preserved. I saw the nicest one over near Lunt the other day and it looked like they were going to tear it down because it was right next to a bunch of 3-flats. Wish they wouldn't, but oh well, I loved the contrast...

[honte]

^ I agree. Like all styles, there are great examples and not-so-good ones. Seville was a monster of a building (actually, I thought it had been terribly altered and not actually torn down). The so-called "Googie" (I hate that word) is vital to mixing things up and adding a little whimsy to our cities. In many cases, it was just as carefully designed and well-built as the more "serious" works.

[wrabbit]

Given that kitschy Route 66 begins/ends at Jackson & Michigan, you could think of Chicago as a kind of Googie gateway.

[ginsan2]

^ I agree. Like all styles, there are great examples and not-so-good ones. Seville was a monster of a building (actually, I thought it had been terribly altered and not actually torn down). The so-called "Googie" (I hate that word) is vital to mixing things up and adding a little whimsy to our cities. In many cases, it was just as carefully designed and well-built as the more "serious" works.

It is truly a hateful, hateful word.

It brings to mind some sort of mentally challenged squirrel racing event.

Googie architecture is just god awful, and Chicago should be thankful it was spared. It looks like cheap Vegas-style crap. I think Big Boy's in Michigan is a perfect example of what G-style brings to mind.

[SolarWind]

February 5, 2009

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9964/dsc0183ma8.jpg

[denizen467]

^ Please help: The photographer appears absent from the reflection. Or is that you, I reckon, between the Pru and Aon?

[AdrianXSands]

solar wind is a witch!

[wrabbit]

Yes - solar has special powers. And he can levitate, too, which is how he gets all of those cool angles in his shots.

[spyguy]

Images (http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/2009/02/diagrams-best-buys-impact-on-john.html) of the Best Buy on Michigan Avenue
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/836/hancockbestbuy002db5.jpg
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/1107/hancockbestbuy001vp5.jpg

[wrabbit]

^ Wow - and meanwhile they are closing stores. I'm amazed that this is going forward at all, given the current sales climate.

[harryc]

Feb 6
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SY9ekfGKDJI/AAAAAAABFuo/UkgXaX78Zu0/s800/P1240188.JPG

Feb 5 - forms in the water...
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SY9el9GoaOI/AAAAAAABFu0/mh2v2RN3a0U/s800/P1240136.JPG

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SY9enZzx7sI/AAAAAAABFvA/v32MQ4_zbO8/s800/P1240139.JPG

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SY9eo-bvYHI/AAAAAAABFvM/lG4z36-EWNI/s800/P1240140.JPG

.. ice on the side.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SY9er_EnhAI/AAAAAAABFvY/rRXbdIhEf_M/s800/P1240261_2_3.jpg

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SY9etV3ouWI/AAAAAAABFvk/Wsqz1sOKzZo/s800/P1240265.JPG

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SY9eupYJ-CI/AAAAAAABFvw/rfj7eyvfbm0/s800/P1240273.JPG

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SY9ev7RYegI/AAAAAAABFv8/qjgrrfx3eSU/s800/P1240275.JPG

[jc5680]

^ Wow - and meanwhile they are closing stores. I'm amazed that this is going forward at all, given the current sales climate.

They have been slated to go in there for a while. I worked on the sale signage and collateral last spring for Paul Stuart (the old tennant). Paul Stuart was moving to a smaller store and clearing inventory, and as long as I can remember they had always said best buy was going to replace them.

Paul Stuart had known they were going to downsize for quite some time, BB could have inked a deal 2+ years ago. That figure is theoretical, but it is at least 1.

Even just a year ago, the economy was a completely different story.

[honte]

Interesting Kamin piece about Walter Gropius's involvement with the post WWII development of Michael Reese Hospital. So, now Chicago can boast a strong connection to two Bauhaus Directors (Mies and Gropius), one Bauhaus Master (Moholy-Nagy at the Institute of Design) and two Bauhaus Instructers (Hilberseimer and Peterhans at IIT). Not many cities can claim that.

All the more reason to adaptively reuse the campus for an Olympic Village.

Blair Kamin - Skyline Blog - Bauhaus founder, Walter Gropius, had hand in Olympic Village site (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/02/walter-gropius-was-one-of-the-20th-centurys-most-influential-and-fascinating-architectsfounder-of-the-innovative-bauhau.html#more)

I moved this over here from the Chicago Olympics Thread because it seems to be a more General Development than just the Olympics - don't forget that the Village would supposedly move forward with or without.

In any case, I have to say that I find this new discovery, that Gropius was active in Chicago, to be pretty thrilling. I had heard in the past snippets about him being a part of the planning, but this is the first I've heard about any actual Gropius buildings. If it's accurate, what an excellent architectural gem to add to Chicago's long list!

The argument that these buildings can be adaptively reused makes a lot of sense to me (no surprise there, right?). Of course, I still prefer the village to go over the tracks instead since I don't believe the tracks will never be entirely covered otherwise, but at the least the buildings should be preserved.

Thanks, Loopy, for posting this. I can't wait to go back over there and check these out again. I've always thought they were nice, but I certainly have not looked at them from this perspective before.

[SolarWind]

solar wind is a witch!
maybe

[SolarWind]

February 4, 2009

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3653/dscc0063pz5.jpg

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/6225/dsc0068pl1.jpg

[i_am_hydrogen]

Chicago Place: No longer a mall, at all
Stores will front North Michigan Avenue, but upper floors will convert to offices

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-retail_notebook_magmilefeb06,0,1204301.story

[pip]

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

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

first off sorry about the large size of the picture.

Anyway I walked by there today and there is something being built on it. I still say it is a loss. I am guessing it certainly won't be a bar at the base nor apartments above though. Maybe a condo with 2 parking spots per residence and a dry cleaner or some type of raw food restaurant with purple lights and funky seats at the base.

[VivaLFuego]

^ Did you get a look at the approved permit, which should be posted somewhere on the fence? It usually (or at least, often) says the number of floors, the retail square footage, the number of dwelling units, and the number of accessory parking spaces.

Incidentally, this is one of the few sites in the city that actually somehow qualifies for the pathetic 25% reduction in required off-street parking, for being within 600ft walking distance of a train station.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I moved this over here from the Chicago Olympics Thread because it seems to be a more General Development than just the Olympics - don't forget that the Village would supposedly move forward with or without.

In any case, I have to say that I find this new discovery, that Gropius was active in Chicago, to be pretty thrilling. I had heard in the past snippets about him being a part of the planning, but this is the first I've heard about any actual Gropius buildings. If it's accurate, what an excellent architectural gem to add to Chicago's long list!

The argument that these buildings can be adaptively reused makes a lot of sense to me (no surprise there, right?). Of course, I still prefer the village to go over the tracks instead since I don't believe the tracks will never be entirely covered otherwise, but at the least the buildings should be preserved.

Thanks, Loopy, for posting this. I can't wait to go back over there and check these out again. I've always thought they were nice, but I certainly have not looked at them from this perspective before.

We'll find out Friday what the city has in store for the site, but if it includes widespread demolition then Kamin's piece could mark the beginning of a much more concerted and widespread effort for preservation.

On the same subject, Forgotten Chicago posted (http://forgottenchicago.com/features/chicago-architecture/michael-reese-hospital/) an essay about the complex a month or two ago. (Their website informs me they also discussed (http://www.outsidetheloopradio.com/otl/2009/01/30/otl-episode-123/) it recently on an episode of Outside the Loop Radio.) There are a ton of pictures and it's definitely worth the read.

[pip]

^ Did you get a look at the approved permit, which should be posted somewhere on the fence? It usually (or at least, often) says the number of floors, the retail square footage, the number of dwelling units, and the number of accessory parking spaces.

Incidentally, this is one of the few sites in the city that actually somehow qualifies for the pathetic 25% reduction in required off-street parking, for being within 600ft walking distance of a train station.

No I didn't but I did think about it though :)

They were moving fence around and I was doing errands in a rush. What I did see though was what looked like to me, an untrained eye for anything construction related, was a foundation, some sort of hole with new stuff in it, over the eastern half of the lot. My first thought was god I hope this isn't space for like 4 cars. When in the past I have passed condos under construction, the hole in the ground with new stuff takes the whole lot. But who knows, maybe its the original hole in the ground with supports or something.

[BWChicago]

first off sorry about the large size of the picture.

Anyway I walked by there today and there is something being built on it. I still say it is a loss. I am guessing it certainly won't be a bar at the base nor apartments above though. Maybe a condo with 2 parking spots per residence and a dry cleaner or some type of raw food restaurant with purple lights and funky seats at the base.

From Yelp:
01/05/2009 Addie L. says:

SPORTS CORNER WILL BE BACK!

Sports Corner is getting a face lift and will be back late June early July. The new building will be beautiful and much bigger than the original. Construction was started as early as possible in order to be back for some of the Cubs Season. Also, Sport Corner gift certificates will be honored at Vines on Clark and Cubby Bear if you want to use them now.

-

Yeah, I'll bet the architecture will be really great if they were planning to renovate as recently as October and are shooting for a June opening. Real high quality buildings come out of that kind of planning.

[pip]

^ good news on it now being what I feared, a 7-11 type building, thanks. I wonder what will be above. I can't imagine condos above a bar like that.