[wrabbit]

For all of you so outraged over the CCM 'takeover' of the park (which, incidentally, adds green space and accessiblity), where were you when:

Hundreds of thousands of square feet of concrete parking garage were built both below and above ground, The Monroe Street Garage, and subsequently bermed over.

A 2000 seat theater with full fly loft was built just south of Randolph, The Harris Theater

A restaurant and bar was built in the park, east of Michigan between Washington and Madison, The Park Grill

A restaurant and putting green were built between Lake Shore and Columbus just north of Monroe

And, finally, the Grant Park Pavilions housing fast food establishments


I use these examples, rather then the many more examples of mere 'buildings' in the park, because they all represent a 'takeover' of the park for private use....

This is indeed a NIMBY issue as well as an anti-Daley, anti-establishment outcry...not a principled issue re the Ward decision or you would have heard that crowd speak up long before now...

Well, like I said, there is a smaller NIMBY element that has hitched itself to the Free & Clear contingent, absolutely. Also, I'd add the Art Institute to your list of structures in the Park.

Your broader question - as to why a Save Grant Park coalition wasn't formed to protest Millennium Park & its attendant structures - I really can't speak to that as I wasn't in town at the time.

The GP charter is rather interesting in that it may be enforced only by adjacent property owners. That is how the Art Institute got in - no one who was entitled to object under the charter did so. Ditto, I believe, with the MP structures (?).

[Abner]

Five finalists have been named for the Harper Court project. What's your of the qualifiers below, and how's their track record for build quality, smart growth development, staying on budget?


From the HP Herald today, http://www.hpherald.com/hpindex.html

My first reaction is I sort of can't believe they're going ahead with this. I still think demolishing (all of) Harper Court is a terrible idea that doesn't do much good for the people who actually live in Hyde Park, and closing all those businesses in a recession this deep is an even worse idea. That said, if they're going to go ahead with it no matter what, at least don't pick Taxman for god's sake. Look at the unbelievable turd they laid in Oak Park and River Forest.

[VivaLFuego]

^ I thought the plan is to leave the northernmost building?

[Abner]

I missed that part when I scanned the story, but yeah, it says 5201 S Harper will stay. Still, I have an extremely bad feeling about the University kicking out all the tenants in the expectation that the place will be redeveloped. What reason do I have to think that this will be any different from the vacant Harper Theater buildings right across the street? (Answer: TIF money, I guess, but that involvement makes me feel even worse about it.)

Personally I'd be happiest if they left the buildings pretty much as-is, with some rehabs and maybe a selective demolition, and focused on all the actual vacancy surrounding Harper Court--the parking lots, Harper Theater, and the video store. Tear down the damn video store and put a million-story building there for all I care, just don't forcibly close the biggest concentration of functioning businesses on the street.

[BWChicago]

I thought part of this process included losing the Harper and Herald buildings

[Via Chicago]

Speaking of overbuilding in parks:

Rainbow Beach Park school will mar lakefront open space (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/03/in-south-shore-its-land-vs-school-city-council-panel-oks-plans-to-build-on-rainbow-beach-park-.html)

[wrabbit]

Speaking of overbuilding in parks:

Rainbow Beach Park school will mar lakefront open space (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/03/in-south-shore-its-land-vs-school-city-council-panel-oks-plans-to-build-on-rainbow-beach-park-.html)

Wow, that is...odd. Easy pickings, I guess.


(Edit: Much of the lakefront property in South Shore is privately owned; Rainbow Beach Park is one of the very few exceptions in the neighborhood)

[Chicago103]

I have got news regarding the Sears Skydeck glass walkway thing.

They are not punching out the windows on the sky-deck level (104 or whatever it is) but rather on the 99th floor which used to be a ballroom. They currently have the ballroom closed and have completely gutted the floor already. It shouldn't be long until we see them replace the windows...

Also, as much as I agree that this is sort of a defacing of the original design, I have to disagree with Honte's point about us no longer being able to look straight up the West face. We can't look straight up the west face right now, that barrel lobby prevents anyone from getting close enough to look straight up the face. The 4 foot glass projection on only the 99th floor is not going to be enough to break the current shape of the building from that angle. I doubt it will be noticeable from all but the closest perpendicular views. For example, if you work on the top of 311 South Wacker, expect to have your elevation view of Sears disrupted by a 4ft glass box.

Not to question your contact at the Sears Tower or anything but are you sure about it being the 99th floor instead of the 103rd floor?

The reason I ask this is because I ride the L near the the Sears Tower almost every day both during the day and at night and at night I have noticed very bright construction lighting on what I am sure is the 103rd floor because of how intimately I know the window patterns up there. I will double check but I am pretty sure that is not 99 I am looking at. Also according to the Sky-deck's website the 99th floor is the one that is open right now because 103 is being renovated. Also why would they do it on 99 anyways? 99 is the alternate observatory used only when 103 is closed, otherwise it is a ballroom space. Unless 99 will become a permanent second observatory floor for a separate fee or something but my sense of sight and my own internet research does not seem to confirm this.

[Jibba]

^ You totally misread his post...

Indeed. Thank you for pointing that out; otherwise, I was going to have to go through the pains of showing that myself. 'Nough said.

[Chicago3rd]

Well, in this case, those opposing the Children's Museum are being NIMBYs, insofar as a literal interpretation of the acronym goes (or perhaps, in this case, it should be "NIMFYs" in keeping with how Grant Park is colloquially referred to).

But, so what? The negative connotation of the word NIMBY comes from the attempt of these so-designated people to prioritize personal interests at the expense of the public realm, and being a NIMBY in the case of the Children's Museum is inverse to this scheme: advocating for the public good at the expense of a single, private interest.

Okay...twisted my head side ways and re-read what you are trying to say.

[BWChicago]

Saw this post about a new grocer/fitness/residential development for the Sears parking lot at Lawrence and Ravenswood, next to the Metra Tracks. Kind of odd looking, but I guess it's decent TOD

http://chicagorealestatelocal.blogspot.com/2009/03/ravenswood-new-development-in.html

[Busy Bee]

That brick is pretty lame. They should have just designed this as an all glass building. The sections currently brick could just be opaque glass instead. Serious 70's vibe coming off of this as it is. Undulations remind me a bit of Aqua. Let's call it Stump Aqua: North Side addition.

[HowardL]

Saw this post about a new grocer/fitness/residential development for the Sears parking lot at Lawrence and Ravenswood, next to the Metra Tracks. Kind of odd looking, but I guess it's decent TOD I ... think ... I might really like that.

[BWChicago]

That brick is pretty lame. They should have just designed this as an all glass building. The sections currently brick could just be opaque glass instead. Serious 70's vibe coming off of this as it is. Undulations remind me a bit of Aqua. Let's call it Stump Aqua: North Side addition.

The undulations remind me of the Esquire. This might look a lot better in Buff Roman brick.

[spyguy]

The undulations remind me of the Esquire. This might look a lot better in Buff Roman brick.

It sort of reminds me of this (http://www.corepoweryoga.com/Portals/0/goldcoast_exterior2.jpg) building nearby.

[the urban politician]

Saw this post about a new grocer/fitness/residential development for the Sears parking lot at Lawrence and Ravenswood, next to the Metra Tracks. Kind of odd looking, but I guess it's decent TOD

http://chicagorealestatelocal.blogspot.com/2009/03/ravenswood-new-development-in.html

^ Great news :tup:

In a sea of bad news, we need to take what we can get

[Abner]

I thought part of this process included losing the Harper and Herald buildings

Those are a separate project, and the University used to bother saying it would try to keep those buildings, but I think they said they would consider throwing them in if the developer wanted. That would be a crime in my opinion, but it would hardly be the first time in history the University of Chicago knocked down a great building in Hyde Park for no very good reason.

[Jibba]

Saw this post about a new grocer/fitness/residential development for the Sears parking lot at Lawrence and Ravenswood, next to the Metra Tracks. Kind of odd looking, but I guess it's decent TOD

http://chicagorealestatelocal.blogspot.com/2009/03/ravenswood-new-development-in.html

You know what? It actually meets the street. No blank wall and non-access to pedestrians from the sidewalk (a la Jewel on Clark in Andersonville [possibly one of the worst examples of that concept]); no walking across a sea of concrete, getting run-over and terrorized by anger-raged motorists; no needless set-backs from the street replete with shrub and wood-chip nature bandages: I like it.

[munda]

hey i got a quick question
does anyone know the name of the architect who designed one of the garden at Lincoln Park? the architect died between 1996-1998. the garden was renamed in his honors after he died
that same architect also designed the garden in Lake Point Tower.

[harryc]

hey i got a quick question
does anyone know the name of the architect who designed one of the garden at Lincoln Park? the architect died between 1996-1998. the garden was renamed in his honors after he died
that same architect also designed the garden in Lake Point Tower.


Alfred Caldwell Lily pond ?

[wrabbit]

^ Yes - Caldwell is the landscape architect.

[munda]

harryc and wrabbit
thank you both so much :)

[ChicagoHiRiser]

^ what's the source for that info?

i mean, the creek was still bubbling when i paddled it, which kinda weirded me out, and it did smell pretty funky at times, but i had no idea about the bloodworms and 7 feet of animal entrails. maybe i will think twice before i paddle bubbly creek again.

Its probably fine for incidental contact. But its not just bacteria and bloodworms to worry about:
http://secondeffort.blogspot.com/2008/06/half-full-glass-story-gator-found-in.html

I think the future of Bubbly Creek has never looked better though: the Deep Tunnel was switched on and more capacity will come online through 2014.
And the MWRD recently approved disinfection tests:
http://www.chitowndailynews.org/Chicago_news/MWRD_approves_disinfection_tests,22786

Still they estimate it will take 20 years for the implementation of disinfecting all releases at a cost of $1B so who knows.

[BVictor1]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/

The Chicago river walk: An audacious dream about to take a big step forward

If you've been around the Michigan Avenue bridge lately, you've surely noticed: Lots of bustle of both banks of the Chicago River. It's not just the Trump Tower skyscraper. The frenzy of activity represents a major step forward in achieving Mayor Richard M. Daley's dream to create a downtown Chicago river walk.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/.a/6a00d834518cc969e201116901c48f970c-320wi

On the north bank (left), you can see the three-tiered riverfront walkway at the base of the still-under-construction Trump Tower and workers building the curving riverfront plaza between the 92-story hotel-condo skyscraper and the Wrigley Building. The tower is expected to open in June or July and the tiered walkway is likely to be one of its most alluring features--a complete turn-around from the fortress-like plaza at the base of Sears Tower.

On the south bank is an even more impressive project (below): The city's massive, $22 million effort to create a continuous riverwalk between State Street and the Michigan Avenue Bridge. From there, the riverwalk will run all the way eastward to Lake Michigan. This one is due to be finished in June.

With its towering cranes, steel bulkheads and landfill being dumped into the river to create new, seemingly natural "ground," the city project is a classic Chicago exercise in urban muscale: "You want more shoreline property? We'll build it." More important, it promises a major upgrade to the public realm. Not only will it allow pedestrians to leave behind the noise and congestion of street level for the serenity of the river walk, which sits below street level. It also promises to turn the river from a natural feature that divides downtown into a seam that unites it.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/.a/6a00d834518cc969e201127975e38c28a4-320wi

[Via Chicago]

I still dont understand why they didnt focus on the N. side of the river first. Its great and all, but the S. side backs Wacker Drive, has no real businesses to speak of, and is in shadow 90% of the day.

[ChicagoChicago]

^^^
I’m not sure what river walk Blair Kamin walks up and down, but I’d hardly call the current manifestation any type of serenity. The cars on Lower Wacker are extremely loud from the river walk. Unless there is a plan to completely enclose Lower Wacker, that is still going to be the case.

[ChicagoChicago]

I still dont understand why they didnt focus on the N. side of the river first. Its great and all, but the S. side backs Wacker Drive, has no real businesses to speak of, and is in shadow 90% of the day.
I've always wondered about that too.

[ChiPsy]

The cars on Lower Wacker are extremely loud from the river walk. Unless there is a plan to completely enclose Lower Wacker, that is still going to be the case.

I think they've basically been doing that over the past several months; I agree with you that it *used* to be loud, but with the wall they've added (which admittedly occludes views from the auto lanes), I wonder if it's as loud as it was before.

[Steely Dan]

I still dont understand why they didnt focus on the N. side of the river first. Its great and all, but the S. side backs Wacker Drive, has no real businesses to speak of, and is in shadow 90% of the day.

the idea of the river walk was to have a CONTINUOUS river level walkway from the lakefront all the way to lake street. the northside of the river will never have such a walkway due to marina city's marina.

[Taft]

^^^
I’m not sure what river walk Blair Kamin walks up and down, but I’d hardly call the current manifestation any type of serenity. The cars on Lower Wacker are extremely loud from the river walk. Unless there is a plan to completely enclose Lower Wacker, that is still going to be the case.

I've got ChiPsy's back on this...they may not be succeeding in reducing car noise from Lower Wacker, but they are trying. I just drove along lower wacker this weekend and noticed how much of it they have lined with new walls between the river and the road. In fact, the only major gaps that still exist are the chain-link doors placed at intervals along the walls.

The interesting thing about those doors is that they are chained shut, so I'm not exactly sure what purpose they serve. I had assumed they were an emergency means of escaping lower wacker in the case of a breakdown or accident. Given they are locked, I'm not sure why they are needed. In the long run, I'm hoping they get replaced with something more permanent and sound proof.

[Via Chicago]

the idea of the river walk was to have a CONTINUOUS river level walkway from the lakefront all the way to lake street. the northside of the river will never have such a walkway due to marina city's marina.

I understand that. But I still dont get the point. Its a decent enough pedestrian/brown bag lunch option, which is always welcome. I just dont see mobs of people utilizing this. If it was me, I would just as well stick to street levelto get from point A to B. The advantage to this sort of development is when it runs parallel to business and it increases the "street" life. Theres none of that on the south side, nor can there ever really be as long as Wacker exists. i just foresee this being really underutilized and desolate, regardless of how continuous it is.

[cbotnyse]

I understand that. But I still dont get the point. Its a decent enough pedestrian/brown bag lunch option, which is always welcome. I just dont see mobs of people utilizing this. If it was me, I would just as well stick to street levelto get from point A to B. The advantage to this sort of development is when it runs parallel to business and it increases the "street" life. Theres none of that on the south side, nor can there ever really be as long as Wacker exists. i just foresee this being really underutilized and desolate, regardless of how continuous it is.Businesses are opening down there, O'Briens and I think a sushi and rib place were open last summer and doing well from what I can see.

I've eaten at O'Brien's a few times and you couldn't hear traffic from lower Wacker at all and is a great place to sit and watch boat traffic and gaze up at the river's great architecture.

[ChicagoChicago]

^^^

In its current form, it serves as a homeless shelter between Clark and Lake. Unless there are plans to make that area more inviting, it will continue to be the case. Even in the middle of summer, it is damp and cool in that area, and quite frankly, not a place I would hang out. I work at 200 N LaSalle, and fully expect to utilize the 300 N LaSalle riverfront when it opens. That’s nearly a half mile of river walk that will be unutilized. Granted, they aren’t spending any money on that section right now, but it is a total waste as it is right now.

[schwerve]

the key to the riverwalk is not necessarily what's going on at the riverwalk itself but how effectively it can exist as an extension of the lakefront park/path system. I'm hopeful but we'll see.

[Chicago3rd]

I still dont understand why they didnt focus on the N. side of the river first. Its great and all, but the S. side backs Wacker Drive, has no real businesses to speak of, and is in shadow 90% of the day.

Am assuming the city owns the right away under Wacker up to the river...where as the north side is all privately owned. Lower Wacker was created to house shops and restuarnts in it one day and lower Wacker Drive is slowly being enclosed by a wall.

On the north side....the city will probably have to do what Portland did and have a floating sidewalk for most of it.

Getting from Point A to B will be easier along the river...no street crossings and stop lights to deal with. It will also be a little quieter and cooler down by the river.

When I lived in San Antonio I worked downtown. Very seldom did I eat at the river (touristy) but I walked the river alot. It was a wonderful place to walk and relax...cooler...no auto exhaust and quieter. Parks...are not places that people have to use as an expressway......to get from point a to b.

[Taft]

I understand that. But I still dont get the point. Its a decent enough pedestrian option..I just dont see mobs of people utilizing this. If it was me, I would just as well stick to street level. The advantage to this sort of development is when it runs parallel to business and it increases the "street" life. Theres none of that on the south side, nor can there really be.

Well the planners behind this riverwalk disagree. The plan is to have various businesses and vendors along the length of the walk. I have no idea whether the businesses will show up at the end of the day...

However, on a personal note, I think this has an amazing amount of potential. If the city can make this an attractive, quiet walk, the people will come. People just love being by the water, especially in the middle of an urban setting. Think of Paris...would you just stick to street level?

[Chicago Shawn]

Studio Gang's media production center at State and 16th has started construction this week.

Here is an updated rendering and model from their site, www.studiogang.net

http://www.studiogang.net/site/images/projects/a4_1.jpg
http://www.studiogang.net/site/images/projects/a4_2.jpg
http://www.studiogang.net/site/images/projects/a4_7.jpg

[nomarandlee]

the idea of the river walk was to have a CONTINUOUS river level walkway from the lakefront all the way to lake street. the northside of the river will never have such a walkway due to marina city's marina.

True, is the marina itself part of a landmark? Despite the interruption at Marina there could still effectively be two different segments for the northside with one between Wrigley and IBM and the other from the Westin to Merchandise Mart. Perhaps some would think of the IBM ivy riverwall as sacred to the plaza's integrity but I think it is underutilized and would be a great place to knock down the wall and put in a restaurant/retail underneath the plaza.

My guess is that if the southwalk is deemed a success there will be a more concerted effort to to somehow interconnect and make a public venue of it. One problem I see with both sides is that I think both will be seen as seasonal by retailers and patrons alike. I can't imagine many would want to walk by the path in the middle of January or Febuary.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ *Shiver* Oh hell no you can't bastardize MC and IBM. Don't you think it would be a little bit of a travesty if you removed the "marina" part of a building called MARINA City? Also, the plaza's around Mies' designs are exactly what makes them so great. There is a seamless integration of the outdoors with the indoors and ground level and that must not be tampered with. Its bad enough they added that disgusting tongue protrusion to Illinois Center, we don't need them destroying the base of the IBM building. I say NO to a river level walk on the North side. Why not spice it up a bit and have one side of the river with a lower walk and the other side with a street-level walk, thus preserving out landmarks?


On another note, I absolutely love that Studio Gang design for Columbia. Its another take on the more litteral "form follows function" modernism of designing buildings to reflect on their use. Kinda like a combination of the inclusion of auto imagery on Chrysler and the sweet Kone elevator headquarters with the offices on top of a big elevator shaft. I think the biggest thing that draws me in is the use of colored glass. Its not like its all that much more expensive, why don't people use bright colors in their buildings more often? I am a huge sucker for eliminating the restrictions on the coloration of buildings, why do all offices have to have green or blue or smokey, or silver glass? Why can't we build a building with purple or red tinted glass?

[Mr Downtown]

Why can't we build a building with purple or red tinted glass?

Because color trends come and go, so in 15 years they look embarrassingly dated. Examples are everywhere: Lustron houses of the 50s; glazed brick walls or colorful library windows of the 60s; 70s office buildings in Dallas/Phoenix/LA that had to be completely reskinned to attract tenants; Helmut Jahn's work from the 80s or 90s.

[george]

^I especially like the garish accent colors of 2009. Red grids & teal glass.

How bout that new Barneys?

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7179/barneyslr.jpg

[emathias]

Well the planners behind this riverwalk disagree. The plan is to have various businesses and vendors along the length of the walk. I have no idea whether the businesses will show up at the end of the day...

However, on a personal note, I think this has an amazing amount of potential. If the city can make this an attractive, quiet walk, the people will come. People just love being by the water, especially in the middle of an urban setting. Think of Paris...would you just stick to street level?

I've always wondered why the Merchandise Mart doesn't make better use of its riverfront. It seems like without too much work it would put a restaurant down there with some interesting views and ambiance.

[george]

^If it can make money, it's only a matter of time before it happens.^

[intrepidDesign]

^I especially like the garish accent colors of 2009. Red grids & teal glass.

How bout that new Barneys?

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7179/barneyslr.jpg

At least they were smart enough to put in black frames, unlike....(cough cough)... their neighbors.

[george]

^good point.^

[Nowhereman1280]

Because color trends come and go, so in 15 years they look embarrassingly dated. Examples are everywhere: Lustron houses of the 50s; glazed brick walls or colorful library windows of the 60s; 70s office buildings in Dallas/Phoenix/LA that had to be completely reskinned to attract tenants; Helmut Jahn's work from the 80s or 90s.

Ok, some of the silly stuff from the modernist and post modern era looks dated, but there has been successful use of color many times in the past. Look at the stunning varieties of color used in Deco buildings are pseudo deco buildings like Carbide and Carbon. Other buildings I admire are the CNA building, the thousands of colorful houses in Miami and Caribbean/Latin nations like Cuba, David Hovey's towers, Some of the later works of FLW where he used bright colors as accents. I don't see why people have such a rejection of building high rises that have bold color elements. If you use the color artfully, there is no reason it should be dated, it should become a part of the style itself. Does a painting become dated because of its use of Color?

I think its interesting that the liberation of color took off in painting and now people find paintings boring if they aren't brightly patterned or colored. Why has architecture been so hesitant to accept the liberation of color when it is hands down the cheapest way to infuse a "decorative" aspect with today's technology. I don't think ornament is crime when it doesn't interfere with practicality or increase cost, color seems to be the only ornament that doesn't really do that.

Maybe I'll concentrate on that if I go to Architecture school?

[spyguy]

^^^ *Shiver* Oh hell no you can't bastardize MC and IBM. Also, the plaza's around Mies' designs are exactly what makes them so great. There is a seamless integration of the outdoors with the indoors and ground level and that must not be tampered with. Its bad enough they added that disgusting tongue protrusion to Illinois Center, we don't need them destroying the base of the IBM building.

What do you think is going to happen when they convert IBM into a hotel? The lobby is surely @#$%ed and I'm sure they have their eye on the plaza for a nice hotel restaurant/cafe.

[BWChicago]

I've always wondered why the Merchandise Mart doesn't make better use of its riverfront. It seems like without too much work it would put a restaurant down there with some interesting views and ambiance.
Aren't there train tracks, since the Mart is on the site of the old C&NW Station?

[BWChicago]

What do you think is going to happen when they convert IBM into a hotel? The lobby is surely @#$%ed and I'm sure they have their eye on the plaza for a nice hotel restaurant/cafe.

It *was* just landmarked.

[Mr Downtown]

Aren't there train tracks, since the Mart is on the site of the old C&NW Station?

All gone except for the one line in the middle. Merchandise Mart is one of the big hangups for a Carroll Street transitway, because they claim that it will interfere with their ground-level loading dock operations.

In case you ever wondered about the driveway south of the Mart, River Drive—the Plan of Chicago recommended a Wacker Drive counterpart along the north bank of the river. Since James Simpson was both head of Marshall Field & Co. and Plan Commission chairman, and Graham, Anderson, Probst & White were successors to Burnham's practice, they left room for the never-built drive. The same thing was done on the east side of Union Station.

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer


http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1876/dsc0648.jpg


http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/747/dsc0643p.jpg


http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/3813/dsc0644.jpg

[harryc]

All gone except for the one line in the middle. Merchandise Mart is one of the big hangups for a Carroll Street transitway, because they claim that it will interfere with their ground-level loading dock operations.

In case you ever wondered about the driveway south of the Mart, River Drive—the Plan of Chicago recommended a Wacker Drive counterpart along the north bank of the river. Since James Simpson was both head of Marshall Field & Co. and Plan Commission chairman, and Graham, Anderson, Probst & White were successors to Burnham's practice, they left room for the never-built drive. The same thing was done on the east side of Union Station.

The vital docks under the Mart
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SSYHstnUDpI/AAAAAAAA-xo/nsEJZ4tJqwU/s800/P1190707.JPG

Tracks in the dark, under some dirt.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SSYHoxZFcnI/AAAAAAAA-xE/tEGEMc4NbdM/s800/P1190690.JPG

A very low bridge.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/R7junSkRBjI/AAAAAAAAajc/Wd9w3-IyuO8/s800/P1190676.JPG

[Chicago Shawn]

On another note, I absolutely love that Studio Gang design for Columbia. Its another take on the more litteral "form follows function" modernism of designing buildings to reflect on their use. Kinda like a combination of the inclusion of auto imagery on Chrysler and the sweet Kone elevator headquarters with the offices on top of a big elevator shaft. I think the biggest thing that draws me in is the use of colored glass. Its not like its all that much more expensive, why don't people use bright colors in their buildings more often? I am a huge sucker for eliminating the restrictions on the coloration of buildings, why do all offices have to have green or blue or smokey, or silver glass? Why can't we build a building with purple or red tinted glass?


Indoor light quality is a big factor in choosing the tinting of glass. Since environmentalism has become mainstream, architects are utilizing methods to increase optimal interior lighting while reducing artificial lighting. Sunlight passing through certain tints produces bad indoor light quality when relaying on natural daylight. The bad tints for this quality: would be the reds, bronzes and golds, which is why you see so few of them today. The best tints are, well you could probably guess it: blues and greens. That is why you see those colors of glass so heavily used today.

For a touch of rosy pink-purple tint, you should see the modernist tower over at the Cook County Criminal Courts complex in the early morning. I love the look of it contrasting with the concrete facade.

[denizen467]

... the driveway south of the Mart, River Drive—the Plan of Chicago recommended a Wacker Drive counterpart along the north bank of the river.
So is that the official name? Online maps (I can't remember what the physical signs say) have two different street names, each involving the word "Mart", for the driveways south of the Apparel and Merch Marts. I do know there is a River Drive sign for the road running west from the MWRDC fountain, and it would make sense for the official name of those Mart roadways to be River Drive as well.

[Mr Downtown]

It's now "Merchandise Mart Plaza," so the Mart could use that as a vanity address.

[honte]

It *was* just landmarked.

... which, even before Hanna's devilry, didn't mean as much as we'd like it to. I was very surprised by some of the things that were going to fly in the hotel proposal that was presented.

[VivaLFuego]

... which, even before Hanna's devilry, didn't mean as much as we'd like it to. I was very surprised by some of the things that were going to fly in the hotel proposal that was presented.

What's the worst that could happen?

http://www.marinacityonline.com/image/dlr_moving.jpg

[Busy Bee]

Corn on the cobb man. Now that's classy.

[Jibba]

Not super newsworthy, but it is on historic Michigan Avenue so I thought I would point out the minor work (hopefully a restoration, but I can't remember what was even there before so who knows if there was anything to restore):

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/186/michavefacadework021675.jpg
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/2883/dsc096190234709.jpg

[BWChicago]

Not super newsworthy, but it is on historic Michigan Avenue so I thought I would point out the minor work (hopefully a restoration, but I can't remember what was even there before so who knows if there was anything to restore):

Certainly nothing important...

http://digital-libraries.saic.edu//cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/halic&CISOPTR=3883&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=1600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=&REC=1&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0
http://media2.moma.org/collection_images/resized/599/w500h420/CRI_59599.jpg
http://www.wrightplus.org/images/museum/collections/facade.jpg

Louis Sullivan's Gage Group facade.

That said, I don't know if Roosevelt is doing a proper reconstruction or just replacing the granite and plate glass front that was on there.

[Busy Bee]

Hope for the best

[ChicagoChicago]

^^^
Absolutely stunning.

[honte]

Certainly nothing important...


Louis Sullivan's Gage Group facade.

That said, I don't know if Roosevelt is doing a proper reconstruction or just replacing the granite and plate glass front that was on there.

I'm not holding my breath. You can see by comparing your photo with Jibba's how accurate the earlier "restoration" to the south was. It's more accurate than what was there before, but I don't expect anything near the level of the Carson's building.

[Loopy]

That said, I don't know if Roosevelt is doing a proper reconstruction or just replacing the granite and plate glass front that was on there.

Yeah, I'm curious too. One of those Gage buildings had the metalwork removed long ago. It is decorating private gardens in Highland Park and a chunk of it is in the Art Institute.

[BWChicago]

Well, the only one Sullivan did was the terra cotta one. The other two were Holabird & Roche, who did the structures for all three. Since substantial ornament was salvaged from the Gage it could probably be recast; I doubt anyone would have kept the Holabird ornament. Given Roosevelt's treatment of the Auditorium and Fine Arts buildings I'm not gonna hold my breath, but being on Michigan Avenue and additionally having individual landmark status probably adds some pressure to do it right. And doing it right could also explain why it's taking so long... wishful thinking?

[denizen467]

It looks like there are 11 buildings in this project between Cermak and 25th, of which: 3 are still occupied; 6 will be torn down; and 2 are unoccupied but will not yet be torn down.

That's a lot of available land, so close to McCormick Place et al ...


http://www.chicagojournal.com/print.asp?ArticleID=7287&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60

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

Six Ickes buildings to go
Earlier plan envisioned rehab of Near South public housing site

By MICAH MAIDENBERG
Wednesday, March 25, 2009

The future of the Harold Ickes Homes, the public housing development lining State south of Cermak, has rarely been clear.

...

But the fate of more than half of the buildings at Ickes is now sealed, as CHA prepares to use around $3.3 million in federal stimulus dollars to tear down six of the eight buildings on site that are closed and vacant. Ninety-six units remain occupied in the last three open buildings.

...

[honte]

^ I do not support tearing down these buildings. I think it's a mistake. They have perfectly good bones and could be rehabilitated in a nice way, such as was done with Archer Courts. The location is stellar and this is one of the better chances in the CHA system of creating a true diversity of tenants.

The architects of the complex were SOM, by the way.

[VivaLFuego]

^ I actually also see the potential for a decent rehab of those buildings and their grounds (from an aesthetic standpoint... can't speak to the bones), but considering most peoples' attitudes towards any large mid-century development, let alone a blighty public housing project, I suppose we should just be thankful that nearby Hilliard survived to become an eventual landmark. Lathrop homes are probably perfectly salvagable too but of course those will also be toast in due time. Interestingly, there seem to be no near-term plans to tear down the Dearborn Courts to the south, so those might survive the whole Plan for Transformation.

[Abner]

Hmm. I don't agree about the aesthetics of the Ickes complex, but even if I did, I don't think I would invest much in trying to save them or any CHA projects in that style because of the incredibly negative connotations those buildings have. I hate the idea of using a building's unsavory past as an excuse to tear it down, but in the case of housing projects even I would make an exception. Leave one or two as a historic monument--in my dreams I love the concept of preserving one unoccupied and in its current dilapidated state as a memorial and a reminder, perhaps to be used someday as a small museum of poverty in Chicago--but that's all. Maybe I have less sympathy because I don't see the architectural merit in these buildings and I don't think one person in a hundred would. Maybe I would agree with saving them if they could be reskinned thoroughly enough to make them unrecognizable as former projects, I don't know.

[wrabbit]

^ I'm gonna side with honte & viva here & say that the buildings should stay in some form. But I understand your objection to the concept of these towers as it was implemented.

.....(I)n my dreams I love the concept of preserving one unoccupied and in its current dilapidated state as a memorial and a reminder.....

Yeah - I had the same idea while looking at one of the partially-demolished Cabrini Green towers - most of the outer walls were gone, and you could see all of these bright, vivid colors inside, on the walls of the individual units. It looked poignant somehow, these individual personalities asserting themselves through different colors of paint. It really stopped me in my tracks. And I thought to myself, why not leave the core of one of these partially demolished towers behind, with all of these brightly-painted walls, as a testament to the individuals who passed through?

[honte]

Hmm. I don't agree about the aesthetics of the Ickes complex, but even if I did, I don't think I would invest much in trying to save them or any CHA projects in that style because of the incredibly negative connotations those buildings have. I hate the idea of using a building's unsavory past as an excuse to tear it down, but in the case of housing projects even I would make an exception. Leave one or two as a historic monument--in my dreams I love the concept of preserving one unoccupied and in its current dilapidated state as a memorial and a reminder, perhaps to be used someday as a small museum of poverty in Chicago--but that's all. Maybe I have less sympathy because I don't see the architectural merit in these buildings and I don't think one person in a hundred would. Maybe I would agree with saving them if they could be reskinned thoroughly enough to make them unrecognizable as former projects, I don't know.


Have you seen Archer Courts before? It's right in the heart of Chinatown... a perfectly good adaptive reuse of the old typical housing projects. It's also a first-rate example of a design that successfully updated a building and injected a bit of new life (eg, not 100% preservation) but which did so with care and respect for the old. The end result is a complex better architecturally than the original, but true to its intentions. In fact, many of the gallery-style projects were intended to have glass-enclosed halls, but budget and other concerns prevented this.

In my opinion, the Archer Courts product is a far better than what could be done by tearing down and building anew. It just makes so much sense - wasting money tearing down and then wasting more money to erect new structures, when all that money could go into renovation. Sure, you have some code compliance issues, but not insurmountable ones.

Here is the NY Times article from 2003 about Archer Courts: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/02/garden/out-of-the-ashes-cinderella.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

_________

Viva, Dearborn Homes is undergoing this nasty PoMo renovation that will preserve it for the indefinite future. Hopefully in another 50 years, it will be restored to the way it's supposed to look. I'm very glad to see they are keeping it at all, which I think no one really expected - it's one of the few remaining developments of that nature in the City, the first high-rise housing project here, etc. Historic and not bad looking at all either.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Yeah - I had the same idea while looking at one of the partially-demolished Cabrini Green towers - most of the outer walls were gone, and you could see all of these bright, vivid colors inside, on the walls of the individual units. It looked poignant somehow, these individual personalities asserting themselves through different colors of paint. It really stopped me in my tracks. And I thought to myself, why not leave the core of one of these partially demolished towers behind, with all of these brightly-painted walls, as a testament to the individuals who passed through?

This is sort of what they did with Archer Courts to, as honte noted, great effect.

[spyguy]

Burnham Pavilions in Millennium Park Meeting, Tuesday, April 7th

Join Alderman Brendan Reilly, The Burnham Plan Centennial Committee, The City of Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs, the Art Institute of Chicago and Friends of Downtown to learn about the temporary Burnham Pavilions in Millennium Park. These exciting exhibits were designed by international architects Zaha Hadid and Ben Van Berkel of UNStudio to commemorate the spirit of Chicago embodied in the Burnham Plan. They will open to the public June 19 and close on October 31, 2009. They are at the heart of a region-wide series of events, plans and projects designed to challenge metropolitan Chicago to continue its bold visionary planning tradition.

Chicago Cultural Center
78 East Washington Street
Preston Bradley Hall
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
5:30 to 6:30 p.m.
Free and Open to the Public

[TorancisOMP]

Here is the latest development by Wabash Development Group.
Sales Center: 2425 S. Wallace
Chicago, IL 60616

This development will consist of two condo towers Phase I and Phase III.
Phase II is shopping mall with retail and commercial square footage rental or sales. It also has 3 floors of customer parking. This particular lot is between S. Normal Ave and Wallace on the East and West and Archer Ave and W. 24th Place North and South.

If you are familiar with the Chinatown area, this project is on the Connie's Pizza restaurant and Hong Kong Market.

I will hope to get more information.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3455/3392711407_e224b85d82.jpg?v=0

[jcchii]

^that's large

[wrabbit]

^ Here is a larger pic that I pulled from the Haylock Design website http://haylockdesign.com/chinatownchicago.html

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/EasternTower1jpg.jpg
http://webhosting.web.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.haylockdesign.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/EasternTower1.jpg&target=_self&title=Eastern%20Tower

So, basically a ginormous parking garage with some scrims attached and the tower mounted to the side.

[emathias]

Here is the latest development by Wabash Development Group.
...

What's with the big, empty (wind-swept) plazas around all the buildings? How many people do they think are going to just hang out there? And so much parking? It looks like a lot of parking to me.

[Busy Bee]

Things That Make You Go Hmm

[the urban politician]

^ Are you kidding with the criticism?

What the hell else are you going to expect in that area of town? At least it's not a suburban strip mall with large swaths of surface parking. We should be lucky for something of this sort to go up. Bravo, I hope it's successful! I'm rooting for See Wong

[VivaLFuego]

Wait, so that would replace Connie's Pizza?
I do like the concept of some serious density there... it's certainly a.... well, unique site plan and configuration for Chicago.

[Busy Bee]

It just seems like we can't seem to have our cake and eat it too. It like if we get great density, it's a accompanied by a lackluster design or we can get great design at low density, but only once in a great while do we get great (and unecpected) density with a fantastic design—and this is not one of those times. I don't think one is being a party pooper to expect (and hope for) both.

[the urban politician]

^ Whatever.

Be happy. The south side of Chicago is such a goddamn shithole right now that we don't have the luxury to whine. Just be happy that the building meets the street, parking is not occupying huge lots, and there is some density. If this were in Lincoln Park that would be a different story

[TorancisOMP]

I was told the parking is on the upper three floors of Phase II. And that bulky building is actually a mall with diff. levels and food courts.

I have renderings of the inside, I will post up later.

[BWChicago]

http://www.haylockdesign.com/

Man... this firm is responsible for some of the most hacky designs I've seen

[honte]

^ Yeah, putrid. I didn't know anyone was still manufacturing, much less specifying, those icky 1970s octagon windows.

^ Whatever.

Be happy. The south side of Chicago is such a goddamn shithole right now that we don't have the luxury to whine. Just be happy that the building meets the street, parking is not occupying huge lots, and there is some density. If this were in Lincoln Park that would be a different story

I don't know what your basis is for that statement. Chinatown is largely a shithole - mostly because of developments of Wong and his brand of trashy, cheap, greedy development. By the way - although it's hard to imagine - all of his developments always look about 10x worse than the renders. You should check out the crappy loft thing they're building on Canal Street that everyone seemed so excited about.

[denizen467]

I can't believe a developer would bet on so many high-end or even mid-priced condos overlooking a massive highway interchange. This is kind of an armpit parcel, removed from anything else desirable. I'm inclined to count our blessings that this is being developed - maybe it could also spur development of a southern Chinatown Orange Line station. With all of that parking, if it were connected to or near an el stop, maybe it could become a park-and-ride.

(And with such a remote parcel, even if it's ugly it doesn't do much harm to the city.)

[the urban politician]

I don't know what your basis is for that statement. Chinatown is largely a shithole - mostly because of developments of Wong and his brand of trashy, cheap, greedy development. By the way - although it's hard to imagine - all of his developments always look about 10x worse than the renders. You should check out the crappy loft thing they're building on Canal Street that everyone seemed so excited about.

^ I have plenty of basis for my statement. What's the basis for yours?

Your idea rests on the premise that design is the most important thing in the world because you are so sensitive to it, and that's fine for you. Society needs people like you, but that's not all that society needs.

Let's consider the rest of society. What's more damaging to Chicago's reputation--vast swaths of vacant or dilapidated land or bland buildings that actually offer people places to live, shop, and pay taxes? I know that your response will be "well, we don't have to choose between the two" but the reality is, most developers aren't even aware of the choice and are just going to build what they're going to build.

I'll have to take a look at Wong's Canal St loft in Chinatown but, given my history of not having an eye for design nor giving it much importance (aside from a few pet peeves like parking podia and strip malls) I'll probably just see it and say "looks alright to me.."

[wrabbit]

^ Are you kidding with the criticism?

What the hell else are you going to expect in that area of town? At least it's not a suburban strip mall with large swaths of surface parking. We should be lucky for something of this sort to go up. Bravo, I hope it's successful! I'm rooting for See Wong

Dude, it is a suburban strip mall, tarted up, with a big parking garage slapped on top. They've just replaced the surface lot with the plaza - same effect on the streetscape. Two of your least favorite things, and they are prominent features of the complex.

[Nowhereman1280]

Ummm guys, that's not a parking garage, that is 4 floors of retail with 4 floors of parking on top. Thats not unreasonable at all considering the density and location of this project.

[lawfin]

^ I have plenty of basis for my statement. What's the basis for yours?

Your idea rests on the premise that design is the most important thing in the world because you are so sensitive to it, and that's fine for you. Society needs people like you, but that's not all that society needs.

Let's consider the rest of society. What's more damaging to Chicago's reputation--vast swaths of vacant or dilapidated land or bland buildings that actually offer people places to live, shop, and pay taxes? I know that your response will be "well, we don't have to choose between the two" but the reality is, most developers aren't even aware of the choice and are just going to build what they're going to build.

I'll have to take a look at Wong's Canal St loft in Chinatown but, given my history of not having an eye for design nor giving it much importance (aside from a few pet peeves like parking podia and strip malls) I'll probably just see it and say "looks alright to me.."

Its has been interesting to see urbs shapeshifting from a reactionary idealist a few years ago to self-satisfied realist recently


I guess a few years of residency change a man

[lawfin]

its odd it seems...i dont know....asian

[honte]

^ Yep, that's the strange silver lining of Wong's developments. In some ways, they do look just like China.

^ I have plenty of basis for my statement. What's the basis for yours?

Your idea rests on the premise that design is the most important thing in the world because you are so sensitive to it, and that's fine for you. Society needs people like you, but that's not all that society needs.

Let's consider the rest of society. What's more damaging to Chicago's reputation--vast swaths of vacant or dilapidated land or bland buildings that actually offer people places to live, shop, and pay taxes? I know that your response will be "well, we don't have to choose between the two" but the reality is, most developers aren't even aware of the choice and are just going to build what they're going to build.

I'll have to take a look at Wong's Canal St loft in Chinatown but, given my history of not having an eye for design nor giving it much importance (aside from a few pet peeves like parking podia and strip malls) I'll probably just see it and say "looks alright to me.."

No, my response is, "You don't know what you're talking about." How exactly do you know anything about the origins of my thoughts on this matter?

If you think the South Side is all vast swaths of vacant land, with no shopping districts or places to live, you need to look a little harder. How exactly does even the area in question meet your description? Virtually no vacant land, tons of tax base, etc. Where are you getting this from - the New York Post?

I'm not comparing the South Side to paradise. But is it universally a "shithole"? Really? Didn't you live in Hyde Park once upon a time? Has it not made any strides in the past decade?

The basis for my statement is that I have lived on the South Side for the better part of 10 years, and I know virtually every block. I also have seen good developers produce good buildings, even in the heart of the "shithole."

[wrabbit]

Ummm guys, that's not a parking garage, that is 4 floors of retail with 4 floors of parking on top. Thats not unreasonable at all considering the density and location of this project.

There is more/less going on here than that. The shell is an eight-story garage. They are fenestrating the bottom 4 floors to enclose a mall/small-office space.

[wrabbit]

its odd it seems...i dont know....asian

The concrete, maybe?

[Chicago3rd]

its odd it seems...i dont know....asian

Actually it looks like a lot of the stuff I saw over in Seoul and Gwangju.

[nomarandlee]

Dude, it is a suburban strip mall, tarted up, with a big parking garage slapped on top. They've just replaced the surface lot with the plaza - same effect on the streetscape. Two of your least favorite things, and they are prominent features of the complex.

No, a strip mall doesn't have garage parking and it would have a parking lot instead of a plaza. Perhaps the plaza will be dead space or perhaps it will be add to the streetscape but either way it will not be a parking lot.


.......I don't mind the project, in fact part of me kinda likes the faux-Asian schemes both modern and traditional that Wong is implement. I just question the location as it seems rather isolated trapped in by expressways. I somehow wish it was on the other side of 90/94 by the Orange Line. I don't even think all that many people will take the Orange Line to it considering they will have to walk under a few underpasses and barren streetscape.
.

[BWChicago]

Actually it looks like a lot of the stuff I saw over in Seoul and Gwangju.

Or Blade Runner?

[the urban politician]

Ummm guys, that's not a parking garage, that is 4 floors of retail with 4 floors of parking on top. Thats not unreasonable at all considering the density and location of this project.

^ Thank you.

Seriously, some of you people need to come visit Queens. We have huge malls/shopping centers exactly like the one planned above and they are near transit--and they are designed to be highly accessible to the pedestrian. They generate a lot of auto as well as transit trips.

We need to stop trying to be Berlin or Manhattan and recognize that the Queens model makes the most sense for many of Chicago's south/west side neighborhoods.

I invite many of you urban purists out there to come pay me a visit. I will give you a tour of Queens and show you examples of very successful urban development that isn't the quaint 19th century brick village model.

[the urban politician]

^ Yep, that's the strange silver lining of Wong's developments. In some ways, they do look just like China.



No, my response is, "You don't know what you're talking about." How exactly do you know anything about the origins of my thoughts on this matter?

If you think the South Side is all vast swaths of vacant land, with no shopping districts or places to live, you need to look a little harder. How exactly does even the area in question meet your description? Virtually no vacant land, tons of tax base, etc. Where are you getting this from - the New York Post?

I'm not comparing the South Side to paradise. But is it universally a "shithole"? Really? Didn't you live in Hyde Park once upon a time? Has it not made any strides in the past decade?

The basis for my statement is that I have lived on the South Side for the better part of 10 years, and I know virtually every block. I also have seen good developers produce good buildings, even in the heart of the "shithole."

^ No disrespect intended, and I didn't expect for our discussion to take this turn.

But yes, I think much of the south side is a shithole. I think what the city has done in the south side has been nothing short of total devastation. Sure there is plenty of good housing stock, but many of the commercial districts are just damn gone. They are either vacant or have unfortunately been replaced by very suburban-style development with massive amounts of streetlife-killing surface parking, and I absolutely think Wong's project is a huge improvement over that.

Yes, Hyde Park is a jewel on the south side, but it really has been stagnating. There has been some development here and there, but a drive on State St from Cermak down to about the 40's is just a lesson in disappointment. It's vacant swaths of land intermixed with some old buildings and some new development, and even IIT does little to create that sense of 'enclosure' that you want to see in a desirable urban neighborhood.

A drive on 79th st is another disappointment--older building stock intermixed with vacant lots and city-spiting strip malls. YUCK!

I can go on and on. Don't even get me started on 63rd St.

I am a huge advocate of the south side--don't get me wrong. I badly want to see it developed into a more vibrant, urban, desirable place to live and shop--and that's why I would love to see more projects like Wong's above. But right now, besides some pockets of promise I think it's in severely bad shape.

[wrabbit]

No, a strip mall doesn't have garage parking and it would have a parking lot instead of a plaza. Perhaps the plaza will be dead space or perhaps it will be add to the streetscape but either way it will not be a parking lot......

What I said was "They've just replaced the surface lot with the plaza - same effect on the streetscape." I understand that it isn't a parking lot.