[JMO_0121]

:previous: Will we notice something aesthetically different about Chase Tower? This building can get boring at times when you stand by it.:shrug:

[ardecila]

I hope the plaza will open during the summer. That's one of the coolest things about the Loop in the summer - seeing all the office workers eating lunch outdoors, sitting on the plaza steps or the benches in that area. I also like the plaza's little brother, the "setback plaza" in front of One South Dearborn. Fortunately, that one's still open.

[sapphireblueeyes]

It can be boring. Whenever I have the misfortune of being near it, I picture it upside down and smirk. Of course, the original 'First National Bank' was a pretty building. My boyfriend's mom worked at the first bank building where Chase sits now.

:previous: Will we notice something aesthetically different about Chase Tower? This building can get boring at times when you stand by it.:shrug:

[Nowhereman1280]

:previous: Will we notice something aesthetically different about Chase Tower? This building can get boring at times when you stand by it.:shrug:

Are you serious? How is its "boring when you stand by it"? I mean Chase is probably the most exciting/terrifying building to stand next to in the city because it constantly looks like its going to fall on you. I mean have you ever actually been near it, when you are within a block is looks like its curling up over you like a huge ocean wave, I would hardly call that boring.

Besides that, its made of a quality material, granite, and has just as much detailing as many older stone buildings, the difference is the older buildings have pillars and organic shapes and this building has geometric, cubic shapes.

The answer to your first question is probably no, they are simply looking for places where the granite is rotting (not like food, but like rotten granite, the stuff that falls apart in your hands because the water has cracked it so many times) and cutting it out and replacing it. They also look to be re caulking/sealing the joints between the pieces...

[FlashingLights]

Chase building is one of my favorites it gives an awesome impression when you look up at it. I loved seeing business people eating in the plaza too. I still remember when I first saw it as a kid and how it drew me towards liking skyscrapers along w/ the Sears Tower. It really is blasphemy to say it is boring in person, it has to be one of the coolest skyscrapers to stand besides and look straight up at.

[george]

5-17-09

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3233/chase3.jpg

[sapphireblueeyes]

"looks like its curling up over you like a huge ocean wave, I would hardly call that boring."-Nowhereman1280-

It would look like a Tsunami if it were upside down. Granite is beautiful, but even in a home it can crack and you're really not suppose to use your granite counter top as a cutting board.

[brian_b]

The "basement" of Chase Tower is awesome. Huge windows looking out into the plaza, doors so you can go into the cafeteria to get food and then walk outside, a theater, and of course it has it's own entrance to the subway!

[Nowhereman1280]

It would look like a Tsunami if it were upside down. Granite is beautiful, but even in a home it can crack and you're really not suppose to use your granite counter top as a cutting board.

No, it would be shaped more like a Tsunami if it were upside down. However, I said it looks like a Tsunami when you look up at it. The shape of the building creates an optical illusion that makes the building appear to be looming over you. Since most buildings have vertical walls along the street, your mind is trained to see vertical surfaces that way. When you see the gentle slope at the base of Chase your mind assumes it is vertical because you can't detect that the wall doesn't meet the street at a 90 degree angle. Therefore when you eyes travel further up to where the building really does go vertical, then you brain assumes that is hanging over you. Therefore when you look at the building you percieve its shape to be Tsunami like, despite the fact that it is not actually shaped like that.

As far as your granite comments, I don't get what you are saying. All stone degrades over time, even a hard rock like granite can't completely withstand 40 + years of Chicago winters with no damage whatsoever.

[JMO_0121]

Are you serious? How is its "boring when you stand by it"? I mean Chase is probably the most exciting/terrifying building to stand next to in the city because it constantly looks like its going to fall on you. I mean have you ever actually been near it, when you are within a block is looks like its curling up over you like a huge ocean wave, I would hardly call that boring.


I guess I worded that in a wrong way, now to reword it. NO the building is not boring per say, I have been around it many times, the feeling you get when you put on leg on it while you look upwards is great, but I just think its definitely not something I look forward to when I go to downtown Chicago. To me, its just a filler building, but a good filler building that is.:P

[SolarWind]

May 18, 2009

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/3219/dsc0170.jpg

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6766/dsc0193w.jpg

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6126/dsc0195q.jpg

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/9319/dsc0220y.jpg

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/1849/dsc0198l.jpg

[schwerve]

the touch of height that the modern wing adds to these photographs makes them stunning.

[denizen467]

^ Solar, no momentous inauguration would be complete without a battery of stills coming out of your atelier. Thanks and keep them coming.


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

And now for something completely different:

Another Cabrini Red was under demolition today, cnr. Hudson & Chicago.

[viewguysf]

It can be boring. Whenever I have the misfortune of being near it, I picture it upside down and smirk. Of course, the original 'First National Bank' was a pretty building. My boyfriend's mom worked at the first bank building where Chase sits now.

There's a thread for the Morrison Hotel that used to be there:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=144843&highlight=%22Morrison+Hotel%22

There are some good pics of what was razed on the second page; they don't show an old First National Bank building among them.

[harryc]

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/ShKbkAPamYI/AAAAAAABMTc/laK120GAuBI/s800/P1370699.JPG

[laro3]

checked out the new wing today,I was supprised how nice it is and the views are awesom!

[pip]

That new building, the one where they torn down the old bar/apartment building, near Wrigley is thankfully more than one story.

I was just reading the City Data Forum, City vs. City. Just wow, lol. It was entertaining. I also find it interesting to see forumers here on SSP using the same name there flying off the handle over there and bashing away at other cities. I do have to say I am surprised at how different people behave on here than there. Of course I read the vs. Chicago threads. Check it out, you get to see really what people on here think of Chicago.

[the urban politician]

^ Just for the record, I was a member of City Data forums for about 2 weeks roughly a year ago and always defended Chicago like a champion.

After that I realized how boring & immature the whole deal was and I haven't visited the site since.

[george]

5-17-09

Pritzker Park @ HW Library

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3592/park.jpg

[Busy Bee]

Queer.

[lawfin]

^^Looks like a landscaped drive way....essentially unusable as a human place

[Jibba]

A couple of Wicker Park/Bucktown updates:

Vision:
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/818/visionondivision.jpg

Urban Sandbox:
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/6678/dsc09875f.jpg
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9054/dsc09882.jpg
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/2895/dsc09885.jpg
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/8320/dsc09879a.jpg
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/8594/urbansandbox.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

That new building, the one where they torn down the old bar/apartment building, near Wrigley is thankfully more than one story.

I was just reading the City Data Forum, City vs. City. Just wow, lol. It was entertaining. I also find it interesting to see forumers here on SSP using the same name there flying off the handle over there and bashing away at other cities. I do have to say I am surprised at how different people behave on here than there. Of course I read the vs. Chicago threads. Check it out, you get to see really what people on here think of Chicago.

Thanks, there went at least 10 IQ points in the 20 minutes of my life wasted on those forums.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

5-17-09

Pritzker Park @ HW Library

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3592/park.jpg

Wow. That's really, really, really awful.

Thanks, Jibba, for the Bucktown/Wicker Park updates. I really wish Studio Dwell and Osterhaus-McCarthey were the rule and not the exception. I also wish Vision were just two storeys taller.

[jpIllInoIs]

^ That wall of The John Marshall is begging for the Wrigley Ivy treatment.

[Busy Bee]

I also wish Vision were just two storeys taller.

I think everybody does. Not sure what the developer was thinking here. It's hardly maximizing this sites potential.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ The developer probably made the right choice and is probably in much better shape than his piers now that the real estate market (and general economy) has completely collapsed... I imagine they would have had a lot of unsold units in this building still if they had 2 more floors. Does anyone know for sure the sales status here?

[VivaLFuego]

I think everybody does. Not sure what the developer was thinking here. It's hardly maximizing this sites potential.

I'm fine with the height and density, it's the stip-mall-esque parking lot in front that irks me.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34100

John Barleycorn eyes River North
By Eddie Baeb, May 20, 2009

Well-known Lincoln Park pub John Barleycorn plans to open a restaurant at a River North site where developer Michael Reschke has dropped a plan for a 235-room boutique hotel.

Barleycorn owner Sam Sanchez says he has signed a letter of intent to anchor a new building at the northwest corner of State and Illinois streets. Barleycorn’s two-level, roughly 20,000-square-foot bar and restaurant would be the establishment's fourth location, including one that opened last spring in northwest suburban Schaumburg.

...Mr. Reschke says he let his contract to buy the site from Mr. Beale’s group lapse a few months ago “for various reasons,” and that his deal with New York-based Gansevoort Hotel Group remains in place and was extended for another year.

“There are plenty of other sites that have come on the market in the last six months,” Mr. Reschke says. “We have our eyes set on a couple alternate locations in River North.”
----
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/9391/508nstate1.jpg
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6168/508nstate2.jpg

I remember complaints when I posted a rendering of a proposed midrise building years ago but I'd surely take that over the latest plans.

[lawfin]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34100

John Barleycorn eyes River North
By Eddie Baeb, May 20, 2009

Well-known Lincoln Park pub John Barleycorn plans to open a restaurant at a River North site where developer Michael Reschke has dropped a plan for a 235-room boutique hotel.

Barleycorn owner Sam Sanchez says he has signed a letter of intent to anchor a new building at the northwest corner of State and Illinois streets. Barleycorn’s two-level, roughly 20,000-square-foot bar and restaurant would be the establishment's fourth location, including one that opened last spring in northwest suburban Schaumburg.

...Mr. Reschke says he let his contract to buy the site from Mr. Beale’s group lapse a few months ago “for various reasons,” and that his deal with New York-based Gansevoort Hotel Group remains in place and was extended for another year.

“There are plenty of other sites that have come on the market in the last six months,” Mr. Reschke says. “We have our eyes set on a couple alternate locations in River North.”
----
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/9391/508nstate1.jpg
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6168/508nstate2.jpg

I remember complaints when I posted a rendering of a proposed midrise building years ago but I'd surely take that over the latest plans.

Link to the old mid-rise plans, please?

[Taft]

Wow. That's really, really, really awful.

Thanks, Jibba, for the Bucktown/Wicker Park updates. I really wish Studio Dwell and Osterhaus-McCarthey were the rule and not the exception. I also wish Vision were just two storeys taller.

I've been biting my tongue and hoping this park would turn out better than I was thinking...but at this point, I think its safe to say this "park" is just terrible.

Way too much concrete. Odd and not particularly appealing landscaping. Will they even let you on those bits of grass? And I don't care how many awesome, incredible lounging areas they jam into this thing...who wants to sit wedged between a blank wall, a parking garage, the L tracks and two busy streets? Just a flipping stupid place for a park and the execution is just terrible.

Ugh.

[the urban politician]

^ Good news on the Barleycorn building, a perfect development for this part of town--replaces a parking lot, and the building has just enough height to block sightlines of Grand Plaza's butt-ugly podium from further south.

[Abner]

I've been biting my tongue and hoping this park would turn out better than I was thinking...but at this point, I think its safe to say this "park" is just terrible.

Way too much concrete. Odd and not particularly appealing landscaping. Will they even let you on those bits of grass? And I don't care how many awesome, incredible lounging areas they jam into this thing...who wants to sit wedged between a blank wall, a parking garage, the L tracks and two busy streets? Just a flipping stupid place for a park and the execution is just terrible.

Ugh.

Yeah, I hate to harp on it, but everything that could possibly be wrong with a park is wrong with this one. The space is sliced up so incoherently there's essentially no way to use it. The picture from a few pages back of how it used to look is way better. Of course, it was as stupid a place for a park then as it is now.

But this weird-angled crap seems to be totally in vogue among park planners now. The Aqua podium is the same way. It's almost like parks are now being deliberately designed to provide as little functionality as possible by creating bizarre, unnatural paths that leave small, disconnected bits of green space, which are then turned into mounds covered with mulch and a few miserable little plants. This is not a park. This is landscaping. And like the landscaping around some corporate headquarters in Schaumburg, it just screams "Nobody is ever going to enter this space except the landscapers." It's hard not to think of Jane Jacobs on neighborhood parks when you see these things, and how park planners are still caught up in the worst kind of modernism, the top-down, green-space-for-its-own-sake, people-hostile planning.

[Busy Bee]

Why does it seem in this town that we either get a 30+ story building or a 2-3 story building? Where is the more European or (NYC for that matter) 6+ story model?

[jc5680]

BB in Big John
http://www.j-carlson.com/ancilary/bb-bigjohn.jpg

[Mr Downtown]

Where is the more European or (NYC for that matter) 6+ story model?

Very tough to make money with that model, squeezed between Chicago's highrise building code and land values set by overly generous zoning.

[lawfin]

Very tough to make money with that model, squeezed between Chicago's highrise building code and land values set by overly generous zoning.

Or alternatively, in the neighborhoods at least along arterials.....overly burdensome zoning and height restrictions limiting height to something like 54 ft or so ( I don't remember the exact amount right now) combine that with excessive parking requirements

[VivaLFuego]

Why does it seem in this town that we either get a 30+ story building or a 2-3 story building? Where is the more European or (NYC for that matter) 6+ story model?

Uneconomical. For a fascinating (to wonks like me, at least) case study into core district development economics left to it's own devices absent much in the way of controls such as zoning, I recommend studying downtown Houston - it's all either 300+ foot skyscrapers, 1-2 story buildings, or parking lots.

Or alternatively, in the neighborhoods at least along arterials.....overly burdensome zoning and height restrictions limiting height to something like 54 ft or so ( I don't remember the exact amount right now) combine that with excessive parking requirements

Aside from parking and height requirements (the latter not overly onerous as the allowable Floor Area Ratio is generally reached before the height limit except in a few specific zoning classes), outdated minimum-lot-area-per-dwelling-unit and minimum-private-open-space-per-dwelling-unit requirements also restrict the ability to build low and dense - these requirements made sense in the context of perceived urban ills circa the mid-1950s of rampant subdividing of slums, but are less relevant or appropriate today. Part of the issue with arterial zoning and development potential is that, very generally speaking and with some exceptions, housing units along arterials will be less desirable due to noise, privacy, and so on, at least on lower floors. However, the ability to build super-cheap-and-super-dense housing along arterials, the type for which there would be market demand, has been severely restricted or otherwise eliminated through all of the above zoning restrictions. The business case for endless rows of 3-story building with one retail stall and two $500k luxury condos above only made sense in a market demand environment fueled by ridiculously easy credit.

[sentinel]

Hey all - not sure where to post this (or if it's already been mentioned for that matter), I had the privilege to visit Columbian model-makers in the west loop today, super nice, very talented group of people - they are currently putting the finishing touches on a MASSIVE, up-to-date model of the Chicago central area (similar to the 2020 Central Area Plan limits) to be displayed at the Chicago Architecture Foundation (Sante-Fe building) lobby starting the first week of June. It will be part of the Burnham plan Centenary celebration, co-inciding with the new pavilions in Millenium Park. The model is about 1/64" scale and truly amazing. Some of the buildings have more detail than others based on whatever documentation they could get per building, but regardless it's a great model and will be out for everyone to see very very soon.

[Marcu]

Why does it seem in this town that we either get a 30+ story building or a 2-3 story building? Where is the more European or (NYC for that matter) 6+ story model?

Greektown/West Loop area seems to have some 6-10 story development.

http://www.mlsni.com/photos/property/725/05059725.jpg
http://www.falconliving.com/search/images/idx/condos/7/1/8/0/07169817.jpg

Also some of the newer Lakefront developments in Wrigleyville/Uptown/Edgewater.

http://wibiti.com/images/hpmain/682/254682.jpg
http://media.point2.com/p2h/listing/ad3b/eb41/c643/43d6d1093275d00cbf6c/gallery.jpg


In fact, it seems that outside of downtown, 6-12 story development (alongside the 3 flats) is quite common and 20+ is almost nonexistent.

Also, suburban downtowns, such as Des Plaines and Arlington Heights, seem to have a preference for 4-6 story developments alongside townhomes.

http://www.downtownexecutivecondo.com/img/higland_pic8_downtown.jpg

[wrabbit]

5/20 Nichols Bridge at MP to New Modern roof:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3360/3550587065_fdaa1e2805_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3620/3549291427_1140d6216d_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2468/3550052782_7fe5bbaee0_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3649/3549259511_417d111b03_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3375/3550065854_722d03d76e_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3549269853_ec355ac373_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3358/3549246699_11ab92156f_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3639/3549247535_03cc099c33_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2444/3550053732_3b867c9a5e_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3568/3549291055_7ec9c8c434_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3546/3550067004_d9a30c8b37_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3647/3550076196_d5f321ff96_o.jpg

[spyguy]

Link to the old mid-rise plans, please?

It went from this:
http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/9657/stateilqu9.jpg
To this:
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/808/stateil2.jpg
To a 15 story Gansevoort Hotel proposal designed by Bofill
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1464/gansevoortchicago.jpg
(Image from hotel website)

^ Good news on the Barleycorn building, a perfect development for this part of town--replaces a parking lot, and the building has just enough height to block sightlines of Grand Plaza's butt-ugly podium from further south.

A two or three story retail building seems inappropriate to me when you consider how dense the surrounding area is and how this parcel is right next to Grand-State where they're spending almost $70 million to renovate the station. We're always talking about TOD, well why not here? The first two proposals also had two stories of retail BTW.

[Nowhereman1280]

The new Modern Art Wing really treats Chicago's modern architectural art as equal to its stellar collection of modern paintings, sculptures, and (if its even possible) conceptual art. Also, Piano cleverly lined up the windows along the main entrance and hallway (he calls it the "mainstreet" of the building) with the stunning view of the Hancock cluster up St. Clair. It also has nice views of the new cluster forming on the south Side of the park on the other end.
I am also very pleased with the interior of the building and the way it filters light, feels very clean.

I also really like the north face, it feels much more prominent(as a museum entrance traditionally should) now that the barriers are gone. This face also forms a wonderful third wall to the Millennium Park area.

Man were there way too many people in there today, it was absolutely crazy, just packed with old people going to Serendipity (Chicago's annual old people party/variety show) in Millennium Park and tourists on summer vacation.

At first I was kinda bored with and uninspired with the Piano design, but now that I have seen it up close and personal and explored it, I find that the building is really a successful adaptation of Piano's style to Chicago's architectural traditions and a tribute to the architectural Museum that is Chicago. I give it an A-, take a little off for not being all that revolutionary in any way, just a really solid and functional piece of modern Architecture.

What do you all think???



Why does it seem in this town that we either get a 30+ story building or a 2-3 story building? Where is the more European or (NYC for that matter) 6+ story model?

Its all in the West Loop where they aren't allowed to build higher...

Normally in Chicago its not economically viable due to zoning codes and the fact that Chicago is on a flat plain with only one geographical boundary allowing us to spread out as far as we want. There is nothing to encourage parking lots to be developed when its downtown and the prices will probably be 2x as high in a decade, a lot of lots are held as investment properties. People sit on them until its super profitable to build as big of a building as possible. The West Loop proves its not entirely the zoning's fault and that people will build short if the demand is there (located next to the CBD creates a ton of demand for housing) and they aren't allowed to just sit on the lot until they can build a 50 story office tower...

[wrabbit]

Stitch. Will have to return to do this vista up right. The view from the bridge is really pretty amazing.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2254/3550317034_8a19889356_o.jpg

[the urban politician]

A two or three story retail building seems inappropriate to me when you consider how dense the surrounding area is and how this parcel is right next to Grand-State where they're spending almost $70 million to renovate the station. We're always talking about TOD, well why not here? The first two proposals also had two stories of retail BTW.

^ Don't you think that the current economic situation has put a wee bit of a damper on all this idealism? I mean, I'm with you that I'd prefer to see a highrise on this site, but it's not like anybody is going to be able to build a hotel, an apartment building, or a condo project any time soon, perhaps for a good many years.
I don't know about you, but parking lots are about the most anti-urban, pedestrian-killing uses of space. If this development gets rid of one and replaces it with an active, pedestrian-engaging development then I am for it 1000%. If at a later date a developer tears it down to build a highrise, that'll be even better.

[ardecila]

But realistically, what are the chances of the Barleycorn building getting torn down anytime soon? The Barleycorn building is also odd, for several reasons. 1) the ugly brick facade on the main corner, and 2) what the hell is the steel/glass section of the building used for?

The stream of 4 different proposals suggests that the land is desirable, and that it is owned by people willing to sell, unlike many of Chicago's other parking lots. I'd honestly rather just hold it for something more appropriate. Hopefully the economy will be improving by the time the station construction is finished. With a shiny new subway station right next door, it should lead to a taller proposal.

[the urban politician]

^ Come on. If the land were that "desirable" it should have been developed long ago.

Listen, I"m not saying that I don't worship the concept of TOD--I'm one of its biggest proponents. But honestly, lack of highrise development is the last of River North's problems. A nice, humanly scaled retail building like this one is not the big travesty that it's being made out to be. Besides, if other developments nearby are any indication, a break from another bland parking podium would be welcomed.

[denizen467]

I'm curious about the semi-eyesore AT&T telephone equipment building next door to the Gansevoort/Barleycorn site. Just how impossible is it for those to be relocated? Do we have to gird for that thing to stay there until the technology is totally obsolete or is there hope? There are a couple of these downtown that I would love to see replaced.

[harryc]

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/ShUw_v7xb3I/AAAAAAABMYI/wgLyRHqe5JM/s720/P1380055.JPG

[wrabbit]

Replacement Whole Foods for old North/Sheffield branch - appears to be curbside:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3599/3549245677_5e90b3577d_o.jpg

[Chicago Shawn]

^ Come on. If the land were that "desirable" it should have been developed long ago.

Listen, I"m not saying that I don't worship the concept of TOD--I'm one of its biggest proponents. But honestly, lack of highrise development is the last of River North's problems. A nice, humanly scaled retail building like this one is not the big travesty that it's being made out to be. Besides, if other developments nearby are any indication, a break from another bland parking podium would be welcomed.

I am going to have to disagree with you here. When we are spending damn near $70 million to rebuild a subway station adjacent to the site, we should be getting something bigger and better. There are plenty of small infill sites that can take on human-scaled infill in River North to the west, south and north; but this is not one of those sites. Aesthetics alone is not enough of a reason to develop this lot, there needs to be a cost-benefit consideration for the major investment going to the station. Designwise, the entire block, save for the Rock Bottom Tap, is a visual crap shoot. The open surface lot is not really destroying the aesthetic quality of the block anymore than what has already been done to it with the telephone land lines switching station; a 1950's era reclad 5 story office building; and another 50's era 2 story office building with a desolate setback.

[ChiPsy]

Hey all - not sure where to post this (or if it's already been mentioned for that matter), I had the privilege to visit Columbian model-makers in the west loop today, super nice, very talented group of people - they are currently putting the finishing touches on a MASSIVE, up-to-date model of the Chicago central area (similar to the 2020 Central Area Plan limits) to be displayed at the Chicago Architecture Foundation (Sante-Fe building) lobby starting the first week of June. It will be part of the Burnham plan Centenary celebration, co-inciding with the new pavilions in Millenium Park. The model is about 1/64" scale and truly amazing. Some of the buildings have more detail than others based on whatever documentation they could get per building, but regardless it's a great model and will be out for everyone to see very very soon.

Awesome - thanks for the head's up!

[sentinel]

^^Apparently it will be on display there until November(?) then potentially packaged away until the CAF can find a new, larger, permanent home, upon which it will be displayed permanently at their new facility - for some reason I thought the CAF was already expanding their space in the Santa Fe building, which is why I was a little confused when the guy at Columbian models mentioned they were looking for a new home. Does anyone have any info on that?

[wrabbit]

Hey all - not sure where to post this (or if it's already been mentioned for that matter), I had the privilege to visit Columbian model-makers in the west loop today, super nice, very talented group of people - they are currently putting the finishing touches on a MASSIVE, up-to-date model of the Chicago central area (similar to the 2020 Central Area Plan limits) to be displayed at the Chicago Architecture Foundation (Sante-Fe building) lobby starting the first week of June. It will be part of the Burnham plan Centenary celebration, co-inciding with the new pavilions in Millenium Park. The model is about 1/64" scale and truly amazing. Some of the buildings have more detail than others based on whatever documentation they could get per building, but regardless it's a great model and will be out for everyone to see very very soon.

Awesome - thanks for the head's up!

Yeah - I'm totally psyched about the new model too. What, I wonder, will the CAF do with the old (smaller. less detailed) model now on display at the CitySpace gallery? 'Cuz it would look totally sweet hanging on my apartment wall. :D

[wrabbit]

^^Apparently it will be on display there until November(?) then potentially packaged away until the CAF can find a new, larger, permanent home, upon which it will be displayed permanently at their new facility - for some reason I thought the CAF was already expanding their space in the Santa Fe building, which is why I was a little confused when the guy at Columbian models mentioned they were looking for a new home. Does anyone have any info on that?

They are considering a move, but don't yet have a site. Or at least so I am told.

[headcase]

^^Apparently it will be on display there until November(?) then potentially packaged away until the CAF can find a new, larger, permanent home, upon which it will be displayed permanently at their new facility - for some reason I thought the CAF was already expanding their space in the Santa Fe building, which is why I was a little confused when the guy at Columbian models mentioned they were looking for a new home. Does anyone have any info on that?

Staying in the Santa Fe is one of the things they are considering, but like anyone else that is looking to expand they are weighing all the options. I haven't heard an update in a while, but I'm sure the search is on going.

SSDD

[sentinel]

^^Interesting..the nice thing about the lobby in the Santa Fe building is that the second floor office/mezz level looks down onto the first floor lobby so I can imagine some great photo opportunities from up there looking down on the model :D

[the urban politician]

I am going to have to disagree with you here. When we are spending damn near $70 million to rebuild a subway station adjacent to the site, we should be getting something bigger and better. There are plenty of small infill sites that can take on human-scaled infill in River North to the west, south and north; but this is not one of those sites. Aesthetics alone is not enough of a reason to develop this lot, there needs to be a cost-benefit consideration for the major investment going to the station. Designwise, the entire block, save for the Rock Bottom Tap, is a visual crap shoot. The open surface lot is not really destroying the aesthetic quality of the block anymore than what has already been done to it with the telephone land lines switching station; a 1950's era reclad 5 story office building; and another 50's era 2 story office building with a desolate setback.

^ Wow, and I thought I was the TOD champion. Jeez, a private developer sees absolutely no capital for highrise development in the pipeline and decides instead to build a 2 level retail building to occupy a former parking lot and I"m supposed to complain?

It's one thing if NIMBY's or the Alderman struck down a good highrise proposal that had a chance of getting financing--then I'd be complaining like the rest of you all. But clearly the owner of this land doesn't see a chance in hell of getting a highrise built and wants to cash out. Again, this doesn't mean that somebody won't eventually build something taller at this site.

Anyhow, especially with Spyguy and Shawn disagreeing with me I know that I'm probably missing something so I'll just concede my defeat on this one. ;)

[VivaLFuego]

It's one thing if NIMBY's or the Alderman struck down a good highrise proposal that had a chance of getting financing--then I'd be complaining like the rest of you all. But clearly the owner of this land doesn't see a chance in hell of getting a highrise built and wants to cash out.

This a good point - it's much more objectionable when the will and money to do something great is being squelched by idiotic NIMBYism. The zoning/permit/approval process can be a strong tool wielded to prevent things from happening, but short of public subsidy of development (via TIF, tax breaks, etc.) it's impossible to simply will or desire the market/economic conditions for a large scale building into existence.

[VivaLFuego]

Replacement Whole Foods for old North/Sheffield branch - appears to be curbside:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3599/3549245677_5e90b3577d_o.jpg

I believe this store opened this week, but haven't been by to check it out yet. Third largest in the world after the flagships in Austin, TX and Kensington, London.

[Loopy]

Weird that with the opening of a new Whole Foods comes a new Aldi. A second Aldi on N. Clyborn!

Aldi Signs Lease To Open Store on North Clybourn

CHICAGO-Aldi Inc. has signed a 15-year lease for 17,000 square feet at 1840 N. Clybourn. The Batavia, IL-based discount grocer is assuming space in the 312,000-square-foot building formerly occupied by Bombay Furniture and Leather Creation. The grocer's lease brings the building to 100% leased, with other tenants including Crate & Barrel outlet, J. Alexander's, Trader Joe's, Kindercare and Beautiful Beginnings.

http://www.globest.com/news/1414_1414/chicago/178785-1.html

[Via Chicago]

I'm curious about the semi-eyesore AT&T telephone equipment building next door to the Gansevoort/Barleycorn site. Just how impossible is it for those to be relocated? Do we have to gird for that thing to stay there until the technology is totally obsolete or is there hope? There are a couple of these downtown that I would love to see replaced.

good question, but it really is an awful building. when I first started working downtown I could never figure out why there were no windows. if nothing else, it could use a good cleaning.

new york has a similar structure (the AT&T Long Lines Building), but I actually like that one, just due to its dominating, monolithic design
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/SOH/Pict0278.jpg
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/SOH/Pict0278.jpg

Its fun to imagine some evil overlord sitting at the top of that thing plotting the end of the world.

[spyguy]

http://www.skylinenewspaper.com/News/05-20-2009/Planning_the_future_DePaul_School_circulating_draft_of_2009-2019_master_plan

Planning the future DePaul School circulating draft of 2009-2019 master plan
05/20/2009 10:00 PM

By IAN FULLERTON

...A draft copy of the university’s 2009-2019 master plan lists more than a dozen proposed projects, including development of new facilities for the School of Music and the Theatre School, a new art gallery building, a proposed hotel and the addition of more than 700 student beds in the neighborhood.

...The draft, although peppered with similar language, demonstrates the school’s desire to erect at least two student dormitories in the area — a five-floor, 400-bed undergraduate residence at 2345 N. Kenmore and a 333-bed development at Fullerton and Sheffield.

The plan also hints at future dorms on the current site of the Vincentian Residence, a home for visiting clergy slated for redevelopment at 2135 N. Kenmore, and on the property at Beldon and Seminary.

...Perhaps the draft plan’s loftiest conceptual design is for a proposed 115,197 square foot mixed-used development at 2450 N. Sheffield. The six-story complex would house both underground and above-grade parking facilities, one floor of retail, a 140-room hotel, 24 private residential units, student housing and an orientation center for the university.

Designs also call for the closing off of North Kenmore Ave. between Belden and Fullerton to facilitate the creation of a green area, “as an extension of the existing quadrangle along N. Seminary,” in company with numerous other landscaping projects.

[spyguy]

Overall plan
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/5544/planv.jpg

School of Music - Halsted, between Fullerton and Belden
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9579/music1.jpg

935 W Fullerton - Art gallery and museum
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/3539/museumart.jpg

Renovation of Corcoran Hall
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/6659/corcoranhall.jpg

New academic building - Belden and Kenmore
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/6822/academicbuilding.jpg

2345 N Kenmore- undergrad residences (400 beds)
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/3830/2345nkenmore.jpg

Theatre School - Fullerton and Racine
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9991/theater.jpg

2450 N Sheffield- 44,000 sf retail, 140 hotel rooms, 333 beds, 24 residential units
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6990/2450nsheffield1.jpg
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/3879/2450nsheffield2.jpg

[Mr Downtown]

A second Aldi on N. Clybourn!

This is supposedly for Aldi's new concept store. What exactly that is, I don't know.

[Jibba]

Stitch. Will have to return to do this vista up right. The view from the bridge is really pretty amazing.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2254/3550317034_8a19889356_o.jpg

An absolutely stunning shot, wrabbit! What camera was this snapped with? Didn't you upgrade fairly recently?

[Busy Bee]

good question, but it really is an awful building. when I first started working downtown I could never figure out why there were no windows. if nothing else, it could use a good cleaning.

new york has a similar structure (the AT&T Long Lines Building), but I actually like that one, just due to its dominating, monolithic design
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/SOH/Pict0278.jpg
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/SOH/Pict0278.jpg

Its fun to imagine some evil overlord sitting at the top of that thing plotting the end of the world.

Actually isn't that the building that the NSA conducted it's secret Bush era illegal phone taps and domestic surveillance from? So, yeah you're sorta correct.

[Chicago Shawn]

^ Wow, and I thought I was the TOD champion. Jeez, a private developer sees absolutely no capital for highrise development in the pipeline and decides instead to build a 2 level retail building to occupy a former parking lot and I"m supposed to complain?

It's one thing if NIMBY's or the Alderman struck down a good highrise proposal that had a chance of getting financing--then I'd be complaining like the rest of you all. But clearly the owner of this land doesn't see a chance in hell of getting a highrise built and wants to cash out. Again, this doesn't mean that somebody won't eventually build something taller at this site.

Anyhow, especially with Spyguy and Shawn disagreeing with me I know that I'm probably missing something so I'll just concede my defeat on this one. ;)

I know I am being unreasonable giving the state of the economy, but its just a little irritating. The problem is that the proposal as it stands is that its too substantial for it to be an interm use. I suspect this building, if constructed will be around for a long time. If it was just a one story "tax payer" type of building with just enough leased retail space to pay the taxes and make a small profit, then I would agree that it can be redeveloped in the not-to-distant future. That won't be the case here.

[Jibba]

Overall plan


Even though the designs are lamentably mediocre, at least some parking lots are receiving a death sentence.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ It's such a shame. The only worthwhile new construction is the theater building. What's DePaul thinking? Blandly going where every university has gone before? They have a real opportunity to create a unique space, to say nothing of the marketing benefits of fresh, innovative design. Instead, they embrace a suburban new urbanist business district aesthetic.

It's not like they have to hire a Steven Holl or a Frank Gehry. Take a page from Columbia or IIT and tap into the huge pool of local talent, which hasn't gotten nearly as many commissions as it deserves.

[BWChicago]

^ It's such a shame. The only worthwhile new construction is the theater building. What's DePaul thinking? Blandly going where every university has gone before? They have a real opportunity to create a unique space, to say nothing of the marketing benefits of fresh, innovative design. Instead, they embrace a suburban new urbanist business district aesthetic.

It's not like they have to hire a Steven Holl or a Frank Gehry. Take a page from Columbia or IIT and tap into the huge pool of local talent, which hasn't gotten nearly as many commissions as it deserves.

With the exception of University Hall, which was Lohan, pretty much all DePaul work has been by Antunovich, and Coffey in the Loop. So it is local, it's just blah. They've mistaken neighborhood contextualism for a constraint. It's pretty sad when compared to the master plans from the 60s, which I'll post sometime soon. That said the new PLAN is pretty good looking. As a recent DePaul grad I have only a couple reservations about this plan:
1. I hate to see McGaw Hall
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/10/14451455_ae50faa2bd.jpg go. Such a unique modernist piece, and the only worthwhile architecture left over from McCormick Seminary's rebuilding.
2. No reference whatsoever to the remaining brutalist works - they were good buildings, particularly SAC, but they look absurd remodeled and stripped of context.
3. Remodeling of the old Science building - has a really cool lobby and streamline interiors that will almost certainly be lost
4. Theatre school demolition - part of it is a cool old school, most of it is a crappy newer school.

[BWChicago]

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/9623/depaul1960splanb.jpg
Actually, here's that plan. The building to the right was to be the theatre, the building at top center would have been science. Another oddity that DePaul has never taken advantage of is that Munroe Hall was built so that its height could be doubled.

[Jibba]

^ It's such a shame. The only worthwhile new construction is the theater building. What's DePaul thinking? Blandly going where every university has gone before? They have a real opportunity to create a unique space, to say nothing of the marketing benefits of fresh, innovative design. Instead, they embrace a suburban new urbanist business district aesthetic.

It's not like they have to hire a Steven Holl or a Frank Gehry. Take a page from Columbia or IIT and tap into the huge pool of local talent, which hasn't gotten nearly as many commissions as it deserves.

True, the new designs are as disappointing as you suggest. However, how much of the blame should be placed on DePaul and not on the local firms that you suggest could provide better products? A lot of local architecture firms are wholly capable of providing the innovative designs that would provide the opportunity to create the unique spaces you advocate (to wit: Studio Gang's Media Production Center for Columbia College), but how aggressively are these firms marketing these kind of designs and services? This question is not rhetorical by any means; I definitely do not possess any insight into the selection process that DePaul went through in choosing designs for its future development projects. I guess I would need this information in order to be certain that DePaul dropped the ball on the design aspect of their new facilities.

I am leaning towards the idea that, like BWChicago mentioned, they [DePaul] seem to have mistaken neighborhood contexutalism for a design constraint. I don't know how much sway the members of the Lincoln Park neighborhood hold to demand certain aesthetic parameters for the designs of the DePaul campus, but certainly DePaul has to know that they won't ruffle any feathers with the designs proposed in the master plan detailed above. So I suppose they are possibly at fault for not seeking groundbreaking designs, but then again they aren't in any position to need to provide awe-inspiring architecture to attract new students to their Roman Catholic-affiliated institution.

I will say, though, that it is a really terrible decision on their part to replace McGaw Hall. It really is a great piece of modern architecture as BWChicago mentioned. At this point, as long as they provide buildings that functionally provide more integration and cohesiveness with the surrounding neighborhood, I will approve of whatever plans they go forth with, bland and boring architecture be damned.

[denizen467]

Weird that with the opening of a new Whole Foods comes a new Aldi. A second Aldi on N. Clyborn!

This is supposedly for Aldi's new concept store. What exactly that is, I don't know.

Weirder still that they will be moving into a building where another discount/specialty grocer, Trader Joe's, already has a store.

Even weirder still is that Aldi and Trader Joe's are owned by two competing brothers of the same family (Germany's Albrechts).

Maybe the new Aldi concept is something closer to a head-on competitor for TJ? Or maybe they're melding together, presaging a merger.

[pip]

Even though the designs are lamentably mediocre, at least some parking lots are receiving a death sentence.

how much do you want DePaul to charge students to attend there?

[Via Chicago]

how much do you want DePaul to charge students to attend there?

i dont know where its written that good architecture has to be expensive.

[the urban politician]

I know I am being unreasonable giving the state of the economy, but its just a little irritating. The problem is that the proposal as it stands is that its too substantial for it to be an interm use. I suspect this building, if constructed will be around for a long time. If it was just a one story "tax payer" type of building with just enough leased retail space to pay the taxes and make a small profit, then I would agree that it can be redeveloped in the not-to-distant future. That won't be the case here.

^ Interestingly, I'd actually be complaining more if the Barleycorn building were only 1 story tall. The current rendering shows it being 2 very tall stories, almost like a 3 story building. What I like about the current proposal is that it somewhat blocks sight lines of Grand Plaza's God-awful podium from the south, something that a one story building wouldn't accomplish.

[Abner]

Even weirder still is that Aldi and Trader Joe's are owned by two competing brothers of the same family (Germany's Albrechts).


Almost. This sounds like one Albrecht owns Aldi and the other owns Trader Joe's. They actually split ownership of Aldi (Aldi Nord and Aldi Sud), the only difference between the two from the buyer's perspective being the absence of cigarettes at one of them (I forget which). Theo Albrecht owns Trader Joe's. They haven't been photographed since 1971 except for once in 1987. They're both among the richest people in the world. Anybody who has been to both grocery stores can quickly see the similarities between them despite catering to wildly different demographics. So an Aldi "concept store" could really be pretty much anything. This has been your off-topic Aldi/Trader Joe's trivia of the day.

[VivaLFuego]

BWChicago, thanks for sharing those. McGaw Hall is a total gem and should be landmarked, and will be demolished perhaps 10-20 years too early for it to receive the appreciate it deserves. Oh well...

[Jibba]

how much do you want DePaul to charge students to attend there?

Doubtless, there is plenty of local/national talent that would kill to contribute to a plan as large as what is being proposed by DePaul and would thus would be priced very competitively. Likely cheaper than safe-bet Antunovich.

[sammyg]

McGaw Hall is beautiful from the outside, but it's a complete mess on the inside. It's probably one of those unfortunate situations where a teardown is cheaper and faster than a renovation.

[BWChicago]

McGaw Hall is beautiful from the outside, but it's a complete mess on the inside. It's probably one of those unfortunate situations where a teardown is cheaper and faster than a renovation.

Why do you jump to that conclusion?
Last I checked, the building was in perfectly fine condition inside. The HVAC left something to be desired but otherwise I saw no issues. It was built as a library, so it's probably essentially clear-span space with partition walls. (This also probably accounts for the goofy HVAC).

[Abner]

A while back I said that the city had leased the parking meters for less than they were worth and were usurping control over them for no appreciable benefit. Somebody criticized me for making those statements without basis. Here (http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago_parking_meters_pt2/) is the basis. The Reader found that: a) the city was outrageously secretive about the process of leasing an asset that we own, repeatedly obstructing the Reader's FOIA requests, providing information in heavily redacted form, and not even showing the contract to the City Council; b) the city apparently conducted very little financial analysis of what the meters might be worth; c) although we were promised that we would retain control over meter pricing, when Alderman Waguespack tried to exercise that control, he was told that the city would have to repay Chicago Parking Meters for their estimated lost revenue; d) estimates of parking meter revenue reconstructed from the numbers given to Waguespack suggest a much higher revenue stream than that implied by the $1.16 billion that the meters were ultimately leased for.

Also of note is that the Tribune completely sat on its ass for this entire story.

edit: I haven't spent any time analyzing the Reader's estimates and doubt that Joravsky and Dumke's numbers are right (no financial expert would give any credence to them as reported), but there is ample evidence elsewhere in the article to believe that we shouldn't have privatized the meters to begin with, and that if we were to do so, we leased them for too little. Furthermore, it looks like we have effectively ceded control over a major area of public policy to a third party that will now have to be paid off any time we want to remove meters (for bus lanes, say) or reduce metered hours. And the level of secrecy surrounding the whole deal is inexcusable.

[denizen467]

Almost. This sounds like one Albrecht owns Aldi and the other owns Trader Joe's. ...

So an Aldi "concept store" could really be pretty much anything. This has been your off-topic Aldi/Trader Joe's trivia of the day.
That's what I meant when I said "competing" brothers. (Sounds like we both read the same Wikipedia entry? :) )
North/Clybourn, despite remaining gas-choked, continues to boom as a relatively concept-laden / cutting edge retail area. The Whole Foods is pretty amazing (or just over-the-top, depending on one's point of view) - a grocery store with a bar?!! As an aside, people from out of town are always amazed by Chicago's shopping-cart-only escalator machines, now becoming more common.

[wrabbit]

.....(P)eople from out of town are always amazed by Chicago's shopping-cart-only escalator machines, now becoming more common.

LOL - the first time I ever recall seeing these was at the Target on Roosevelt.

-----

.....What camera was this snapped with? Didn't you upgrade fairly recently?

Back to basics like exposure & aperture with a Lumix G1. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/ No more fancy-schmancy tripod-based exposure blending.

[wrabbit]

CARTOLATOR

.....The Vermaport SC (Shopping Cart) is typically used in discount retailers such as Target and Kmart, as well as furniture store IKEA, and the retail chain Bed Bath and Beyond. Essentially an escalator, the device uses specially designed shopping carts and transports them between levels in shopping complexes. It is often socially referred to as a cartalator due to their resemblance and frequent proximity to the passenger escalator.

Vermaports level carts using three valleys. Specialized carts have their front wheels set closer together and out of parallel to the back, outset, wheels. For upwards travel, the inset wheels glide along the center valley, the outset wheels ride on the two higher outer valleys. This allows the shopping cart to stay level along an inclined path. On the way down, the center valley is higher and the side valleys are lower to allow the cart to transport level while facing down. Due to these valleys, shopping carts on the Vermaport SC do not have the typical plastic or metal grate shelf below the basket of the shopping cart that is used to carry large or bulk items.

An installed Vermaport system is typically located next to an escalator, moving at the same speed, so as to allow a shopping cart to be transported alongside a shopper as he or she moves between floors. The conveyance is accomplished by a belt of hard rubber teeth that grab near the wheels of the cart as a shopper guides it into the entrance of the Vermaport.
The world's largest Vermaport is located in Kmart in Middle Village, Queens, New York City, New York. It has a length of 120 ft (37 m) and a vertical rise of 50 ft.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_cart_escalator

[Taft]

A while back I said that the city had leased the parking meters for less than they were worth and were usurping control over them for no appreciable benefit. Somebody criticized me for making those statements without basis. Here (http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago_parking_meters_pt2/) is the basis. The Reader found that: a) the city was outrageously secretive about the process of leasing an asset that we own, repeatedly obstructing the Reader's FOIA requests, providing information in heavily redacted form, and not even showing the contract to the City Council; b) the city apparently conducted very little financial analysis of what the meters might be worth; c) although we were promised that we would retain control over meter pricing, when Alderman Waguespack tried to exercise that control, he was told that the city would have to repay Chicago Parking Meters for their estimated lost revenue; d) estimates of parking meter revenue reconstructed from the numbers given to Waguespack suggest a much higher revenue stream than that implied by the $1.16 billion that the meters were ultimately leased for.

Also of note is that the Tribune completely sat on its ass for this entire story.

edit: I haven't spent any time analyzing the Reader's estimates and doubt that Joravsky and Dumke's numbers are right (no financial expert would give any credence to them as reported), but there is ample evidence elsewhere in the article to believe that we shouldn't have privatized the meters to begin with, and that if we were to do so, we leased them for too little. Furthermore, it looks like we have effectively ceded control over a major area of public policy to a third party that will now have to be paid off any time we want to remove meters (for bus lanes, say) or reduce metered hours. And the level of secrecy surrounding the whole deal is inexcusable.

I, too, question whether we got a great deal on the meters. That said, I'm not sure we got a bad deal, either. The numbers are hard to sift through and are based mostly on projections and estimates. I don't believe the Reader's numbers, though. They are far too simplistic and the article seems to be built on some flimsy (and possibly misleading) mathematical underpinnings.

The interesting thing about this me is the amount of rage in the public over the parking meter privatization. The whole issue seems to me to be based on two overriding factors: 1) people love their "right" to drive and park anywhere they want without inconvenience, and 2) some people really dislike the mayor and the way this city is run and are pouncing on populist anger to attack the system.

This particular deal doesn't strike me as any different than the way other deals in Chicago are done. The bus enclosure contract, the old recycling program, Millennium Park...all of those and more were done the Mayor's Way and produced only moderate public criticism. It was only when the city had the audacity to touch parking that the masses really blew up (or at least that's how local media reports it). I also notice how the outrage seems tied as much to the increase in meter fees (which I think are a long overdue necessity) as it does the city's cut of the money.

I personally just don't get the outrage. I'm actually ready for Daley to leave office and to get some fresh blood in city hall. I think he has out-stayed his usefulness and the city would be better off now with a new style of governance. But I don't think this is the reason he should leave and I don't think this particular deal is noteworthy as an historic mistake (again, as the local media portrays it).

[wrabbit]

^ I see three reasons for the rage: 1) Poor PR campaign - little done to prepare the public for the rate increases, which were substantial in some zones; 2) Poor implementation initially - incorrect rate info on many meters, many meters unable to handle the extra quarters required for higher rates, many drivers unable to handle/carry all of the quarters required for higher rates, (relatively) slow roll-out of credit-card machines as an alternative to quarters; 3) Aggressive uptick in ticketing concurrent with the poor PR & implementation.

Overall, Morgan Stanley Communications/Chicago Parking Meters LLC grossly underestimated the scope of the project and failed to dedicate appropriate manpower and resources at the outset. They have admitted as much.

[denizen467]

CARTOLATOR
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_cart_escalator
^ LOL, awesome find. Following your links:

http://www.darrott.com/vermaport_sc_3.jpg
http://www.darrott.com/vermaport_sc_3.jpg

How technology adapts to, and helps shape, urban environments. (The Zipcar/iGo systems being one other emerging downtown example.)
In Chicago as far as I know: Target (Clark/Roosevelt); Dominick's (Streeterville); Whole Foods (Lincoln Park).

[EarlyBuyer]

The Parkhomes at Lakeshore East Close to Completion

Photo taken by EarlyBuyer 5/23/09

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/397/dsc0574.jpg

[Chicago Shawn]

^Have more trees been planted in Lake Shore East park? It feels so much more leafy than last summer. Perhaps its just that the trees have grown up enough to a point where a canopy is now beginning to form.

I, too, question whether we got a great deal on the meters. That said, I'm not sure we got a bad deal, either. The numbers are hard to sift through and are based mostly on projections and estimates. I don't believe the Reader's numbers, though. They are far too simplistic and the article seems to be built on some flimsy (and possibly misleading) mathematical underpinnings.

The interesting thing about this me is the amount of rage in the public over the parking meter privatization. The whole issue seems to me to be based on two overriding factors: 1) people love their "right" to drive and park anywhere they want without inconvenience, and 2) some people really dislike the mayor and the way this city is run and are pouncing on populist anger to attack the system.

This particular deal doesn't strike me as any different than the way other deals in Chicago are done. The bus enclosure contract, the old recycling program, Millennium Park...all of those and more were done the Mayor's Way and produced only moderate public criticism. It was only when the city had the audacity to touch parking that the masses really blew up (or at least that's how local media reports it). I also notice how the outrage seems tied as much to the increase in meter fees (which I think are a long overdue necessity) as it does the city's cut of the money.


That pretty much sums up my view on it as well. I have gotten into debates with people who feel $1 per hour in the neighborhoods is "far too high", when the rate had remained 25 cents per hour for 60 years.

One thing that never gets mentioned though in the debate as to whether we got a good deal or not, is how much of the parking revenue was actually profit. Don't forget there is a lot of maintenance, as we see with the problems of the privatization deal; paying employees to collect the meter earnings (city employees, probably belonging to a union increasing labor related costs); accounting for decline in street parking usage as more people avoid street parking to save money; and expected vandalism that typically happens with such rate hikes. Combine all those together and compare it to the revenue the meters bring in; then ask did we get a good deal or not? I don't know the answer to that, but I do figure that street parking probably will be a thing of the past by the time the 75 year lease expires, so that could be another factor to consider.

[Mr Downtown]

From the Reader story:

For much of the past decade the meters have brought in about $20 million a year, costing $3 million to $4 million a year to maintain. [A planned 2007] doubling of parking meter rates . . . would boost meter revenues from abourt $22 million in 2007 to $56 million in 2008. Aldermen protested [and] the administration eventually pulled it off the table....

[Nowhereman1280]

True, the new designs are as disappointing as you suggest. However, how much of the blame should be placed on DePaul and not on the local firms that you suggest could provide better products?

All of the blame should be on DePaul. Having been in the planning process for the campus plans for Chicago's other Catholic university I can tell you that they demand shitty architecture from their architects. For whatever reason Loyola thinks every building it owns should either incorporate shitty fake limestone pre-cast or ye olde brick. They are under the impression that they need to try and imitate the old-school architecture that dominates so many Ivy League campus' or else they won't be credible as a quality institution. I tried pointing out to them many times that the worlds best schools don't build old looking stuff anymore but rather choose to retain the some of the worlds most progressive architects, but they don't want to hear that. Oh well their loss, taking a risk on innovative architecture has paid off many times before and continues to do so for those smart enough to take the risk. I believe that Depaul probably thinks exactly the same way as Loyola since they are demographically similar and seem to like similar crap being built on their campus.

[Chicago3rd]

^ LOL, awesome find. Following your links:

http://www.darrott.com/vermaport_sc_3.jpg
http://www.darrott.com/vermaport_sc_3.jpg

How technology adapts to, and helps shape, urban environments. (The Zipcar/iGo systems being one other emerging downtown example.)
In Chicago as far as I know: Target (Clark/Roosevelt); Dominick's (Streeterville); Whole Foods (Lincoln Park).

Target on Addison has one and I think it was built before Roosevelt and the Target on Peterson has one too. Ikea in Schamburg I believe.

[Abner]

I, too, question whether we got a great deal on the meters. That said, I'm not sure we got a bad deal, either. The numbers are hard to sift through and are based mostly on projections and estimates. I don't believe the Reader's numbers, though. They are far too simplistic and the article seems to be built on some flimsy (and possibly misleading) mathematical underpinnings.

The interesting thing about this me is the amount of rage in the public over the parking meter privatization. The whole issue seems to me to be based on two overriding factors: 1) people love their "right" to drive and park anywhere they want without inconvenience, and 2) some people really dislike the mayor and the way this city is run and are pouncing on populist anger to attack the system.

This particular deal doesn't strike me as any different than the way other deals in Chicago are done. The bus enclosure contract, the old recycling program, Millennium Park...all of those and more were done the Mayor's Way and produced only moderate public criticism. It was only when the city had the audacity to touch parking that the masses really blew up (or at least that's how local media reports it). I also notice how the outrage seems tied as much to the increase in meter fees (which I think are a long overdue necessity) as it does the city's cut of the money.

I personally just don't get the outrage. I'm actually ready for Daley to leave office and to get some fresh blood in city hall. I think he has out-stayed his usefulness and the city would be better off now with a new style of governance. But I don't think this is the reason he should leave and I don't think this particular deal is noteworthy as an historic mistake (again, as the local media portrays it).

I think there's a difference between what most people are mad about and what they should be mad about regarding the parking meter privatization. Of course I think meter rates should have gone up, although the rates and metered times in some neighborhoods really are ridiculous now. (Extending so many meters to 8am-9pm must really, really suck for people who park in metered spots when they get home from work and leave in the morning.) But the way the city handled the whole thing was outlandish. They kept everybody in the dark about what was going on, including the City Council, which happily okayed the plan after virtually no discussion and without even seeing many of the pertinent documents. They never explained why this was going to be a good deal for the city. In fact I still haven't heard why this was a good idea except vague promises that "privatization is good." They promised that the deal would have no effect on our ability to set public policy affecting meters, which turned out to be a complete lie, as Waguespack discovered.

I also don't think this is anywhere near the worst thing Daley has done, although we still know so little about the whole deal that it may turn out to be worse than we know now--I'm thinking especially of the fact that we have effectively tied our hands on meter policy, and that we may have just leased a revenue-generating asset to finance current consumption.

[Taft]

From the Reader story:

For much of the past decade the meters have brought in about $20 million a year, costing $3 million to $4 million a year to maintain. [A planned 2007] doubling of parking meter rates . . . would boost meter revenues from abourt $22 million in 2007 to $56 million in 2008. Aldermen protested [and] the administration eventually pulled it off the table....

If you recall, this meter price increase was tied to BRT funding from the feds that we didn't get because we couldn't pass it before the deadline attached the money. I think this reinforces my point that parking is the third rail of local politics: touch it at your own risk and be prepared for quite a shock.

As to the revenue projections, I really question the city's numbers. Here's a bit of anecdotal evidence as to why...

When this whole meter privatization/rate increase thing happened, I was working in river north. I drove to work only occasionally, but I always parking in the same lot and I frequently talked with the guys running the lot, specifically about the changes in the meter rates. They made an interesting observation: for years they had noticed some people who worked in area had parked at meters and fed the meters throughout the day. When rates went up, they said most of those people started to look for lots to park in and lots started to fill up all over the area. The guys running "my" lot had an interesting take on it: screw the people who used to park at meters. As far as they were concerned, those people had been gaming the system for years, exploiting the city's ridiculous underpricing of their meters at the expense of parking attendants like them. They proceeded to turn away former meter-feeders so that people who had been using the lot all along could continue to park there.

The thing this illustrates to me is that if you price your meters correctly, people will stop using them for unintended purposes (like all-day parking). My guess is that this also corresponds to a decrease in overall usage and I would be interested to know the effects this had on revenues. My point being: raising rates by 2 or 3 times probably doesn't correlate to raising revenues by 2 to 3 times. I bet meters across the city see less use now than they did prior to the "big raise".

[Taft]

I think there's a difference between what most people are mad about and what they should be mad about regarding the parking meter privatization.

I get it. It just annoys me that local media conflates anger over pricing with anger over how the deal was done. Authors with axes to grind are finding all sorts of cover in the ill-placed howls of residents and visitors.

[EarlyBuyer]

Target on Addison has one and I think it was built before Roosevelt and the Target on Peterson has one too. Ikea in Schamburg I believe.

Also: Dominick's at Grand and Fairbanks

[EarlyBuyer]

^Have more trees been planted in Lake Shore East park? It feels so much more leafy than last summer. Perhaps its just that the trees have grown up enough to a point where a canopy is now beginning to form.

Shawn you're right, it does feel more "leafy" this time around. The trees are growing quickly and the canopy is now doing its thing. No additional trees have been planted, however some that did not return to green in the Spring of 2008, were replaced in the Fall of 2008 and Spring of 2009.

[ChiMack]

The Parkhomes at Lakeshore East Close to Completion

Photo taken by EarlyBuyer 5/23/09

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/397/dsc0574.jpg

typical cookie cutter design....i hate these new suburban look a like developments