[the urban politician]

I'll tepidly throw my hat in with MrD here - while there is ample off-street accessory parking deeded to housing units and ample metered street parking for short-term stays in South Loop, there are a few areas where there is a near complete absence of parking available at any price for medium-term stays (e.g. 6-24 hours, overnight). To be sure, it's a highly localized problem, particularly getting south of Roosevelt and in Central Station as MrD points out. It really is a problem unique to South Loop, as most other neighborhoods in the Central Area either have publicly-accessible off-street parking, e.g. the garages in River North and Gold Coast, or are much lower density and have unmetered street parking as in West Loop.

Just because there is a need for carefully considered parking facilities doesn't imply that there should be retail strip malls with acres of asphalt wastelands sitting unused for 99% of the year. It's important to draw a line in the sand against the people who would turn South Loop into Schaumburg as many undoubtedly would, but having some medium-term parking available at an appropriate price (i.e. not free/subsidized) is actually important for the economic vitality of the area, particularly if there are aspirations for it being mixed-use. For myriad reasons, there are some people who will only ever go to South Loop by automobile, and while they shouldn't be subsidized in doing so (that is to say, they should have to pay a commensurate price for storing their vehicle in downtown Chicago where real estate value is at a premium), it should at least be feasible.

Generally, parking availability can be taken care of by the "free market" as pilsenarch suggests - this is why I so strongly supported hiking street meter rates, as cheap meters underprice the real estate in busy retail districts and cause a shortage of availability. But if there are no spaces even available to let the market price, the discussion is moot, and I believe that is MrD's contention in re: South Loop parking.

^ In what way is this conclusion "throwing your hat in with Mr. D"? This is basically where I stand, as well. Nowhere have I advocated for a parking ban, I simply want the market to sort it out; this is in opposition to Mr D, who is implying that the city should mandate increasing the minimum parking ratios in new developments--did you not read any of our posts?

However, my initial attack on Mr D was after he said this:

Take a breath and think about this. A guy looks around and decides that he likes the South Loop, because it's not as congested as Streeterville. He likes the combination of modern amenities, transit access, and proximity to the Loop. He moves in, to the benefit of all Chicago. You come along, visiting from a neighborhood where parking is never a problem, and arbitrarily declare that he lives "downtown" and that he should not complain about losing one of the features that originally made the neighborhood attractive to him. Why can't different neighborhoods (and the South Loop is a neighborhood, not "downtown") have different attributes?

^ By saying "different attributes" he distinguishes the south loop from other parts of the downtown area, implying that people there should be allowed to expect suburban amenities such as plenty of parking. This post displays a subtle attempt by Mr D to somehow depict his own neighborhood as distinctly "different" from say Streeterville, River North, etc--frankly I think it sets a dangerous anti-development tone and I wouldn't ignore it even in its subtlety.

If you agree with Mr. D that people in the south loop who expect plenty of space and cheap/available parking should not be criticized for complaining, then yes, perhaps you do agree with Mr D more than you do with me, Viva.

[VivaLFuego]

Ok, maybe after the first few posts in the argument my eyes glazed over and I just wrote a response :)

Yes, if MrD is advocating for mandated high levels of plentiful off-street parking for all, then I wouldn't side with him, but my impression is that his concern is the complete lack of available medium-term parking, which needs to be available in some quantity at some price in any economically vital area. I just think it's worth mentioning that people who point out that South Loop warrants some attention/planning in regards to off-street parking aren't necessarily displaced-Napervillain crackpots. The issue with any parking in cities, be it on street or off street, is that it is appropriately priced. Rather than attack parking as evil, vitriol should be directed at underpriced parking. Many South Loop residents would surely love it if downtown Chicago were razed and replaced with strip malls with plentiful parking connected by broad 8-lane arterials, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that parking has to be part of the planning/development equation, certainly moreso than it has been in South Loop over the past 10 years.

[VivaLFuego]

I think you all you guys just like to read your own type....how about a response to letting the status quo, free market solution stand? While a few loud city residents say otherwise, the vast silent majority of residents, and FUTURE city residents will make sacrifices for parking....all of history shows this.

When almost all development occurs through the Planned Development extortion/control/zoning-bypass process, rather than via as-of-right zoning, there is no free market to speak of. In theory, a well-crafted zoning code would provide the framework that would keep everything in check with some basic limits guiding development which could then occur based on market demands - by and large, that is how the Gold Coast and north lakeshore developed in the 1960s boom, where Planned Developments were somewhat rare and only used where appropriate, i.e. very large and/or irregular development sites with complicated mixed use proposals. In contrast, during the recent boom, almost everything has been a Planned Development, which ironically has resulted in South Loop being a non-comprehensively-planned mishmash of disparate urban form with no coherency in terms of basic planning considerations - such as off-street parking.

Having no zoning whatsover specifying off-street parking is potentially dangerous - some developers will build with no parking, stimulating demand for parking nearby, which thus creates pressure for existing urban uses to be demolished and replaced with parking lots, etc. Why not actually make an effort at planning so such destructive effects are avoided? In theory, the Planned Development process could actually be beneficial if being used for transferable development rights, i.e. aside from transferring density rights to preserve a landmark, one could transfer off-street parking as well. Of course, this is not how Planned Developments have worked in the recent Chicago boom, where the process has more often than not simply been a method for some combination of 1) extracting random political concessions from developers and 2) letting developers make an end-run around any pesky zoning requirements.

[Mr Downtown]

Mr D . . . is implying that the city should mandate increasing the minimum parking ratios in new developments

Where did I ever imply that? All I want is for the city, through PD negotiations, to persuade developers of large projects to make some of their parking shared parking that serves retail and visitor needs, instead of solely deeded parking for the condo owners, which sometimes sits empty. State Place is a good example. This should have the effect of reducing the total number of spaces the neighborhood needs. Beyond that small intervention, I'm happy to let the market sort it out.

[the urban politician]

When almost all development occurs through the Planned Development extortion/control/zoning-bypass process, rather than via as-of-right zoning, there is no free market to speak of. In theory, a well-crafted zoning code would provide the framework that would keep everything in check with some basic limits guiding development which could then occur based on market demands - by and large, that is how the Gold Coast and north lakeshore developed in the 1960s boom, where Planned Developments were somewhat rare and only used where appropriate, i.e. very large and/or irregular development sites with complicated mixed use proposals. In contrast, during the recent boom, almost everything has been a Planned Development, which ironically has resulted in South Loop being a non-comprehensively-planned mishmash of disparate urban form with no coherency in terms of basic planning considerations - such as off-street parking.

Having no zoning whatsover specifying off-street parking is potentially dangerous - some developers will build with no parking, stimulating demand for parking nearby, which thus creates pressure for existing urban uses to be demolished and replaced with parking lots, etc. Why not actually make an effort at planning so such destructive effects are avoided? In theory, the Planned Development process could actually be beneficial if being used for transferable development rights, i.e. aside from transferring density rights to preserve a landmark, one could transfer off-street parking as well. Of course, this is not how Planned Developments have worked in the recent Chicago boom, where the process has more often than not simply been a method for some combination of 1) extracting random political concessions from developers and 2) letting developers make an end-run around any pesky zoning requirements.


^ That's fine, but increasing parking ratios in new developments scares me. It just doesn't rub me the right way as a solution--not only for the aesthetic consequences of even larger parking blob horror podiums, but the notion that the city essentially mandates preferring one form of transportation over another.

What's wrong with 1:1? A more fair mandate would be that unpurchased parking spots in new developments must be made available to the public for short term paid use.

[the urban politician]

Where did I ever imply that?

^ Perhaps my assumption has to do with this post you made just in the last page:

Page 4-48 Chapter 4: Central Area Planning Subdistricts Draft
South Loop
Policies & Actions
Regulatory
•The parking policy in the South Loop merits review as surface lots give way to new development. Minimum parking ratios may not be creating enough spaces for visitors and business customers and, therefore, contributing to localized parking shortages and circulation problems.

Page 4-52 Chapter 4: Central Area Planning Subdistricts Draft
Near South
Policies & Actions
Regulatory
•The accessory parking policy in this district merits review; minimum residential parking ratios are not creating enough spaces. The loss of surface parking lots is also contributing to parking shortages or circulation problems.

^ This seems to imply that you feel minimum parking ratios are inadequate, although I agree you never explicitly stated that you wished to raise them, so I'll grant you that.

In fact, if you look at your proposal as well as my post just above this one, you and I are essentially advocating the same solution. How about them apples? :cool:

[Chicago3rd]

I can guanantee you even with Lakeview and Lincoln Park having on-street parking that there are way less spots available per household than the South Loop no matter how you cut it.

Population density of the South Loop 4866 people per square mile, Schaumburg - only 900 people per square less. Lakeview, population 91,000 - 30,000 people per square mile and Lakeview East, the more popular part of Lakeview is about 43,000 people a square mile. Think of all the apartments and three flats that have no parking and yet Lakeview/Lincoln Park are some of the most desired neighborhoods in the city and that is because of the walkablity, transit access, and the restaurant, retail, and other business.

One thing that has always perplexed me is why people want to recreate Schaumburg in a neighborhood adjacent to the Loop. Instead of people fighting for more people and density, thus more retail services and other stuff will arrive, people fight for parking and parking.

You want a Lakeview type neighborhood with plenty of parking thus meaning it would have to be low density? Thats impossible.

Exactly. Many blocks of the densest areas of Lakeview (Eastern part closer to the lake with all the high rises) do not have alleys. Parking is hard as hell. But it is a prime spot many thousands of people chose to live there even with the parking issues.

South Loop...if they want more parking then they will pay for it and that specific precinct will need to pay more in property taxes, which will go to off set the cost for road maintenance due to the higher/denser auto usage. They will also be charged more for traffic management/resolutions which the higher auto traffic will require…plus all future “fixes” when they start complaining about the traffic (look at the Wrigley area…..lol)

If they are car lovers....and want to import their auto-centric culture into the South Loop then they will need to pay for their habit.

We will also need to limit the amount of public transportation improvements and only support capital improvement of mass transit areas to the parts of the city that chose to kick their car habits. They will have service…but their money will be going to take care of their car needs….and not draining public transportation funds.

[Mr Downtown]

Since at the time we were discussing Thursday's meeting about the Central Area Action Plan, I thought it might be useful to post what that document actually says. So no one would think it was my opinion, I posted it in a different color, size, and typeface.

I'll certainly think twice about doing such a thing next time.

[Rilestone75]

Where did I ever imply that? All I want is for the city, through PD negotiations, to persuade developers of large projects to make some of their parking shared parking that serves retail and visitor needs, instead of solely deeded parking for the condo owners, which sometimes sits empty. State Place is a good example. This should have the effect of reducing the total number of spaces the neighborhood needs. Beyond that small intervention, I'm happy to let the market sort it out.

By "persuading" developers to add shared/retail parking, you are forcing the future condo association to take on a liability that they may not want to. It is one thing for these associations to deal with and manage their own parking or the parking of their respective unit owners, but since the majority of them are created as "Not For Profit" businesses, it may be a bigger deal to collect parking fees that we think.

[VivaLFuego]

By "persuading" developers to add shared/retail parking, you are forcing the future condo association to take on a liability that they may not want to. It is one thing for these associations to deal with and manage their own parking or the parking of their respective unit owners, but since the majority of them are created as "Not For Profit" businesses, it may be a bigger deal to collect parking fees that we think.

My building with attended garage has a certain number of spaces available for public/guest paid parking. The association uses it as extra income. Of course, we don't have deeded spaces - but public parking mingled with private parking is hardly a new concept for condo buildings. Ironically, by having the garage attended, the parking cost for residents is actually lower than it would be otherwise because the attendants can cram more cars in.

What's wrong with 1:1? A more fair mandate would be that unpurchased parking spots in new developments must be made available to the public for short term paid use.

Oh, I don't want to raise the 1:1 for minimum accessory parking, if anything I think it should be lowered to perhaps 0.5:1 for studio/efficiency units, .75:1 for 1 bedrooms, then 1:1 for 2+ bedrooms. Remember, even in South Loop, the developers of that Avalon Bay project only wanted to build 0.65:1 accessory parking based on their market analysis before Fioretti made them raise it to 0.95:1. But accessory parking, i.e devotion of real estate for permanent vehicle storage for condo buildings, impacts whether or not residents own cars which in turn affects whether those residents choose to make trips via foot, transit, car, or otherwise. That's a notably different issue than whether or not people who live elsewhere but are driving to South Loop to visit friends or conduct business can find a place to stick their car for a few hours. I'm just talking about there being more garage spaces available to the public for medium-term parking - totally separate from how many spaces the Schaumburg transplants have for all the cars they bring with.

[ih8spires]

Does anyone know what is going on at the parking garage on State and Kinzie? The jack hammers have been out busting holes in the concrete surfaces for a few days. From what I can see nothing structural has been demolished.

[ardecila]

Patching holes? IIRC, that garage is in pretty bad shape.

[BWChicago]

Patching holes? IIRC, that garage is in pretty bad shape.

I wish it would disappear. What a monster.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Are we talking about the one across from IBM? I think it at least complements IBM from an aesthetic perspective (was its construction related to IBM?). Where are they punching holes in the concrete? I imagine they might be adding retail if its the section along state. They already added retail along Wabash, adding it on State would only seem logical.

[Jibba]

Pretty sure it's this P.O.S. (does have mad character, though, at least for photos):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3525/3268102587_6114c9f277.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3081/3123371285_8089e5c93b.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3115/3123339607_b4520a40b3.jpg?v=0

Complementing IBM though? I think that's reaching. A lot.

[BVictor1]

Are you volunteering to go out every two hours all night and put in seven quarters each time? Remember that at 8 the next morning the rate goes up to seven quarters each hour, if it's not a tow zone from 7-9 am. And of course from Dec. 1 to Apr. 1 you probably can't park there.



Take a breath and think about this. A guy looks around and decides that he likes the South Loop, because it's not as congested as Streeterville. He likes the combination of modern amenities, transit access, and proximity to the Loop. He moves in, to the benefit of all Chicago. You come along, visiting from a neighborhood where parking is never a problem, and arbitrarily declare that he lives "downtown" and that he should not complain about losing one of the features that originally made the neighborhood attractive to him. Why can't different neighborhoods (and the South Loop is a neighborhood, not "downtown") have different attributes?

No, but you could volunteer for your guests to go to one of the 20 dozen banks in the area to get rolls of quarters for them.

I've thought about this and I've come to the conclusion that the people moving downtown or to the central area need to do there research before they buy and understand that it's in no ones best interest to have a shitload of parking. That's just the way it is. I seem to realize that and to be honest, it doesn't seen that difficult to comprehend. Al that you're stating is good and well, but it's still the central area, where the most density is. HE'she might like the southloop because it's less congested than Streeterville, but there's still a price to pay and culture to accept. Different neighborhoods do have different attributes like resturantes and stores. You want on-street parking, move to the bungalow belt. You can't please everyone with parking. It's time for us to change our car-whore mentality. I think you know that.

The South Loop is downtown. Downtown isn't just the loop, so don't try to pull that crap. If you want to go that direction, Streeterville isn't downtown; nor is River North.

[denizen467]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-going-postal-city-zoneapr29,0,3535940.story

Chicago will have last 24-hour post office in U.S.
By Angie Leventis Lourgos
April 29, 2009

...

Soon Chicago will be the only city in the nation with full 24-hour postal service. New York's main post office plans on closing its overnight windows on May 9.

...

At least 22 postal facilities, mainly in large cities and near airports, offered 24-hour window service in the early 2000s, said Postal Service historians Meg Ausman and Jennifer Lynch.

But one by one, they called it a night. Omaha closed 24-hour service in January 2006. Indianapolis ended overnight tellers on May 27, 2006. Salt Lake City shut down its late-night windows on Feb. 3, 2007. Dallas curtailed its hours on Feb. 2, 2008. Denver stopped catering to night owls on March 29.

...

[denizen467]

^ I'll also take this opportunity to add the trivium that (while not as profound as a US post office) Chicago had the last 24-hour Home Depot in the U.S. (North Ave & the River). Even today, it is the only Home Depot in the U.S. open until midnight, and it is also their highest-grossing store.

[emathias]

The surface lot on the NW corner of Clark and Huron, across from what was the Hotel Wacker and is now the Hotel Felix, has been swathed with green mesh now. They cut out the black fencing over the weekend and it looks a heckuva lot like they want to construct something there.

James Place (http://www.jamesplacechicago.com/) was pitched for it, but I find it hard to believe they'd be breaking ground on that anytime soon. I just think it's weird that they'd wrap the site in green mesh, too. If they are building now, maybe there's hope that Staybridge can get funding to finish up soon, too.

Since I live on Huron the next block West, I'd be pleased to see that entire block filled with buildings and activities, adding to the density of the area.

[sentinel]

Roosevelt Collection from street level, taken today 04.28.09
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3635/3485600023_834268a879_b.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

The surface lot on the NW corner of Clark and Huron, across from what was the Hotel Wacker and is now the Hotel Felix, has been swathed with green mesh now. They cut out the black fencing over the weekend and it looks a heckuva lot like they want to construct something there.

James Place (http://www.jamesplacechicago.com/) was pitched for it, but I find it hard to believe they'd be breaking ground on that anytime soon. I just think it's weird that they'd wrap the site in green mesh, too. If they are building now, maybe there's hope that Staybridge can get funding to finish up soon, too.

Since I live on Huron the next block West, I'd be pleased to see that entire block filled with buildings and activities, adding to the density of the area.

Maybe just repaving the surface lot? Or perhaps the area will be graced with a new drive-thru like the one coming up at LaSalle/Grand?

[the urban politician]

Roosevelt Collection from street level, taken today 04.28.09
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3635/3485600023_834268a879_b.jpg

^ Thanks for the update.

I'm still trying to imagine this becoming a dynamic, urban district eventually. But so far, I'm not seeing it.

[spyguy]

http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=46&SubSectionID=139&ArticleID=7377&TM=29.857

To foreclose or not to foreclose?
Felicia Dechter
4/29/2009 10:00:00 PM

...Yet dotted among the tony graystones and well-heeled residents of the area stand several multi-million dollar vacant properties bought by M Development before the real estate market crash. At an April 15 meeting at Ogden School, Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd Ward) told the crowd those properties - which include The Cedar Hotel, Three Arts Club, the Regina, the east side of State from Elm to Division and the Esquire Theater - are facing foreclosure suits.

Yet M Development firmly denies this is so, and says they're not in foreclosure on any of their properties in the ward.

[VivaLFuego]

Whatever. M development has seemed intent upon depriving the area of any remaining character, so I can't say I feel bad about their business prospects being in the toilet as long as the buildings have yet to be demolished. For some reason, of all these suburbanizing projects, the planned demolition of the Regina (and presumably also the 4-story graystone to the north which was also vacated) for a 1-2 story retail building irked me the most. The Cedar was the most tasteful of all the projects, since the only two worthy aspects of the crunchy old drug/prostitution den were to be saved: the facade and the open-air dining space in front.

The Three Arts debacle was (is?) one of those never-ending neighborhood battles where the only just outcome is for all sides to lose.

And the Esquire cluster is useful as evidence of Ald. Reilly's devotion to sound, rational urban planning. :rolleyes:

[ChiMack]

why do all these new developments all look so similar they all look like cookie cutter suburban developments; thats something i hate they all look the same or almost the same especially the housing

[ChiMack]

btw do you think the houing at michel reese will sell? in a interview Daley said he wants to build something there no matter if we get the olympics or not

[wrabbit]

(Cross-posted in the Sears Tower thread http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=153704&page=12 )

-----

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/a-glass-bottom-skydeck-for-sears-tower.html

A glass-bottom Skydeck for Sears Tower
May 1, 2009 8:51 AM | No Comments

Visitors won't have to crane their necks to see straight down from the Sears Tower Skydeck when the building adds four glass-bottomed balconies, nicknamed "The Ledge," to its 50-mile views come June.

The Skydeck on the 103rd floor of the building that is changing its name to Willis Tower, opened in 1974, and has--weather permitting--always provided a view of four states. But to see what's directly beneath them, visitors always had to get as close to the building's windows as possible. The Ledge is scheduled to open next month, according to a spokeswoman for the Skydeck.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/46649784-01064625JPG.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/searstowerledge1jpg.jpg

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/a-glass-bottom-skydeck-for-sears-tower.html

[ethereal_reality]

Frightening.......but cool.

They're also retractable. Perhaps they'll be pulled in when the skydeck is closed.

[Busy Bee]

I just pee'd down my leg.

I don't care how 'tough' you are, that's a little scary.

[jboy560]

I cannot wait to try that out! Would this glass floor be higher than the one over the Grand Canyon?

[wrabbit]

^ From the GC Sky Walk website:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/bigtowers.gif

http://www.destinationgrandcanyon.com/skywalk.html

[spyguy]

^But you can't see those awesome West Loop buildings from the Grand Canyon one.

That rendering does make me wonder how the experience would change if you were standing over the Chicago River instead of Sears' ugly plaza.

[Mr Downtown]

. . . looking at the kayakers far below.

[spyguy]

I was thinking of something like walking the plank, especially with all the pirate talk these days.

BTW, CBS has two decent videos about this
http://cbs2chicago.com/video/?id=58161@wbbm.dayport.com
http://cbs2chicago.com/video/?id=58160@wbbm.dayport.com

[denizen467]

^ From the GC Sky Walk website:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/bigtowers.gif

http://www.destinationgrandcanyon.com/skywalk.html
As almost everyone here knows, the Petronas Towers are much shorter than that. The pinnacle of the spires should be barely higher than Sears's roof. Their drawing is wrong because they just assumed the Petronas height figure measures the roof rather than the spire pinnacles. This mistake is and will be repeated in brochures and graphics produced all over the planet - another frustrating result that the CTBUH didn't take into consideration when they adopted their dumb new rule.

Other than that, pretty awesome sight, that skywalk.

[the urban politician]

Central Area Plan has wide range of impact locally (http://www.gazettechicago.com/index/?p=205)

By Dermot Connolly | May 2009

A range of significant transportation, urban design, open space,and waterfront projects that comprise the implementation phase of the City’s sweeping Central Area Plan (CAP) was discussed at an April 2 community meeting that Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) hosted at the Erie Cafe, 536 W. Erie St.

Meeting sponsors included the River North Residents Association, the Fulton River District Association, and the River North Business Association.

More than 100 people turned out to hear about the sweeping plan, which they were told represents the next step in the implementation of the economic development and land use goals laid out in the 2003 Central Area Plan. It prioritizes the CAP’s key urban design, transportation, open space, and waterfront projects, but does not address the issue of where the funding needed to do it will come from.

Bennett Haller, director of urban design and planning for the Chicago Department of Zoning and Land Use, reviewed the plan. He and Reilly then took questions from the audience about the plan that encompasses parts of the 2nd, 3rd, 25th, 27th, 42nd, and 43rd wards.

Reilly and Haller said that about 30 business and civic leaders participated in the drafting the plan, which took about 18 months to complete.

‘Vision document’
They both noted that the Central Area Plan simply is a “vision document” that needs just the approval of the City Plan Commission to be accepted. Reilly explained that each of the individual projects outlined within the CAP would need to go through the normal procedures before anything comes to fruition.

“I don’t want people to think that if the Plan Commission OKs it, it will go ahead,” Reilly said. “This doesn’t mean that anything will be built. It is not going to happen that way. Each of the projects would have to go through the regular procedures, aldermanic approval, zoning hearings, and a vote by the full City Council. Everything will be done out in the open.”

The complete plan is available for viewing on the City of Chicago Web site at egov.cityofchicago.org.

The plan is divided into chapters on land use, transportation and design, and covers North, South, and Central subdistricts. The subdistricts considered in the Central Area include Cabrini-Green, Near North, River North, Streeterville, the Near West Side, West Loop, Central Loop, South Loop, River South, South West Loop, Near South Side and Chinatown.

In addition to the creation of new green space and the expansion of Ping Tom Park, plans calls for considerable improvements in transportation, including new or improved Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) stations and more underground parking facilities on Monroe Street and elsewhere.

South Loop schools, dorms
More elementary and high schools are envisioned in the South Loop, as well as more student housing for colleges in the area.

One of the least expensive projects along the lakefront would be the addition of 200 feet of land near Oak Street Beach, to create a buffer between Lake Shore Drive and the lake.

A few “shovel-ready” projects, such as the new Green Line station on Morgan Street, are included in the plan. However, City officials said, most of the projects are years away from becoming a reality.

Haller pointed out that the total price tag to complete everything would be something like $16 billion, and no money has been allocated as yet. He said that Chicago being awarded the 2016 Olympics, if it were to happen, may generate funding and spur some of the projects toward completion, but none of them is directly linked to the Olympics.

When he was asked after the meeting about the possibility of getting State or Federal funding for the Morgan Street el station, rather than using tax-increment financing funds, Haller said only that the TIF money is the only revenue currently available.

“My first consideration is how these projects affect the local neighborhood,” Reilly said, noting he tries to act with such care that “I act as if I live down the street from where they are happening. “Each of the aldermen will have to give the go-ahead for the projects in their wards, and I have committed to having community meetings in each of the seven neighborhoods in my ward,” said Reilly.

“We are actually ahead of the curve,” said Reilly, noting that he has held several meetings in his ward already.

Enrique Perez, a Printers Row resident, said one of his chief concerns is that not enough schools are planned for the South Loop. He said he was also disappointed that other aldermen had not held similar meetings to the ones in Reilly’s ward.

Reilly said the aldermen would be able to arrange a combined ward meeting where residents from all wards affected could get together.

Public meetings
Reilly said the original intention was to bring the Action Plan before the Plan Commission by April, but now that may not happen until August, to allow for enough public meetings to be held.

“I have some very strong opinions about it,” said Michael Payne, a South Side resident who said he was most concerned that adequate improvements are not being planned to accommodate transportation needs in the event Chicago is awarded the Olympics.

He said it would make sense to align the South Shore Metra line more closely with the CTA rapid transit system, pointing out that it would serve people going to the Olympic venues planned on the South Side. Haller said he tended to agree.

The plan also mentions other waterfront, open space, transportation, and urban-design improvements, such as expanding walkways where feasible along the Chicago River, Northerly Island, and Grant Park.

Brian Israel, president of the River North Residents Association, said “we do not unreservedly agree with everything in the plan,” but said he likes the idea that it looks at development “from 60,000 feet above,” viewing all the projects in relation to each other, and building upon each other.

“I think it is a great step,” Israel continued. “Too often, we approve one project at a time, without looking at the big picture. Then we come back years later and wonder what happened.”

“I am very impressed with the plan and I especially like the transportation portion,” said one meeting attendee. “But what concerns me is the possible lack of political will” in the City Council to get the projects done in the face of local opposition.

“One thing I have is a deep appreciation for is public transportation,” said Reilly, asserting that he has immersed himself in urban planning and the needs of the CTA and RTA. “All I can say is I have the political will. I am someone who will listen to public input, but I always have regional needs in mind as well,” said Reilly.

[BVictor1]

Enrique Perez, a Printers Row resident, said one of his chief concerns is that not enough schools are planned for the South Loop. He said he was also disappointed that other aldermen had not held similar meetings to the ones in Reilly’s ward.


Enrique Perez = Chicago Central Area Plan Presentation. South Loop Building Heights & Parking Lots to be Affected.

During the question/answer session, he didn't ask about schools. He was asking/complaining about height and density. Thealderman told him that it wasn't the venue for that discussion. This is a continuing issue with him. If he's so concerned about schools, why didn't he ask that question in the first place?

[Jibba]

^So that was that guy who ran through that very rehearsed and programmed tirade about building height at the meeting on the 23rd? He was something else.

[BVictor1]

^So that was that guy who ran through that very rehearsed and programmed tirade about building height at the meeting on the 23rd? He was something else.

One in the same.

[puckle74]

[SIZE="4"]“One thing I have is a deep appreciation for is public transportation,” said Reilly, asserting that he has immersed himself in urban planning and the needs of the CTA and RTA. “All I can say is I have the political will. I am someone who will listen to public input, but I always have regional needs in mind as well,” said Reilly.

That's good, I was worried Reilly might have been caving into recently arrived nimby's.

[emathias]

That's good, I was worried Reilly might have been caving into recently arrived nimby's.

I asked him point blank at the River North meeting if he had the political will to see it through. I also mentioned I thought allowing individual aldermen the power to affect the central area (the way he and Fioretti do), which affects the entire city, was possibly bad for the city and should be changed. The question and statement caught him off guard and, if we're lucky, kept him thinking about how downtown projects must be treated differently than neighborhood projects.

[the urban politician]

^ Ahhh, so that "meeting attendee" mentioned at the end of the article was you?

By the way, do you mind sharing with us what Reilly's response to your question was?

[harryc]

April 24
PreCast and PrePainted (top of elevator shaft)
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sf3XF9mHgrI/AAAAAAABLLk/mOB9bnwlnBc/s800/P1340731.JPG

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sf3XG0C3WVI/AAAAAAABLLw/YgZOSVxl2wM/s800/P1340733.JPG

Flat plate on a rounded stud - statics gone wild.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sf3XHxeJJpI/AAAAAAABLL8/7vqLXuLrYWs/s800/P1340735.JPG

and here 2 verticle plates.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sf3XIzLcZSI/AAAAAAABLMI/Djo1V4esgOA/s720/P1340736.JPG

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sf3XKMQNtpI/AAAAAAABLMU/2KDahL_JUYM/s720/P1340737.JPG

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer 5/2/09


The Lancaster at Lakeshore East
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/17/dsc0773i.jpg


The Parkhomes at Lakeshore East
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7861/dsc0617eay.jpg


http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/6824/dsc0619t.jpg


http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/4731/dsc0772.jpg


Columbus Drive bridge-sailboats on their annual migration to the lake
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1246/dsc0656.jpg

[harryc]

Utility vault, Michigan & River
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sf38A7J1_pI/AAAAAAABLN4/Ns4xuRrSUbo/s800/P1340599.JPG

Anchoring the walk to the bottom of a bridge tower.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sf38CRn6c2I/AAAAAAABLOE/1FTuJ3Zjyhw/s800/P1340602.JPG

Carpenters that float.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sf38EcpaF-I/AAAAAAABLOQ/X3JJWp0a2qo/s800/P1340613.JPG

From Wabash bridge (April 24)
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sf38F1RXmbI/AAAAAAABLOc/wPH_ovr90MI/s720/P1340782.JPG

[EarlyBuyer]

Great shots all around harry!

[sentinel]

Temple of light
New Modern Wing much more than a container for art -- refined building opens to nature and the city
Blair Kamin Tribune architecture critic
May 3, 2009
In architecture, as in love and the stock market, timing is everything. As America extricates itself from an age of excess, when flashy new museums started to resemble exploded Coke cans, along comes the Art Institute of Chicago with a splendid new wing of restraint and refinement.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/arts/chi-0503-wing-kaminmay03,0,1301709.story

(There's a great interactive map of the new addition, but I couldn't figure out a way to copy the images onto the posting here - if anyone knows how to do so please add to this post).

[spyguy]

Came across these images of Southworks, don't think they were ever posted
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4183/sliptowers2.jpg
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5103/sliptowers.jpg
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8120/orewallpark.jpg

[lawfin]

^^^Sorry SPyguy but where is this proposed?

[spyguy]

^USX Southworks site
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=usx+southworks+chicago&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=42.901912,93.164063&ie=UTF8&ll=41.745061,-87.534471&spn=0.01982,0.04549&t=h&z=15

[VivaLFuego]

Came across these images of Southworks, don't think they were ever posted
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4183/sliptowers2.jpg
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5103/sliptowers.jpg
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8120/orewallpark.jpg

Wow, nice thought, but I doubt anything like that would actually sell in this country, unfortunately - I'd bet money against the project actually getting built out anything like that. Sigh. It's not nearly "neo-eclectic" (i.e. pomo crap) enough to fly 'round these parts. Looks like it'd be more in place in the Netherlands - in a good way.

[modkris]

Wow! This looks amazing. Who designed it?

[Abner]

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8120/orewallpark.jpg

Okay, this is just an awesome idea. This kind of thing is what makes the difference between a special place and just another master-planned sterile lawn-park. Almost like our own little Vysehrad.

Of course, it boggles the mind to think about how much more demand there would have to be for more new construction in order to justify building up the SouthWorks site. I would rather see at least half this area devoted to a seriously large park that wouldn't be cut up by roads and buildings like all the other ones are, and put the buildings elsewhere...

[emathias]

^ Ahhh, so that "meeting attendee" mentioned at the end of the article was you?

By the way, do you mind sharing with us what Reilly's response to your question was?

He said he had the political will, but qualified it by saying something to the effect that he had to consider his constituents (pretty wishy-washy, really), and that if I wanted to restructure the way downtown was governed I could start a referendum.

Does Chicago even have referendums?

[ardecila]

Okay, this is just an awesome idea. This kind of thing is what makes the difference between a special place and just another master-planned sterile lawn-park. Almost like our own little Vysehrad.

Of course, it boggles the mind to think about how much more demand there would have to be for more new construction in order to justify building up the SouthWorks site. I would rather see at least half this area devoted to a seriously large park that wouldn't be cut up by roads and buildings like all the other ones are, and put the buildings elsewhere...

Yes... but the next boom will focus on the south lakefront in a major way. The Michael Reese site/potential Olympic Village, the Lake Meadows redevelopment, the handful of proposals in Hyde Park, and Southworks will form a chain of dense nodes running down the lakefront, linked by the Metra Electric.

Right now, the south lakefront is being held back by (understandable) worries about crime. Ground is being broken on the South Side, however, at Oakwood Shores, Metropolis, Legends South, Lake Park Crescent, Park Boulevard, et al, which demonstrate that the area really holds appeal, especially among middle-class black homebuyers. It also demonstrates that the future of the South Side will most likely lie in a sequence of mega-developments, as it has since the 1950s.

If the recent crime wave in South Shore can be reversed, then I see little standing in the way of major redevelopment at South Works. I don't think, however, that a major upscale retail center should be the FIRST thing built - it seems like there should be buyers in the area with money before a bunch of high-end shops can be built.

[Abner]

In general I agree with you, but the area you are talking about is immense. The South Works site is farther from downtown than the northern border of the city and is larger than the entire Loop. The south lakefront is a lot longer than the north. Barring some kind of earth-shattering change in settlement patterns, it would take a long, long time to fill that entire area in, and even when it is filled in, I think it would be a good idea to have at least as much park space for the new residents as North Siders have--preferably a lot more considering the overcrowding at the lakefront on the North Side and the potential for new development in the vast interior of the South Side. So I think it's precisely because of long-term growth on the South Side that a large part of the South Works site should be turned into a park.

[Jibba]

Pritzker Park (phonecam shot, but you get the gist):

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4153/iphonepictures006.jpg

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Man I still think that a gigantic glass pit full of children would look very very good there, its a shame really...

[denizen467]

^ Don't give up hope yet; there is still a lawsuit or two going on..

[Busy Bee]

^^^ Man I still think that a gigantic glass pit full of children would look very very good there, its a shame really...

That's a good use of land. Why would they want to do that? Put it in a park! Put it in park!

[Mr Downtown]

I think it's probably fair to say that the reason work suddenly started on this project in the dead of winter, after six years of stalling around, was precisely so no one could suggest it as an alternate site for the Children's Museum.

[the urban politician]

I'm sure some people will disagree, but all in all I think Pritzker Park is a good idea.

I'm all for streetwalls and canyons, but it was due time that one of those parking lots in the south loop be converted into a small plaza/park.

[VivaLFuego]

I'm sure some people will disagree, but all in all I think Pritzker Park is a good idea.

I'm all for streetwalls and canyons, but it was due time that one of those parking lots in the south loop be converted into a small plaza/park.

This site had buildings on it until the Pritzkers decided it was uglying up the views of their new library and had the city condemn the buildings so we could be graced with a fenced-off patch of weeds with the occasional sleeping bum for the past 20 years. I suppose this plaza is an improvement over bum gardens, but as MrD hints at, why now? Why not 15-20 years ago?

[Mr Downtown]

And there are some basic urban design principles about where plazas make sense and where they don't. They should be on preexisting heavily traveled paths, be properly fronted by the surrounding buildings and streets, have good exposure to sunlight, and so on. Sun exposure is the only one of those that Pritzker Park has. The site is very much compromised by the L thundering by, the alley to the west, the ugly exposed walls of the parking garage and John Marshall Law School, etc. It's about the worst possible way to create a plaza in the South Loop: by tearing down some buildings whose tenants you found distasteful.

[the urban politician]

^ I don't know a whole lot of other ways to create a plaza in a very dense urban area. At some point you have to tear some buildings down.

[VivaLFuego]

^ I don't know a whole lot of other ways to create a plaza in a very dense urban area. At some point you have to tear some buildings down.

Being 1) on State street, 2) a block from Federal Plaza, 3) two blocks from Grant Park, 4) a block from the mini-plaza in front of the DePaul building at Jackson/State makes me doubt the necessity of any non-sidewalk open space at this location.

That said, by not developing it now, there is still long term potential for improved Loop-Subway transfer facilities (which have been discussed from time-to-time with the obvious questions about who pays for it). John Marshall Law School eventually wants to redevelop the SE corner of Dearborn/Van Buren which in theory would allow for a mega CTA transfer facility (Loop+Red+Blue) as well - without veering too much into "Transit Developments" territory, this would allow CTA to finally throughroute Midway-Kimball trains like it's always wanted because it would provide an ADA-accessible Blue Line transfer. So in a sense, having this site be a placeholding chintzy plaza isn't the worst thing while all the parties involved come together to ritualistically miss a grand development and urban planning opportunity while wasting a bunch of taxpayer dollars in TIF subsidies a la Block 37.

[Abner]

And there are some basic urban design principles about where plazas make sense and where they don't. They should be on preexisting heavily traveled paths, be properly fronted by the surrounding buildings and streets, have good exposure to sunlight, and so on. Sun exposure is the only one of those that Pritzker Park has. The site is very much compromised by the L thundering by, the alley to the west, the ugly exposed walls of the parking garage and John Marshall Law School, etc. It's about the worst possible way to create a plaza in the South Loop: by tearing down some buildings whose tenants you found distasteful.

This is absolutely right. This location is just horrible for a park. Like Mr Downtown said, it faces: a huge blank wall, an alley with an ugly parking garage on the other side, the el, and a low-activity section of State Street. I can't imagine it being anything more than a marginally acceptable place for people to eat a quick lunch.

[sentinel]

^^So, what's wrong with that?

[woodrow]

This site had buildings on it until the Pritzkers decided it was uglying up the views of their new library and had the city condemn the buildings so we could be graced with a fenced-off patch of weeds with the occasional sleeping bum for the past 20 years. I suppose this plaza is an improvement over bum gardens, but as MrD hints at, why now? Why not 15-20 years ago?

WRONG - The site was always to be part of the library design. The design chosen did not use it for the building (unlike Helmut Jahn's). I'm not carrying water for the Pritzkers, but I don't think they get the blame on this one.

[Mr Downtown]

The site was part of the South Loop Redevelopment District. After having the threat of condemnation hanging over it for a decade, surprise, the owners had not invested heavily in the buildings or tried to attract new tenants as the area changed. It was offered to architects in the library design-build competition, but the buildings were not cleared until after the new library had opened. Word on the street was that Penny Pritzker hated the idea of a Radio Shack and an adult bookstore in the foreground of her library. So the city swept in and tore down the buildings.

For several years, there was a quiet hope that it could eventually be redeveloped with a building. The mayor ordered the previous park improvement torn out about three years ago, and then shortly after the site was suggested as an alternative to Grant Park for the Children's Museum, construction suddenly began on a new park. Undoubtedly it was mere coincidence.

[Abner]

^^So, what's wrong with that?

A bad but acceptable place to sit while you wolf down a lunch is not exactly the highest and best use for almost half of a block in the middle of downtown. A large chunk of this "park" is directly adjacent to, and (sorry guys) shadowed by, the el, and the other part of it provides little more than a view of a parking garage and a giant wall adorned only with an ad for a crummy law school. This is a thoroughly insane place to put a park, and if the city were actually looking at things on their merits, it would never have done such a stupid thing.

Also consider that, aside from making it impossible to develop this land, it has also probably made it much more difficult to redevelop that squat, disgusting little parking garage immediately west of it.

I mean, go take a look at the place, or look at the photo on the previous page. What do you imagine somebody doing on that land? What the hell use is that dark little northwest corner? It's cut up so that you can't even throw a damn frisbee. Not only is the land uninviting, the majority of its area is practically unusable.

[the urban politician]

^ Since when is a park/plaza ever the "highest and best use" for land in a dense urban area?

Also, not every park needs to be so big and expansive that people can "throw frisbees" gleefully. Ever heard of the small pocket park?

Other than the deceptive means by which this park was developed, I don't see what the big complaint is. Instead of a weedy lot, you've got a place to sit and relax for a while--and perhaps until some future date when it gets redeveloped, that should be good enough.

[ChicagoChicago]

Pritzker Park (phonecam shot, but you get the gist):

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4153/iphonepictures006.jpg

WTF?

Can that piece of shit still be considered a park?

[Abner]

^ Since when is a park/plaza ever the "highest and best use" for land in a dense urban area?

Also, not every park needs to be so big and expansive that people can "throw frisbees" gleefully. Ever heard of the small pocket park?

Other than the deceptive means by which this park was developed, I don't see what the big complaint is. Instead of a weedy lot, you've got a place to sit and relax for a while--and perhaps until some future date when it gets redeveloped, that should be good enough.

Visit it next time you're in town. I see this park almost every day. This block did not need a park and it definitely did not need this park. Pocket parks are great. This park is a piece of crap in the worst possible location. As for the notion that it is a placeholder for future development, how often does the city rip out a park and turn the land over to private developers? (Okay, actually, scratch that last question.)

Although now that I look at that picture of it again, if you use your imagination you can see how it almost looks like the grave of the John Marshall Law School with a few tufts of grass beginning to grow over it.

[Busy Bee]

Code required landscape buffer behind the big box but in front of the retaining pond with slightly more artistic merit.

is that a giant mound of mulch? How is this usable public space again?

[Jibba]

Visit it next time you're in town. I see this park almost every day. This block did not need a park and it definitely did not need this park. Pocket parks are great. This park is a piece of crap in the worst possible location. As for the notion that it is a placeholder for future development, how often does the city rip out a park and turn the land over to private developers? (Okay, actually, scratch that last question.)

Although now that I look at that picture of it again, if you use your imagination you can see how it almost looks like the grave of the John Marshall Law School with a few tufts of grass beginning to grow over it.

:haha: Totally. Completely agree with what you said about the space, word for word.

[Nowhereman1280]

^ Since when is a park/plaza ever the "highest and best use" for land in a dense urban area?


Since a long time. Humans have always had a need for small pockets of nature in their built environments. Cities that lack these are much more unpleasant to our natural instinct to seek the cover and presence of greenery. Why do you think you feel so much better walking down a tree lined street with a canopy of leaves than across a concrete parking lot? Its been shown that people with more views of greenery are less stressed out and I think we really do have a basic instinct to seek lush, green areas whenever possible.

If you want an example of a plaza being a highest and best use, I would say Daley Plaza. You can't get much better of a use for that land, even a building there would not match it. It is an invaluable gathering space and civic center for such important pillars of our culture as the exercise of Free Speech.

This park however doesn't cut it when it comes to public space. The public needs spaces that will actually be used for things like protests or an escape to a greener area. This offers a tiny taste of each, but not enough in either direction to be effective in any way.

[dropdeaded209]

better a park than a parking garage, IMHO. but i agree, the design leaves something to be desired. however, i must say, when i was living in chicago and on my way to the library i always wished there was a usable park there...

oh and can someone PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post some photos of the modern wing??? it seems to be the only large project in chicago that doesn't get constantly photographed!

[Mr Downtown]

you've got a place to sit and relax for a while--and perhaps until some future date when it gets redeveloped

That's what we quietly hoped during the years when it was owned by the city. But it's now been turned over to the Park District. Legally, that makes it almost impossible to ever use it as anything but a park.

[BWChicago]

Page 1
S T A T E S T R E E T C O M M I S S I O N
ABC7
190 North State Street
Thursday, April 17, 2008
8:30 a.m.
M I N U T E S

Pritzker Park Presentation

Commissioner Dempsey has been working with the Chicago Park District and Christopher Gent, their Deputy Director of Planning & Development, on a plan for Pritzker Park. Gent walked the State Street Commissioners through the proposed plan.

Pritzker Park is located on the northwest corner of Van Buren and State, across from Harold Washington Library. It’s been basically green space that’s been fenced in. Last fall, Doug Hoerr Landscape Architects was hired, and some good ideas were generated. TIF money is being used, so the park must be completed by the end of the year. Construction will begin late this summer or in early fall. The section of land along State Street is considered the “permanent park.” The corner piece of land by Plymouth is considered a “temporary” park because the city may sell off that land later.

On the northwest corner, an opening or pass through area will be created by using different paving materials, moving into an area of permeable concrete. Along the alley is a retaining wall with fencing. A number of literary quotes (approximately 20) will be engraved into the wall. The quotes are representative of the City of Chicago and Chicago writers. About 5 concession kiosks are planned, including a coffee shop and possibly a newspaper or book business that is related to the library. DeCaux will place the concession buildings on site. Along the back area there will be enclosures allowing for truck and maintenance access. The key priority for the Park District is to work with the schools and the Library on programming—that will “make” the park.

Commissioner Dempsey said the library is committed to extending their WiFi into the park. Their maintenance staff will keep an eye on the area as well. The Park District has committed to mow the grass and pick up trash, but it was determined during the planning that it was desirable to go “over and above” ordinary grass, so 3 beds of ornamental grasses that could be planted with spring and summer bulbs were placed into the design. The beds are more than what the park district typically maintains, and it’s estimated that they will cost approximately $20,000 a year. It is being suggested that this cost be picked up by SSA#1’s budget. The ornamental grass serves as “eye candy” and helps to screen an unattractive parking lot. Once the grasses are established, the costs drop and maintenance will require just spring and summer clean ups. A water source will be provided. There is lighting and some up lighting in the ornamental grasses.

The Library is funding its own programming. Schools like DePaul are talking about providing jazz concerts. John Marshall Law School has approved of projections on their wall. Programming is somewhat limited because of the noise from the el. The Library and the Park District would take care of all scheduling.

A question was posed by Ty Tabing. If State Street spends $20,000 a year for maintenance, would there be an opportunity to “privatize” all or a portion of the park at times and recoup some of that money? Chris Gent replied that there is plenty of room for a 50 piece orchestra and 250 guests.

[BWChicago]

Here's a pic of the first incarnation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jones_garden.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Jones_garden.jpg

[Busy Bee]

Why is the photo flipped?

[harryc]

Here's a pic of the first incarnation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jones_garden.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Jones_garden.jpg

I remember that - with the wall you weren't supposed to sit on.

[BWChicago]

Why is the photo flipped?
Looks like a scanned slide. Those are easy to flip.

[the urban politician]

The section of land along State Street is considered the “permanent park.” The corner piece of land by Plymouth is considered a “temporary” park because the city may sell off that land later.


^ I'm having a difficult time conceptualizing what "corner piece" they're talking about. Are they talking about the land that the parking garage is occupying? What portion will be the "temporary" park?

[Abner]

On the south end, the park goes all the way to Plymouth. Plymouth has the parking garage, then the alley south of that, and south of the alley is the "temporary park." You can see this in Google Maps.

[spyguy]

Whatever. M development has seemed intent upon depriving the area of any remaining character, so I can't say I feel bad about their business prospects being in the toilet as long as the buildings have yet to be demolished. For some reason, of all these suburbanizing projects, the planned demolition of the Regina (and presumably also the 4-story graystone to the north which was also vacated) for a 1-2 story retail building irked me the most. The Cedar was the most tasteful of all the projects, since the only two worthy aspects of the crunchy old drug/prostitution den were to be saved: the facade and the open-air dining space in front.

It looks like M Development must be getting desperate if this is true:
EXCLUSIVE: Melvin B's coming back?! (http://312diningdiva.blogspot.com/2009/05/melvin-bs-coming-back.html)

Could this be true?!

Just in time for summertime shenanigans, word is that Melvin B's—the Gold Coast's most notorious outdoor bar—is back!

An Ultimate Insider tells 312DD that it's resurfacing in its old home at 1114 N. State St., and will be reopening in about three weeks.

Former owner Donnie Kruse (who also owns Stanley's), says he's not behind this second incarnation, so we're on the case to find out who's in charge.

Which could mean good things for the Regina building as well. Previous article:
http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=46&SubSectionID=139&ArticleID=7125&TM=3878.516

As far as State and Elm goes, Shapack said, "we are in discussions with several tenants who are interested in leasing portions of this property."

[ethereal_reality]

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/4607/11jonesgarden.jpg
above wikipedia photo flipped / looking south.

[wrabbit]

Tough crowd! I trend towards sentinel & TUP here - not a great park, but better than a scraggly lot. Adjacent to the library. Good place to watch the trains. Add a water feature, and you'd have a locus amoenus for the downtown student body.

Though I'd rather that this had been the preferred site for the Kiddy museum.

A side note for those who are discussing "best & highest use" - this generally means the most lucrative use for the owner.

[Abner]

Why was the old park in that picture ripped out? If it had been left in, some of those trees could be mature by now. While it still wouldn't make a lot of sense as a location for a park, at least it would look a lot nicer than the chopped-up, public-space-hostile thing that's going in there now.

[the urban politician]

I don't know, I think United Center works pretty well. It's a short ride from downtown on either the Blue Line for LaSalle Street/Union Station folks or the Pink Line for Ogilvie folks, making it have (almost) the same regional connectivity as downtown itself.

Jefferson Park only connects the Blue Line to the Metra UP-NW Line, and it's a long way from downtown. By locating there, you're essentially shutting out people from the western, southwest, and south suburbs. By all means, it should be a dense node with tall residential, but I don't know about an office center - Veterans Center, which is already there, is having trouble filling up with tenants, and it's small potatoes even compared to the so-called "West Loop crap boxes".

As far as New York goes, the better comparison would be Long Island City (or Jersey City) where new office districts have sprouted up in neighborhoods with cheap land. These are mostly back-office functions which need to be close to Manhattan but don't justify Manhattan real estate prices - just like the "crap boxes" in the West Loop.

^ If we're going to do this mental exercise, I would argue that the 35th st area near the Cell/IIT would be a better idea for a future highrise office district, even better than the area round United Center. Here's why:

1. It has access to the Green and Red Lines
2. It has direct expressway access
3. It is about to get a Metra stop serving South/SW suburban commuters
4. If the Clinton Ave subway is ever built, it can connect Union Station/Ogilvie Metra people to it with only one transfer (ideally)
5. If a Blue Line/Red Line connection is ever built at Block 37, Blue Line commuters can also access it with only one transfer
6. It's close to downtown.

Given all that, I'd put my money on 35th St over United Center.

[i_am_hydrogen]

It looks like M Development must be getting desperate if this is true:


Which could mean good things for the Regina building as well. Previous article:

I'm happy to hear that Melvin B's will be up and running again. I was walking through the Rush/Division/State area a few weeks back on a really nice day. As I passed the Cedar Hotel, I couldn't help but think about how sad it is that the once thriving patio has been reduced to a derelict and utterly joyless patch of concrete. Not my scene necessarily, but still an integral part of the street life in that area.

[killaviews]

^ If we're going to do this mental exercise, I would argue that the 35th st area near the Cell/IIT would be a better idea for a future highrise office district, even better than the area round United Center. Here's why:

1. It has access to the Green and Red Lines
2. It has direct expressway access
3. It is about to get a Metra stop serving South/SW suburban commuters
4. If the Clinton Ave subway is ever built, it can connect Union Station/Ogilvie Metra people to it with only one transfer (ideally)
5. If a Blue Line/Red Line connection is ever built at Block 37, Blue Line commuters can also access it with only one transfer
6. It's close to downtown.

Given all that, I'd put my money on 35th St over United Center.

I couldn't imagine a need for another business district in Chicago. There are enough empty lots to the north, south and west of the loop. And say maybe 100 years from now when all of that is filled up, our 200+ year-old buildings will be crumbling, so you tear them down and build bigger office towers.

[denizen467]

^ Interesting discussion about a second CBD. I think I-90/Higgins/Cumberland has kind of claimed that title, at least in way.

Other than bolstering rail access to a given area, what are the main tools that the city could use to cause a new CBD to germinate? Mainly zoning and TIF? Anything else?

--
But barring any such heavy zoning/TIF/etc sway by the city, emergence of another CBD would occur only in accordance with demand by users - i.e. wherever companies decide it's advantageous to put offices, based on their own priorities (where transit might not be ranked very high).

For example I suspect 35th would happen mainly as a tech park (which over a long period of time might mature into a more diversified office district). Also, as far as science parks go, I would think the huge near west medical area / IMD would diversify (already has -- FBI regional headquarters) sooner than 35th. Proximity to downtown, including its hotels and attractions, is one huge benefit.

Not counting medical/science/educational, the only instance I can recall, in the last 2 or 3 decades, where sizeable office users decided to occupy huge amounts of new space within a couple miles of downtown, but without it being contiguous to the actual downtown blocks, was Northern Trust when it went to Canal + Polk for its back office operations. Too bad computers and fiber optic cables ended up sending all potential future projects like that to Bangalore, Dublin, and Tucson.

[ardecila]

Businesses don't just randomly decide to locate in places. Northern Trust, to use your example, probably located at Canal/Polk because of cheap, plentiful parking lots in that part of town, easily accessed from the Dan Ryan. This parking was convenient for the backoffice workers who probably didn't come from the transit-oriented North Shore/northwest/west suburbs. This area, formerly industrial, is a no-mans-land where anybody in Zoning would jump at the chance to approve an office building.

Another CBD core isn't gonna sprout up magically elsewhere in the city, especially when the office market proceeds one or two buildings at a time. It needs to be orchestrated and planned over a long period of time, with coordination between the city and business leaders.

[jpIllInoIs]

Office buildings have been trending to the west-loop and streeterville for about 2.5 decades. The west loop has substantial oposition from wilco. I think with the Clinton subway built that office buildings could be located north around the Halsted corridor . But hey this is a waste of time because there are still bulidable sites in the CDB and in Streeterville.

[spyguy]

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/1286/finalparkingstudycommun.jpg

[Jibba]

^That sounds like fun--I'm definitely a jump-into-the-Lion's-den kind of guy. I can attempt to assuage and illusion them with my metaphorical stool, but if I have to I'll definitely bust out the whip and crack into some ass whoopin'.

[harryc]

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SgTlKPKj2zI/AAAAAAABLfA/Z0_xUFZuIXM/s800/P1360518.JPG

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SgTlM5Qil5I/AAAAAAABLfQ/yFs3dXV2QSE/s800/P1360492.JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SgTmCu4G8oI/AAAAAAABLf4/_lmjaEuBZbs/s800/P1360492-1.JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SgTlLaDXPzI/AAAAAAABLfI/-SCz3jhuAiU/s800/P1360522.JPG

The pipe being attached, as I was leaving they were rigging up a rope so the guy on the barge could hold it suspended for the diver.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SgTlNeheKjI/AAAAAAABLfY/Rpy4sThkBO8/P1360499.JPG

[ChiMack]

Came across these images of Southworks, don't think they were ever posted
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4183/sliptowers2.jpg
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5103/sliptowers.jpg
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8120/orewallpark.jpg


thats only a plan, so it might not happen