[ChiMack]

i have been reading that the projects like dearborn homes rockwell gardens etc that are being remodeled and rebuilt will have many of their former residents back in them

[SolarWind]

May 19, 2009

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/7861/dsc0140c.jpg

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/8350/dsc0130n.jpg

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9829/dsc0151c.jpg

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8541/dsc0181j.jpg

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9158/dsc0184f.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

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.
They shouldn't have been privatized to begin with, but given that they were, the city got a good price as evidenced by the William Blair analysis linked from the Reader article.

[VivaLFuego]

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.
No, peak period parking surcharges downtown for both on-street and off-street parking were the proposed policy tied to BRT funding. City Hall dropped the plans to take it to council after the uproar over the meter privatization, which was going on at the same time - which perhaps demonstrates quite nicely your second point about parking is such a hot-button issue.

[EarlyBuyer]

Great shots Solar here as well as on the Aqua thread.

[BVictor1]

i have been reading that the projects like dearborn homes rockwell gardens etc that are being remodeled and rebuilt will have many of their former residents back in them

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

CHA architecture gets it right with Dearborn Homes; new limestone decorations transform the buildings from hulking to inviting, and the update has improved the interior, too

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/.a/6a00d834518cc969e201156fa957df970c-800wi

For years, public housing in America was designed according to a simple, mean-spirited creed: Don't just make it cheap. Make it look cheap. This was the shortsighted thinking that helped produce the now-demolished Robert Taylor Homes and the Chicago Housing Authority's other high-rise hells.

So it is a welcome shock to come upon the limestone decoration that adorns the once-drab brick towers of Chicago's Dearborn Homes public housing complex on South State Street. When they opened in 1950, the Dearborn Homes were the first CHA project to have elevator buildings instead of walk-ups. Now they are the first CHA project to get a classical makeover. You could pick up one of these buildings, put it down on Sheridan Road in Evanston and no one would blink.

Backed by $28 million in federal stimulus funds, the ongoing $165.6 million Dearborn Homes renovation offers a rare bright spot amid Chicago's problem-plagued attempt to transform its notorious public housing. Here, architects are operating as design doctors, performing a combination of cosmetic and internal surgery to give new life to old buildings -- and to help residents climb out of poverty.

So far, three of the Dearborn Homes' 16 buildings have been renovated and occupied. The rest will be done in phases, with the remake scheduled to be finished in 2012.

"It's a lot nicer than it used to be," Tawanna Williams, 32, a cosmetologist, said Tuesday as she sat in front of her building at 2940 S. State St. and surveyed a tension-free scene of kids playing. "It's not just Band-Aids."

[BWChicago]

The parapets are a bit much, but overall nice enough.

[BorisMolotov]

That IMO is a great use of stimulus money. Not only from an aesthetic point of view, but it is such a morale boost to those living there.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-gold-coast-school-cabrinimay25,0,5726163.story

Ogden School move: Parents in Chicago's Gold Coast upset by impending temporary move to Cabrini-Green area

By Azam Ahmed
May 25, 2009

...But the aging school at 24 W. Walton St. will temporarily close next month while it gets a nearly $60 million makeover, and exactly where the 400 or so kindergarten through 4th-grade students will learn while the hard hats go to work has become quite a controversy in the swanky neighborhood.

...Ogden, though, isn't being permanently closed because of low performance or declining enrollment. Instead, the district is building a state-of-the-art facility replete with underground parking.
---
http://www.pbcchicago.com/content/projects/project_detail.asp?pID=CPS-36

Description: A modified prototype, 3 story, steel frame and masonry 109,000 sf school with standard elementary school amenities. LEED features: This building will incorporate the sustainable design criteria required by the USGBC to achieve LEED "Silver" Certification.
Architect of Record: Nagle Hartray Danker Kagan McKay Penny, Ltd
---
http://www.ogdenschool.org/index.htm

...This will be our relocation site during the demolition and construction of the new school facility on Walton Street

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

I kind of wish they'd develop the site if they're going to demolish Ogden anyway.

[LucasS6]

Awww my alma mater.

[Mr Downtown]

The Dearborn Homes rehab cost $250,000 per unit. Does that sound like a wise use of public money?

[VivaLFuego]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-gold-coast-school-cabrinimay25,0,5726163.story

Ogden School move: Parents in Chicago's Gold Coast upset by impending temporary move to Cabrini-Green area

By Azam Ahmed
May 25, 2009

...But the aging school at 24 W. Walton St. will temporarily close next month while it gets a nearly $60 million makeover, and exactly where the 400 or so kindergarten through 4th-grade students will learn while the hard hats go to work has become quite a controversy in the swanky neighborhood.

...Ogden, though, isn't being permanently closed because of low performance or declining enrollment. Instead, the district is building a state-of-the-art facility replete with underground parking.
---
http://www.pbcchicago.com/content/projects/project_detail.asp?pID=CPS-36

Description: A modified prototype, 3 story, steel frame and masonry 109,000 sf school with standard elementary school amenities. LEED features: This building will incorporate the sustainable design criteria required by the USGBC to achieve LEED "Silver" Certification.
Architect of Record: Nagle Hartray Danker Kagan McKay Penny, Ltd
---
http://www.ogdenschool.org/index.htm

...This will be our relocation site during the demolition and construction of the new school facility on Walton Street

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

I kind of wish they'd develop the site if they're going to demolish Ogden anyway.

Can't speak too much for the interior, but the exterior is an outstanding and rare example of Art Moderne. Chalk up yet another loss of character for the Near North Side. There does seem to be an occasional trend to build striking and progressive modern/post-modern architecture for new school buildings, but given the rampant NIMBYism my gut tells me we'll be blessed with some Antonuvich-style crapola that happens to have underground parking. Past projects by the architects bring to mind a love-child of Vinoly and Coffey, and I don't mean that as a compliment.

Where's honte?

[BorisMolotov]

^ hey that firm designed my town's village hall. its not too bad. sure it wont be anything fancy but that okay its an elementary school.

[denizen467]

The Dearborn Homes rehab cost $250,000 per unit. Does that sound like a wise use of public money?
Since the article says new construction would have cost somewhat more, presumably the two issues are (1) just how superior (better and more attractive buildings, longer lifespans, more efficient siting/massing, etc.) the new construction would have been and (2) how much cheaper to maintain the new construction would have been. A few of those are very subjective matters. Or did politics completely trump economics in this case (par for the course here).

[Chicago Shawn]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-gold-coast-school-cabrinimay25,0,5726163.story

Ogden School move: Parents in Chicago's Gold Coast upset by impending temporary move to Cabrini-Green area

By Azam Ahmed
May 25, 2009

...But the aging school at 24 W. Walton St. will temporarily close next month while it gets a nearly $60 million makeover, and exactly where the 400 or so kindergarten through 4th-grade students will learn while the hard hats go to work has become quite a controversy in the swanky neighborhood.

...Ogden, though, isn't being permanently closed because of low performance or declining enrollment. Instead, the district is building a state-of-the-art facility replete with underground parking.
---
http://www.pbcchicago.com/content/projects/project_detail.asp?pID=CPS-36

Description: A modified prototype, 3 story, steel frame and masonry 109,000 sf school with standard elementary school amenities. LEED features: This building will incorporate the sustainable design criteria required by the USGBC to achieve LEED "Silver" Certification.
Architect of Record: Nagle Hartray Danker Kagan McKay Penny, Ltd
---
http://www.ogdenschool.org/index.htm

...This will be our relocation site during the demolition and construction of the new school facility on Walton Street

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

I kind of wish they'd develop the site if they're going to demolish Ogden anyway.


Wow, the snobbery of the people quoted in the article. The likely temp school wouldn't even mix the student populations. I guess the British School was absolutely nuts for choosing to locate "across the street from the projects"; and yet their enrollment still seems to remain strong even with the absurd cost of tuition.

As far as the school design, I remember reading in a article somewhere that CPS was planning on selling the site of the old Ogden School to a developer, and building the new school on the parking lot/ play lot. Hence the reasoning for underground parking to conserve space.

I agree with Viva, if the site doesn't receive significant redevelopment; then I don't believe this is worth the loss of the Art Moderne school building from a preservation standpoint. Of course upgrading the existing building would probably be insanely expensive.

[denizen467]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34162

Apple’s lease in Clybourn Corridor could run 30 years

...
Foundation work already has begun on the site, located on a triangular parcel bounded by North and Clybourn avenues and Halsted Street.
...
An opening date for the store could not be determined, but a provision in the agreement says the lease can’t start during the period from the first Monday after Thanksgiving until Jan. 31, assuring that Apple gets the advantage of a full holiday shopping season.
...

[FlashingLights]

Wow, the snobbery of the people quoted in the article. The likely temp school wouldn't even mix the student populations. I guess the British School was absolutely nuts for choosing to locate "across the street from the projects"; and yet their enrollment still seems to remain strong even with the absurd cost of tuition.

As far as the school design, I remember reading in a article somewhere that CPS was planning on selling the site of the old Ogden School to a developer, and building the new school on the parking lot/ play lot. Hence the reasoning for underground parking to conserve space.

I agree with Viva, if the site doesn't receive significant redevelopment; then I don't believe this is worth the loss of the Art Moderne school building from a preservation standpoint. Of course upgrading the existing building would probably be insanely expensive.

The area around British School is starting to get developed and is not even that bad of a neighborhood anymore. For example evergreen avenue has a new apartments complex with urban professionals. Across from the school on Halsted there is a new lot under construction.

[BVictor1]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/27/childrens-museum-move-opp_n_208115.html

Children's Museum Move Opponents Lose Court Ruling
First Posted: 05-27-09 11:02 AM | Updated: 05-27-09 11:12 AM

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/82379/thumbs/s-MUSEUM-large.jpg

CHICAGO - A Cook County judge has found that Chicago officials acted properly when approving a plan to relocate the Chicago Children's Museum to Grant Park.

Judge Martin Agran on Tuesday ruled against nearby residents of the proposed site who say they weren't given proper legal notice of the move. But Jim Fabbrini, the residents' lawyer, says the decision is a "minor setback."

He says the residents will choose whether to appeal or go forward with other suits that challenge the legality of building in the lakefront park. Opponents to the museum's plan say court rulings have long established Grant Park as open space.

The children's museum says it won't interfere with the park's open space because it plans to build the new facility underground.

-ASSOCIATED PRESS

[BVictor1]

The Dearborn Homes rehab cost $250,000 per unit. Does that sound like a wise use of public money?

Well, the buildings are basically being rebuilt systemwise. How much was it per unit for the Hilliard Homes?

[george]

5-28-09

3028 N. Southport

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/7713/3025nsouthport1.jpg

[spyguy]

628 W. Diversey
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/1306/544wdiversey1.jpg
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8250/544wdiversey2.jpg

[jc5680]

^ wow, great to see some more height on that corner. Maybe it is a sign of more to come. I can only hope more of this kind of stuff happens to the litany of unremarkable 1 stories in the area.

Wonder where "full drum-set with microphone guy, and occasional lady friend playing the flute" will relocate during construction… Love that intersection in LP

[george]

5-28-09 ^^Love it! A great focal point to that intersection.^^



Barneys "green" roof.
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1921/barneysroof.jpg

[Jibba]

628 W. Diversey

NICE. Could do wonders for that intersection depending on the execution. Currently the site of a Walgreen's, yes? Too bad they couldn't have picked the crap one at Diversey and Halsted instead...

[pyropius]

Why are the Walgreens in the neighborhoods almost universally atrocious? They all need to go.

[AdrianXSands]

628 W. Diversey
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/1306/544wdiversey1.jpg
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8250/544wdiversey2.jpg

clap your hands and say: YEAH!

architecture is wonderful when people try harder.

[the urban politician]

^ Yet why is it that the really nice stuff always ends up staying on the drawing boards while the crappy stuff always gets built?

Tough luck, I guess..

[Chicago Shawn]

Great find Spyguy, as usual. I dream of the day when every crap one story building and strip mall on our arterial streets is demolished and replaced with stuff like this.



The area around British School is starting to get developed and is not even that bad of a neighborhood anymore. For example evergreen avenue has a new apartments complex with urban professionals. Across from the school on Halsted there is a new lot under construction.

Yeah, I know that area all too well. I was actually being sarcastic, because the current status of the neighborhood is what makes their snobby claims so absurd.

[aic4ever]

That IMO is a great use of stimulus money. Not only from an aesthetic point of view, but it is such a morale boost to those living there.

Unfortunately your statement presupposes that "stimulus" funds were used for this.

They were not.

Funding for this project would have been allocated years ago.

Similarly, no "stimulus" money will result in any work put in place for probably a minimum of about 12 to 18 months.

[the urban politician]

Unfortunately your statement presupposes that "stimulus" funds were used for this.

They were not.

Funding for this project would have been allocated years ago.

Similarly, no "stimulus" money will result in any work put in place for probably a minimum of about 12 to 18 months.

^ This is the quote from the article:

Backed by $28 million in federal stimulus funds, the ongoing $165.6 million Dearborn Homes renovation offers a rare bright spot amid Chicago's problem-plagued attempt to transform its notorious public housing.

[sentinel]

Unfortunately your statement presupposes that "stimulus" funds were used for this.

They were not.

Funding for this project would have been allocated years ago.

Similarly, no "stimulus" money will result in any work put in place for probably a minimum of about 12 to 18 months.

Not true - in addition to TUP's post above, there are a number of roads that I've been driving down, primarily in the suburbs but in the City as well that have signs indicating "this project was funded by the American Reconstruction and Re-investment Act (or something along those lines)". I will take pictures if I can remember where some of these streets are, and these small projects are just the beginning I believe. The roads I've seen are newly re-paved primarily - keep in mind that I believe a lot of stimulus money allocated to the Chicago area was, at least initially about infrastructural improvements/renovations/construction. Not sure how much but I believe that was the bulk of it..for now

[ChiMack]

this is why gentrification/yuppies piss me off...you have something unique but you price it out etc shut it down so you can make way for something that looks just like every other part of the city

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-dixie-kitchen-city-zone-29-may29,0,7963473.story

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

http://raisingtheroof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/ferris-bueller-house-on-the-market/

New York Times
Raising the Roof
MAY 28, 2009, 12:54 PM

‘Ferris Bueller’ House on the Market
By KEVIN BRASS

http://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/raisingtheroof/FerrisBueller.jpg
Courtesy Sudler Sotheby's International

The steel and glass house immortalized in the pop classic movie “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” is for sale.

The original house, located in the wooded Chicago suburb of Highland Park, was designed by A. James Speyer, a protégé of Mies van der Rohe, in 1953. The glass pavilion, designed by the noted architect David Haid, was added a few years later, according to Meladee Hughes, a listing agent at Sudler Sotheby’s International Realty.

In the movie, the house was home to Bueller’s friend, Cameron. His father used the glass pavilion to display his red Ferrari, which (spoiler alert!) ultimately ended up in the ravine that the house overhangs.

The four-bedroom, 5,300-square-foot house is priced at $2.3 million, according to the listing.

“It’s not just about the car going in the ravine,” Ms. Hughes told the Chicago Sun-Times. “It’s just a wonderful property.”

http://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/raisingtheroof/FerrisBuellerTwo.jpg

[mcfinley]

this is why gentrification/yuppies piss me off...you have something unique but you price it out etc shut it down so you can make way for something that looks just like every other part of the city

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-dixie-kitchen-city-zone-29-may29,0,7963473.story

In this particular case, I think that Carol Andresen is pulling at the strings of Hyde Park NIMBYs for publicity's sake.

For some background, Herald Court was built in the 60's, at the height of the auto-centric urban renewal movement. At the time, the University of Chicago was seen as pressuring the neighborhood to clear space for parkways (55th) and parking lots in a very Robert Moses like manner. In reality, much of the change was promoted by the city and the community itself, just as other cities were at the time; as they pandered to white fear in predominantly black areas by making the neighborhood feel less urban and insulated from the rest of the city. I digress. Harper Court itself was born from this movement, and is a fundamentally poor design. A parking lot takes up most of the space on the block, and the court sits so far back from 53rd that little to no cross traffic passes the stores--it's built to be accessed by cars.

Moving ahead, the University purchased Harper Court, the parking lot, and several neighboring buildings last(?) year for a massive proposal that would bring residential density, new dorms, commercial space, and much more street-front retail to the block. In some respects, it's atonement for past mistakes in urban planning. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4147144&postcount=6400. A lot of the locals have been vehemently opposed to this because, and I'm not just making this up: it will reduce their parking, it will disrupt the quiet feel of the neighborhood, it will cast too long of shadows, and mostly they're opposed to anything that is endorsed by the University. The University of Chicago is seen as a villainous oppressor that does nothing but destroy the character of neighborhood. I'm not sure what Hyde Park would be without the University, but I digress.

With regards to Dixie's. For most businesses in the court, the University either declined to renew their lease or paid for their relocation. Dixie's and Calypso were among these restaurants, but Andresen is refusing to budge because she's demanding more compensation from the University. I won't argue that she doesn't have a legal right to do this, but there are plenty of excellent locations that she could move into in Hyde Park, and even on 53rd. In effect, she's pulling out of Hyde Park out of spite for the University and her own greed; but the University isn't really "shutting her down."

[VivaLFuego]

this is why gentrification/yuppies piss me off...you have something unique but you price it out etc shut it down so you can make way for something that looks just like every other part of the city

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-dixie-kitchen-city-zone-29-may29,0,7963473.story

This has got nothing to do with gentrification/yuppies.

[Abner]

Harper Court itself was born from this movement, and is a fundamentally poor design. A parking lot takes up most of the space on the block, and the court sits so far back from 53rd that little to no cross traffic passes the stores--it's built to be accessed by cars.

I've talked before about my opposition to redeveloping the buildings in Harper Court, but I want to mention a particular argument you make here that I don't think is right. I've spent a lot of time in Hyde Park and in Harper Court in particular. I have never even considered that the main entrance to Harper Court is via the parking lot on Lake Park. Instead, I, along with virtually everybody I know, accesses it via Harper. Many of the businesses front Harper or the court itself, which is actually a very nice pedestrian square, and all the businesses can be reached without going through the parking lot. (The fact that the place is after all named Harper Court tells you where its real center is.) The parking lot could easily go without destroying the rest of the development.

I also think your history of Harper Court obscures probably the most fundamental thing about it: it was built to keep small businesses and artists in Hyde Park after they were forcibly uprooted from 55th and 57th. It has always housed small businesses, many of which are Hyde Park institutions, that survive on the low rent. As a neighborhood with many students and low-income residents, Hyde Park needs cheap real estate for businesses that cater to them. There is little of that left in Hyde Park, and less still that experiences any tenant turnover. And as more and more of 53rd is taken up by chains, Harper Court has kept it local. Frankly, the notion that the University isn't actually uprooting any businesses because it is paying some costs of removing is complete BS. Very few of the businesses in Harper Court are going to be able to afford to move to other locations in the neighborhood and pay the inevitably higher rent there. There just isn't enough affordable retail space.

I agree that Harper Court could have been better designed. I certainly think the massive parking lot on Lake Park should be developed, along with many lots on 53rd (off the top of my head, the vacant lot at Cornell, the former Hollywood Video, Dorchester Commons, and the McMobil site come to mind). The main thing here is that there are so many sites along 53rd that desperately need to be redeveloped--why is the University insisting on killing off the single highest concentration of local, affordable businesses in the neighborhood? It just doesn't make sense.

Sorry, one more thing: your post is unfortunately plagued with a typical cheap shot at people who oppose something that the University is doing. Maybe you have not spent much time involved in university politics, but people who live in university towns, whether they're affiliated with the institution or not, have a very easy time distinguishing between the administration and the university as a whole. Many people who work for universities tend to be among their administration's most vocal opponents, and it clearly has nothing to do with finding the university, in general, to be an oppressor. I would like to know exactly who is "opposed to anything that is endorsed by the University" and whether such people speak for everyone who is opposed to any given action by the University. I would also like to know whether there is a suitable alternative that does not involve blindly accepting any action taken by the administration because of our undying gratitude toward it.

[Abner]

This has got nothing to do with gentrification/yuppies.

I think this is overstating your case. I don't know what else you call it when somebody buys a bunch of buildings that currently house small, local, affordable businesses and replaces them with new condos and retail space that will inevitably be too expensive for those businesses to afford. That is gentrification, even if it isn't a byproduct of displacement of longtime residents with a higher-income set.

[aic4ever]

^ This is the quote from the article:

Backed by $28 million in federal stimulus funds, the ongoing $165.6 million Dearborn Homes renovation offers a rare bright spot amid Chicago's problem-plagued attempt to transform its notorious public housing.

Except that that job has been ongoing for two years already. Unless there has been a radical change in the way funds are appropriated to the CHA through the FHA and HUD since I quit doing public work about two years ago, the assertion that stimulus funds are being used for that project is a case of creative accounting at best, and more probably an outright lie.

A job like that cannot even proceed unless the funds have already been allocated for it in full. When the contract is awarded, the funds are released to the agency. Again, those funds were already allocated and released. Stimulus funds will have had nothing to do with that project unless we see another entirely separate contract awarded on that site.

[aic4ever]

^ Yet why is it that the really nice stuff always ends up staying on the drawing boards while the crappy stuff always gets built?

Tough luck, I guess..

$$$

[sammyg]

Never mind - went too far off topic

[Mr Downtown]

Harper Court. . . was built to keep small businesses and artists in Hyde Park after they were forcibly uprooted from 55th and 57th.

Indeed, I believe it was run as a nonprofit coop since the beginning, with a board of directors who were neighborhood residents. I think some tough business realities about three or four years ago caused the board to make the tough decision to sell to the university. I would imagine there are deferred maintenance, energy cost, and ADA issues that would require substantial rent increases if it stayed in its present form.

[mcfinley]

Abner,

To the first part of your reply to my post, I have a feeling we're going to have to agree to disagree on the design, but here goes. To me, the court certainly is a pleasant enclave on 53rd, but I believe that is why it doesn't work as retail center. How many residents even know what was in there besides Artisans 21 and Dixie's/Calypso? Being a set-back destination for novelties, it doesn't contribute or benefit from pedestrian traffic along the corridor. That's why I say it's built to be accessed by cars, because even though it's a "court" most resident drive there and drive away when they've completed their business.

I also think your history of Harper Court obscures probably the most fundamental thing about it: it was built to keep small businesses and artists in Hyde Park after they were forcibly uprooted from 55th and 57th. It has always housed small businesses, many of which are Hyde Park institutions, that survive on the low rent.

I think you're overstating the importance of the Court to small businesses, and understating the amount of non-chains throughout Hyde Park. There is a lot of vacant retail space on 53rd and the sub-level space that just opened on 55th and HP boulevard is a good example of low-rent options that are still available to institutions surviving on slim margins. I sure some businesses aren't going to survive moving to another location, but I'm not sure they would survive the next few year anyway. Artisans 21, for example, has been teetering on the brink of survival for years, but the University buy-out will only be the straw of many that breaks the camel's back. To blame Artisan 21 and other institution's demise on University spurred gentrification is somewhat disingenuous, as the support and demand for these businesses is nothing like it was 50 years ago. Moreover, I'm not convinced the character of business in Harper Court is any longer of such hallmark quality that they deserves subsidy or to be "saved" by the community.

The main thing here is that there are so many sites along 53rd that desperately need to be redeveloped--why is the University insisting on killing off the single highest concentration of local, affordable businesses in the neighborhood? It just doesn't make sense.

I think the point is that 53rd and Lake Park has such strong potential to be a high density anchor to the community. The University could, potentially, redevelop the entire corner right up to Harper Court, but with regards to my prior criticisms I think it would be better to pull retail up to the street.

Sorry, one more thing: your post is unfortunately plagued with a typical cheap shot at people who oppose something that the University is doing.

I don't think it was a cheap shot. I think it's a legitimate observation of some of the most vocal opponents in the neighborhood--one that's not as naive as you imply. Certainly you're aware of the NIMBYism in Hyde Park? And to the interchange of the University of Chicago as an institution and its administration. My reference is to the University as an organic entity, one with goals and needs that don't always match those of all Hyde Park residents, yet Hyde Park as a community is very much dependent on the flourishing of the University.

To state what I've perceive another way, a sizable subgroup of residents have been very much opposed to the University's plans to expand beyond it's existing boarders, including Harper's Court, the doctor's hospital, below the Midway, and across Washington Park. Many of those who are opposed to the University's many projects attribute its expansionist goals as the big institution imposing itself on the poor community. It's not unlike the myopic polarization of political ideals; and ,thus, their views are in line with the University being an oppressor to their way of life.

If you find this criticism too generalizing, it isn't toward any and all opponents to Harper Court redevelopment. Rereading my last post, I think you overstating how my "cheap shots' are generalized to any critics of the University or the redevelopment plan. I welcome thoughtful criticism, criticism of effective strategy, criticisms with legitimate concerns. But I see no middle ground for those staunchly opposed to the University or other developers proposing any major alteration to the neighborhood. The small but vocal response to many community meetings are evidence of these sort of criticisms

[denizen467]

A rather large trench has been dug up alongside Desplaines north of Lake. Utility work typically seems to be right under the street, but this looked to be under the sidewalk and maybe part of the street, so not sure if it is part of some site redevelopment or just city work.

[jc5680]

A rather large trench has been dug up alongside Desplaines north of Lake. Utility work typically seems to be right under the street, but this looked to be under the sidewalk and maybe part of the street, so not sure if it is part of some site redevelopment or just city work.

I am going to guess that it us just maintenance of sorts. I walk there on my way to jewel, the sidewalk that was there was almost entirely covered in metal plates. Even with all the temporary patchwork there was still areas where the sidewalk had continued to break away leaving pretty sizable holes.

[denizen467]

^ Isn't it pretty deep though? (On the other hand, maybe it was just a vaulted sidewalk.)

[jc5680]

^ Isn't it pretty deep though? (On the other hand, maybe it was just a vaulted sidewalk.)

Probably vaulted, in the places where chucks of the sidewalk had fallen away, you couldn't easily see the bottom of the hole. I never stopped to give it a good look, but in passing it looked as if there was already a large gap under the sidewalk.

[ChicagoismynewBlog]

http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/2009/05/old-colony-emerges-from-gloom.html
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OvonoKii_ds/SgkIQ5BMhfI/AAAAAAAAD0E/fRRil0jbnqc/s400/oldcolonywide.jpg

The Old Colony building is FINALLY getting cleaned!
Next on the list should be that building behind Federal Plaza.

I can't believe the building was able to get THAT dirty...I actually thought it was supposed to be that black/gray color...at least they're taking the time and money to clean it up now.

http://chicagoismynewblog.wordpress.com

[spyguy]

Many months ago when we're discussing a 40-story project on Jefferson in the boom thread someone mentioned this (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=washington+and+jefferson,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.713406,75.673828&ie=UTF8&ll=41.884875,-87.642757&spn=0.00504,0.009238&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.88317,-87.642691&panoid=rhHumrrIFsOwJ39fsMd8hw&cbp=1,321.9074547336269,,0,-3.7260456116801985) building in the West Loop. It was recently featured on Chicago Tonight (http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=42,8,8&vid=052809e) in the "Ask Geoffrey" segment (01:40). According to Geoffrey, the IBEW has a plan to restore the building, although he didn't elaborate on this point.
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/4215/fasdf.jpg

[2PRUROCKS!]

I was walking by the base of Aqua on the east side, above the townhomes and I could see through the windows display boards for a school for GEM eductaion to be built in the space between the north Agua staircase and the Tides. It appeared to be about 9 stories. There would also be space (office/adminstrative?) for GEM education in the base of Agua in the northeastern corner as well. Anyone have more info about this?

[ardecila]

Many months ago when we're discussing a 40-story project on Jefferson in the boom thread someone mentioned this (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=washington+and+jefferson,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.713406,75.673828&ie=UTF8&ll=41.884875,-87.642757&spn=0.00504,0.009238&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.88317,-87.642691&panoid=rhHumrrIFsOwJ39fsMd8hw&cbp=1,321.9074547336269,,0,-3.7260456116801985) building in the West Loop. It was recently featured on Chicago Tonight (http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=42,8,8&vid=052809e) in the "Ask Geoffrey" segment (01:40). According to Geoffrey, the IBEW has a plan to restore the building, although he didn't elaborate on this point.
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/4215/fasdf.jpg

Sounds fantastic. I've always liked this building, but the sheer granite facade the IBEW put up along the first floor decades ago is really off-putting - complete with sawed-off streetlights mounted to the building to provide extra illumination and strike fear into the hearts of bums... Since I was a kid and I used to ride past it, that facade somehow has symbolized the withdrawn and dangerous city that Chicago became in the era of white flight. It's weird the way our minds work...

I'm glad to see the owners are considering putting an end to this personal symbol. If it is restored to look like the picture, it will be a gem. Hopefully, historic preservation funds can be made available.

[k1052]

^ Isn't it pretty deep though? (On the other hand, maybe it was just a vaulted sidewalk.)

It's just a vaulted sidewalk. It has been crumbling for years and was becoming a liability.

[Mr Downtown]

that facade somehow has symbolized the withdrawn and dangerous city that Chicago became in the era of white flight. It's weird the way our minds work...

I think it was more than just general paranoia. Today it's easy to forget how bad Skid Row was.

Hopefully, historic preservation funds can be made available.

What historic preservation funds?

[Loopy]

.Date: May 29, 2009
To: Sears Tower Facility Contacts
From: Sears Tower Management Team
Subject: Jackson Viaduct Reconstruction


Please be advised that the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) will be rebuilding the Jackson Boulevard viaduct between Canal Street and the Chicago River. The work will entail building new piers, superstructure, roadway and sidewalk, as well as repairing the Jackson Bridge and sidewalk. New lighting and upgraded traffic signals at Jackson and Canal will also be included. Most work will be done during evening hours to accommodate daytime train traffic at Union Station. Work is set to begin Monday, June 1st and continue through April 2010.

Traffic and pedestrian routes will be impacted as follows:
§ The Jackson Viaduct will be closed from Canal to Wacker; detour route: Clinton (south) to Harrison (east) to Franklin (north), back to Jackson.
§ The intersection at Canal and Jackson will be reduced to two lanes for two months in Fall 2009.
§ Canal Street will also see changes to lane configurations, CTA bus staging and parking meters; please visit www.transitchicago.com for more information.
§ Pedestrian access to Union Station will be maintained from both the east and west. Pedestrians can cross the Jackson Bridge to access the east side of Union Station.

The Jackson Viaduct will remain closed from Canal to Wacker through April 2010. More information on the Jackson Viaduct Reconstruction may be obtained from the CDOT web site at www.cityofchicago.org/transportation

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34235

Northwestern Memorial plans new parking garage
By Samantha Sleevi, June 01, 2009

Northwestern Memorial Hospital plans to build an 1,100-car parking structure about seven blocks from the new Childrens Memorial Hospital in Streeterville, a neighborhood where street parking is scarce and can cost almost $40 a day.

The multi-story structure would replace an outpatient MRI facility at 441 E. Ohio St. and a surface parking lot to the north. Northwestern Memorial owns the lot and the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) facility, which is to move to a Northwestern-owned building at 676 N. St. Clair St.

The garage would provide parking for employees of Northwestern Memorial, Northwestern University, the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago and the new childrens hospital and would be owned by Northwestern Memorial, a spokeswoman for the hospital says.

[J_M_Tungsten]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34235

Northwestern Memorial plans new parking garage
By Samantha Sleevi, June 01, 2009

Northwestern Memorial Hospital plans to build an 1,100-car parking structure about seven blocks from the new Childrens Memorial Hospital in Streeterville, a neighborhood where street parking is scarce and can cost almost $40 a day.

The multi-story structure would replace an outpatient MRI facility at 441 E. Ohio St. and a surface parking lot to the north. Northwestern Memorial owns the lot and the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) facility, which is to move to a Northwestern-owned building at 676 N. St. Clair St.

The garage would provide parking for employees of Northwestern Memorial, Northwestern University, the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago and the new childrens hospital and would be owned by Northwestern Memorial, a spokeswoman for the hospital says.

Once the new Children's Memorial is completed, this garage sounds like it will be much needed.

[VivaLFuego]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34235

Northwestern Memorial plans new parking garage
By Samantha Sleevi, June 01, 2009

Northwestern Memorial Hospital plans to build an 1,100-car parking structure about seven blocks from the new Childrens Memorial Hospital in Streeterville, a neighborhood where street parking is scarce and can cost almost $40 a day.

The multi-story structure would replace an outpatient MRI facility at 441 E. Ohio St. and a surface parking lot to the north. Northwestern Memorial owns the lot and the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) facility, which is to move to a Northwestern-owned building at 676 N. St. Clair St.

The garage would provide parking for employees of Northwestern Memorial, Northwestern University, the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago and the new childrens hospital and would be owned by Northwestern Memorial, a spokeswoman for the hospital says.

Referring to this?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=441+e.+ohio+chicago+i&sll=37.579413,-95.712891&sspn=46.807981,77.167969&ie=UTF8&ll=41.893457,-87.615951&spn=0.002719,0.00471&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.893454,-87.616074&panoid=OoyTIO_Ut9jv2dKtPCJtwQ&cbp=12,154.34,,0,-0.33
Would explain why that nice old building on the site was torn down. I remember someone reproduced documentation of this one was actually having some significance but that was a year ago now at least I think.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Northwestern's rape of Streeterville continues...

[Nowhereman1280]

Whatever, I have a feeling that Streeterville prices will eventually get so high that all of these garages will come down and be replaced by monster condo projects. As much as I hate their destruction and shoddy design, I give NU credit for largely keeping the hospital and garage components of their facilities structurally separate so they can build something bigger and better where the garages are in 20 or 30 years.

At least this lot is already vacant...

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^

Would explain why that nice old building on the site was torn down.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I read that, I meant currently vacant. Not worth fretting over what's been lost, much better to focus on protecting what's left.

[BWChicago]

Referring to this?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=441+e.+ohio+chicago+i&sll=37.579413,-95.712891&sspn=46.807981,77.167969&ie=UTF8&ll=41.893457,-87.615951&spn=0.002719,0.00471&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.893454,-87.616074&panoid=OoyTIO_Ut9jv2dKtPCJtwQ&cbp=12,154.34,,0,-0.33
Would explain why that nice old building on the site was torn down. I remember someone reproduced documentation of this one was actually having some significance but that was a year ago now at least I think.

That map shows Ontario. No street view on Ohio.

[the urban politician]

^ Yeah, that looks like a nondescript MRI building and parking lot. Nothing special. I just hope that the design of the garage doesn't blow--but I guess you can put lipstick on a pig...

What a Spring we're having, eh? Three hospitals are being built/expanded yet historic structures are being torn down. All this in a wonderful economic bust in which the only other major construction starts under way or on the horizon seem to be massive parking garages! Wow, we sure are building places that future generations will cherish :tup:

[ardecila]

Whatever, I have a feeling that Streeterville prices will eventually get so high that all of these garages will come down and be replaced by monster condo projects. As much as I hate their destruction and shoddy design, I give NU credit for largely keeping the hospital and garage components of their facilities structurally separate so they can build something bigger and better where the garages are in 20 or 30 years.

At least this lot is already vacant...

I'm not sure NMH acts as "economically" as you say. Northwestern needs parking for its operations. If they can buy land cheaply now (this is relative, I'm sure they are paying huge sums) then the purchase of land is an investment. The parking and shiny new buildings make their hospital attractive to patients and to potential new hires. This is not something the hospital will be willing to part with in the foreseeable future.

More likely is the continued demolition of underscaled historic buildings in the neighborhood. Plus, it seems like Streeterville proposals got the axe more heavily than those in other parts of town, suggesting that demand growth is declining from its peak in the 1990s. CS, W=A, the rental tower north of W=A, Cityfront Center 2 and 3, Parkview East, Peshtigo, 535 St Clair, 560 N Fairbanks, etc are all on hold or canceled.

[denizen467]

There is one important upside to this: The surface lot opposite Streeter Place will finally be able to be sold to a developer.

Other than that, parking on the MRI site doesn't seem smart since it will be far away from Lurie, in an era when the current hospital offers validation to visitors who then just use a skybridge to walk to their car. I wish they would just redevelop the somewhat older, somewhat uglier, and smaller parking garage at Erie & McClurg, which now has an empty site just south of it. Then they could combine both into one giant garage, with better traffic access, and closer to their facilities.

However I see the article says the new garage will be parking for employees -- so maybe a next possible step could be to tear down the ugly Erie/McClurg garage (currently an employee-only garage I think), and have one big juicy site along McClurg available for development.

[brint82]

Allison Arieff had a few overly complimentary words on Wilson Yard (http://arieff.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/rethinking-the-mall/) in her opinion column published in today's New York Times. It's as though she didn't even look at the context of the development. She must have taken one look at a rendering, picked up on the fact that it wasn't a suburban mall, and figured that was enough.

"The project dispenses with the notion of a freestanding mall and conceives instead of a walkable, mixed-use community. Key to their design is LEED silver certification, open space and multi-modal access (not just cars but rail, transit and pedestrian)."

Multi-modal access isn't a key of the development, it's built into the context of the neighborhood! You can't stack a big box on top of parking, throw in a senior housing project and call it innovative, multi-modal urban planning.

[VivaLFuego]

Multi-modal access isn't a key of the development, it's built into the context of the neighborhood! You can't stack a big box on top of parking, throw in a senior housing project and call it innovative, multi-modal urban planning.
Unfortunately, multi-modal access actually is a fairly new concept outside of downtown in this city. To wit: how many strip malls blight the land up and down Broadway along the Red Line? How many gas stations or Walgreens parking lots obliterate one or more corners of what would otherwise be intact, enclosed intersections of major multi-model transportation arteries?

The planning is fine (aside from the $400k/unit subsidized cost to build new projects in Uptown of all places), it's Fitzgerald's consistently dreadful and banal architecture that deserves the scorn here.

[ardecila]

I don't get all this hysteria about Wilson Yards. It seems fine to me... a gentrifying neighborhood is naturally upset when affordable housing is constructed. But the gentrification means that Uptown can absorb it, since any setbacks in safety are offset by an influx of new, wealthier residents.

[Patel]

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=295168

Sherman Hospital awarded $400,000 grant

Published: 5/24/2009 12:01


Sherman Hospital was awarded a $400,000 grant from the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation for its geothermal lake project at the new Sherman Hospital campus. The foundation supports projects to improve energy efficiency and develop renewable energy resources throughout Illinois. Overall, the foundation has awarded over $6 million in grants to advance the use of geothermal in Illinois. The Sherman Hospital grant is the foundation's largest individual award to support a geothermal system.

Sherman was notified of the grant in 2006, and has received portions of the funding throughout the construction process. The grant will offset a portion of the incremental construction cost of Sherman's geothermal system, and to educate the community on geothermal energy.

"Illinois Clean Energy applauds and looks to Sherman's leadership. By constructing the largest geothermal system in the state to provide its new building with conditioned air, Sherman Hospital is setting a "green" bench mark for how hospitals and large institutional energy users can cool and heat their facilities in an environmentally friendly way," says Bob Romo, senior program officer, Illinois Clean Energy Foundation.

"Sherman is honored to receive this grant from the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation," said Rick Floyd, president and CEO, Sherman Health. "We are proud to be the first hospital in Illinois to use geothermal energy to heat and cool our facility."

Sherman Hospital's 15-acre geothermal lake is the only geothermal lake in Illinois and one of only two lakes currently cooling and heating medical centers in the U.S. The lake will be the main energy source for the new hospital. In addition to saving an estimated $1 million per year in energy costs, the energy produced by the lake is a renewable resource that does not create greenhouse gases or pollution.

"Without a doubt, the foundation's support of Sherman's geothermal heating and cooling system is spurring market transformation in Illinois for technology the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calls 'the most energy efficient, environmentally clean and cost-effective space conditioning system available," says Phil Novak, chairman, Illinois Clean Energy board of trustees.

To make a gift to Sherman Hospital, visit www.shermanhealthfoundation.com.

http://www.thefutureofsherman.com/

[lawfin]

Unfortunately, multi-modal access actually is a fairly new concept outside of downtown in this city. To wit: how many strip malls blight the land up and down Broadway along the Red Line? How many gas stations or Walgreens parking lots obliterate one or more corners of what would otherwise be intact, enclosed intersections of major multi-model transportation arteries?

The planning is fine (aside from the $400k/unit subsidized cost to build new projects in Uptown of all places), it's Fitzgerald's consistently dreadful and banal architecture that deserves the scorn here.
^^^Wholeheartedly agree....Broadway between Lawrence and about Hollywood is mostly a disaster....

I wonder is there any chance of ridding ourselves of those siht strip malls and replacing them with something more along the scale of wilson yards....not that wilson yard is great; but it beats what passes for retail on Broadway currently....

I could be a great street....instead it is strip mall blight

Some of this crap exists on clark north of devon....I'd like to see it torn down and replaced with 3-6 story mixed use as well

thoughts

[k1052]

I don't get all this hysteria about Wilson Yards. It seems fine to me... a gentrifying neighborhood is naturally upset when affordable housing is constructed. But the gentrification means that Uptown can absorb it, since any setbacks in safety are offset by an influx of new, wealthier residents.

I recall some statistic that Uptown already has substantially more low income housing than any neighborhood in close proximity.

There are enough people getting shot in the Wilson/Broadway/Sheridan area already.

[the urban politician]

^^^Wholeheartedly agree....Broadway between Lawrence and about Hollywood is mostly a disaster....

I wonder is there any chance of ridding ourselves of those siht strip malls and replacing them with something more along the scale of wilson yards....not that wilson yard is great; but it beats what passes for retail on Broadway currently....

I could be a great street....instead it is strip mall blight

Some of this crap exists on clark north of devon....I'd like to see it torn down and replaced with 3-6 story mixed use as well

thoughts

^ Perhaps if land values rise. Are there many examples in the city of strip malls being replaced by multilevel mixed use development?

[lawfin]

^ Perhaps if land values rise. Are there many examples in the city of strip malls being replaced by multilevel mixed use development?
^^^The new building at Granville and Broadway....over the years that corner has hosted a myriad of businesses, bars, etc....then nothing....at least now it has substantial residential and a mix of retail...at least eventually

again this is not the greatest design but it beats strip mall bligght

[wrabbit]

^ lawfin & VivaLFuego, I feel your pain. Just about nothing regarding land use & planning rankles me more than strip-mall surface parking, especially in an otherwise dense cityscape. These lots take a real psychic toll on pedestrians, encourage wasteful use of scarce resources like petrol fuel, raise median temperatures in the area, and faciltate water run-off that would otherwise absorb back into the ground soil. Now, I know that the city is experimenting with new paving materials that are permeable in certain test alleys, and that is great. But why not also require new parking to locate behind the buildings and away from the streetscape? The precedent of placing utilitarian services behind the streetwall is already well-established here, thanks to the city's alley network.

[brint82]

Unfortunately, multi-modal access actually is a fairly new concept outside of downtown in this city. To wit: how many strip malls blight the land up and down Broadway along the Red Line? How many gas stations or Walgreens parking lots obliterate one or more corners of what would otherwise be intact, enclosed intersections of major multi-model transportation arteries?

The planning is fine (aside from the $400k/unit subsidized cost to build new projects in Uptown of all places), it's Fitzgerald's consistently dreadful and banal architecture that deserves the scorn here.

Why would it be worthy of mention in an urban planning & design blog, if only for its size? Size, which is only a result of the government teaming up with a big box store.

Sure it's better than a strip mall... but are we really still using the strip mall as a benchmark?

[VivaLFuego]

I don't get all this hysteria about Wilson Yards. It seems fine to me... a gentrifying neighborhood is naturally upset when affordable housing is constructed. But the gentrification means that Uptown can absorb it, since any setbacks in safety are offset by an influx of new, wealthier residents.

Uptown would be gentrifying if the number of housing units devoted to Sec 8, very-low-income affordable housing, and various drug/violence rehab centers weren't still increasing thanks to projects like Wilson Yards as encouraged by Ald Shiller. Based on location and building stock it should be one of the greatest neighborhoods in the city, worthy of national acclaim - in terms of the built environment, comparable in ways to Hyde Park except less isolated from the rest of the city and better-served by rapid transit. Instead, it's a few bright spots of occasional hope, and a huge pocket of intentionally-planned and concentrated blight.

And Wilson Yards? Don't get the board started on that criminally-designed Aldi's again. In fairness, the transit-friendly Target will indeed be an asset for the whole north side. And I fully support the senior housing component, as such high-density developments are good for the demographic diversity and vibrancy of a neighborhood.

[the urban politician]

Wrigley Field roof is tops for developers (http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/1604198,CST-FIN-roeder03.article)
REAL ESTATE | Height cut for Clark-Addison project

http://media1.suntimes.com/multimedia/060309roeder.jpg_20090602_19_22_48_130-282-400.imageContent

June 3, 2009

BY DAVID ROEDER Sun-Times Columnist
Developers in Lake View have learned a lesson: If you want to build near Wrigley Field, you give the old park a little respect. Don't build higher than the Wrigley roof.

Plans for a more than $100 million hotel, apartment and retail complex southeast of Clark and Addison have been shaved to win community and aldermanic backing. Property owner Steven Schultz and M&R Development LLC took the equivalent of a floor or two off the tallest elements in the complex. No longer would they set a new height precedent for the neighborhood with buildings that seem to crane for a glimpse of Cubs action.

M&R partner Anthony Rossi said the project can be downsized because of the decision, made with architectural firm Solomon Cordwell Buenz, to move two levels of parking underground. It increases construction costs but means a couple lower levels formerly assigned to parking can be dressed up for retailers and made more attractive from the outside. Rossi said a health club has committed to occupy some of the space.

He said Global Hyatt Corp. is interested in operating and acquiring the 137-room hotel, which would be along Clark Street. A seven-story building on Addison would contain 135 apartments, down from an earlier scheme calling for nearly 200 units. Rossi said the size of the retail space has been reduced by nearly 25 percent, to 147,000 square feet.

or now, Rossi's priority is getting city zoning approval for the request. The approval would give the deal credibility with lenders, and he could then shift his focus to the credit markets, which remain closed to most speculative construction. "The uniqueness of the neighborhood probably will make some lenders and equity partners look at it," Rossi said.

Lake View Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) said the developers' concessions bring the project closer to what his constituents want. He wants the developers to complete a revised traffic study.

"We still have quite a bit of work to do but they are listening more to community concerns," Tunney said. His support would send the proposal to a city review process that could take several months.

[k1052]

^
A little more height would be nice but it's a vast improvement what's there now. Yay for the underground parking.

[VivaLFuego]

This actually sounds like a generally positive design change aside from the reduction in dwelling units. Underground parking is a big coup for the streetscape, and the concerns of totally changing the pedestrian-friendly nature of Clark Street with an oversized building not adequately set back from the street are legitimate. I would rather the exchange have been for less height near Clark and more height near Sheffield, which would also mean the dense dwelling units and hotel in the tower portion would be that much closer to rapid transit anyway.

[lawfin]

^^SO we get a less intense use....both less residential and less commercial because of some irrational concern that Wrigley must remain taller than its neighbors....priceless....it boggles the mind

If you ask me it should be 15 stories minimum Christ its is a little over a block from redline access and at the intersection of 2 bus lines.....

.....not to mention the essentially bottomless Cache of a near Wrigley address

[lawfin]

This actually sounds like a generally positive design change aside from the reduction in dwelling units. Underground parking is a big coup for the streetscape, and the concerns of totally changing the pedestrian-friendly nature of Clark Street with an oversized building not adequately set back from the street are legitimate. I would rather the exchange have been for less height near Clark and more height near Sheffield, which would also mean the dense dwelling units and hotel in the tower portion would be that much closer to rapid transit anyway.
I agree with that assessment....especially about the parking....I am less concerned over any perceived over abundance of height or even lack thereof than on the overall impact on the pedestrian nature of the site in general

I still think though it could be a more intense use.....and have less parking......my statements about that in the past have wrankled feathers and led to battles with certain other forumers

[k1052]

^^SO we get a less intense use....both less residential and less commercial because of some irrational concern that Wrigley must remain taller than its neighbors....priceless....it boggles the mind

If you ask me it should be 15 stories minimum Christ its is a little over a block from redline access and at the intersection of 2 bus lines.....

.....not to mention the essentially bottomless Cache of a near Wrigley address

Given the current environment they need to have the neighborhood and city totally on board before they can even attempt to nail down financing.
I don't think they did too badly all things considered and it will definitely add quite a bit of density.

Now if only something similar could be done about the land caddy corner across the intersection...

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I agree with you lawfin, but I think the design is a great precedent for the area. This building is relatively large for the area and there are lots of parking lots/crappy 1 story buildings (see McDonalds and t-bell) that will bite the dust in the future. This sets a minimum expectation for the potential developers of those sites. Hopefully this will allow someone to get away with something bigger and denser in the area in the future.

[Abner]

Okay, round three of being belittled for not thinking the parking meter lease was such a great idea. The inspector general released (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-parking-inspector-03jun03,0,6922988.story) a report (http://www.chicagoinspectorgeneral.org/pdf/IGO-CMPS-20090602.pdf) (pdf) finding that the city undervalued the meters by almost half--as what his office describes as a conservative estimate (because it employs a discount rate of 7%). The report is very readable and addresses a lot of the likely challenges to its conclusions.

Daley's response (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/06/city-council-debates-chicago-parking-snafu.html):

“Like anything else, you can issue any type of report,” Daley said. “I can criticize anything. Constructive criticism [is] accepted. But all of a sudden you’re challenging all the financial people about this financial area. If you want to, so be it.”

Asked if he had appointed the inspector general to issue such reports, the mayor shrugged and replied, “Today, everybody can do anything they want, I guess.”

Come on, guys. This man is embarrassing. He's incoherent. He has nothing of substance to say about the report so he criticizes the inspector general for not sticking to the narrow role Daley prescribed for him.

Of course the City Council is complicit in all this, I'm not laying the entire thing at the mayor's feet. They obviously didn't have to approve this deal less than two days after it was announced.

But think about the justification the mayor is giving for the lease: if we didn't do it, our finances would be in the toilet. In other words, if we didn't eat the next 75 years' worth of revenue from this source and deprive future generations of it, we would have had to change our consumption in the present. So we are straightforwardly taking revenue directly from the future, which is a different thing from engaging in a PPP simply for efficiency's sake. Even if we think this was the right thing to do, the inspector general points out that there were plenty of other options for raising the necessary revenue--the 75-year lease raised way more money than the city was arguing we needed.

[wrabbit]

Can't remember now who was asking recently about the Poetry Foundation's new building. Sentinel, was it you? Anyway, forgive me if this is redundant/has already been posted. Not exactly "news", but don't recall reading about it on the board:

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/foundation/Architect%20Selection%20release.pdf

CHICAGO — The Poetry Foundation board of trustees has selected John Ronan Architects to design its planned home for poetry in Chicago. The board made the unanimous decision at its September 19 meeting.

Eighteen firms applied to design the project. Chicago-based John Ronan Architects was chosen from a group of three finalists including Rafael Viñoly Architects, of London and New York, and Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects, of New York. Founded in 1997, Ronan’s firm recently completed the widely heralded Gary Comer Youth Center, home of the South Shore Drill Team, in Chicago.....Located on the southwest corner of Dearborn and Superior Streets in downtown Chicago, the new building is expected to encompass 25,000 square feet and include offices for the Poetry Foundation headquarters, editorial offices for Poetry magazine, a library and archives containing 30,000 volumes now housed at the Newberry Library, a public reading room with access to the collection, a visitors’ center, a garden or similar outdoor space, and multipurpose space designed to support the newly created Harriet Monroe Poetry Institute as well as the Foundation’s roster of public programming events such as readings, lectures, and panel discussions. The Foundation expects the project to be designed in an environmentally responsible manner.

-----

From Ronan's website:

http://www.jrarch.com/#/projects/institutional/poetry_foundation

The Poetry Foundation is a not for profit organization which grew out of Poetry magazine dedicated to the promotion of poetry in contemporary culture. Their headquarters building, in the River North neighborhood of Chicago, is comprised of a building in dialogue with a garden space. The garden space that is created by erosion within an implied volume as determined by the property boundary, resulting in a relationship whereby the building pushes into the garden and vice versa. Visitors reach the building by walking through the garden; the building’s internal arrangement is configured to allow for views from all spaces back out onto the garden.

The garden is a conceived of as an urban sanctuary, a space that could mediate between the street and the building, blurring the distinction between public and private. Functions more public in nature (a poetry reading room, a gallery, and library) are located on the building’s ground floor, while offices for the organization are located on the second level, organized into three areas corresponding to operations (foundation administration, magazine-website staff, and programs staff). Upon entering the garden, visitors perceive the double height library space that borders the garden, announcing that they are entering into a literary environment. Once inside, an exhibition gallery connects the library to the poetry reading room, where poets read their work to an audience against the backdrop of the garden.    

Tectonically, the building is conceived of as a series of layers that visitors move through and between. The layers, of zinc, glass, and wood, peel back like pages of a book to define the various programmatic zones of the building. The building’s outer layer, a cladding of oxidized zinc, becomes perforated where it borders the garden, allowing visual access to the garden from the street, encouraging public investigation. Inside the garden, a layer of perforated natural zinc reflects light into the north-facing space, creating a more internalized garden experience that provides a sense of removal to prepare visitors for the programs inside.


“The building will be a destination for visitors wishing to read, listen to, research, or simply enjoy the pleasures of poetry,” said Ethel Kaplan, chair of the board of trustees. “It will be designed from the ground up to honor the art form we serve.” Work is expected to commence
immediately, with an expectation that final design plans will be ready nextsummer. The project is scheduled for completion in 2010.

[the urban politician]

^ Sucks that it's replacing historic buildings for no reason. Right across the corner is that little cafe and a parking lot.

Why doesn't the guy provide any renderings in his website?

[SolarWind]

June 3, 2009

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/2218/dsc0212hxp.jpg

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9226/dsc0371j.jpg

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Maybe they've been asked not to release them by the client? Here is a description from the website of John Ronan Architects:


"Tectonically, the building is conceived of as a series of layers that visitors move through and between. The layers, of zinc, glass, and wood, peel back like pages of a book to define the various programmatic zones of the building. The building’s outer layer, a cladding of oxidized zinc, becomes perforated where it borders the garden, allowing visual access to the garden from the street, encouraging public investigation. Inside the garden, a layer of perforated natural zinc reflects light into the north-facing space, creating a more internalized garden experience that provides a sense of removal to prepare visitors for the programs inside."

Sounds promising and Ronan has had some good stuff before, I hope for the best!

[denizen467]

For all the week-to-week attention we pay to changes in the 108 N State / Block 37 tenant roster, you never hear anything about the Roosevelt Collection. And now glass has been installed in the Roosevelt retail windows, so this one may hit completion ahead of B37.

Do we know about any of the retail tenants other than the theater?
Or is this sucker drowning just like all the other various retail sites in the city?

[ardecila]

^^ I know of David Barton Gym, Urban Outfitters, H&M, Banana Republic, Victoria's Secret, and a major bookstore chain (most likely Barnes and Noble, which has little downtown presence, and seems to go for new construction buildings only). A high-end coffee shop is also in the works - not sure what it will be, since there are many upscale coffee chains in the city besides the usual Starbucks and Caribou, from Intelligentsia to Julius Meinl to Argo Tea (okay, not really coffee, but close).

The target date for opening is October 2009, and it looks like they are on track for that deadline.

I could have sworn that Lululemon was also opening a store here, but I can't find anything to back that up.

[Mr Downtown]

^I also think White House/Black Market and Chico's are in.

[the urban politician]

As much as I still am not a fan of Roosevelt Collection (I don't hate it either, just to be fair), it's really going to add some good retail to a part of town that BADLY needs it, IMO.

[VivaLFuego]

Okay, round three of being belittled for not thinking the parking meter lease was such a great idea. The inspector general released (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-parking-inspector-03jun03,0,6922988.story) a report (http://www.chicagoinspectorgeneral.org/pdf/IGO-CMPS-20090602.pdf) (pdf) finding that the city undervalued the meters by almost half--

Once again, someone with zero knowledge of either public or investment finance opining with populist bunk. The William Blair analysis leaked as part of the Reader piece clearly showed that $1.15 billion is on the very high end of the expected bid range. At least Hoffman's analysis was somewhat more informed than the dribble out of Waguespack's office.

No argument from me on the lameness of Hizzonner's response to questioning, though. Ideally the deal wouldn't have been necessary, but since it's impossible to have an adult conversation about revenue from reliable sources like Chicago's absurdly low residential property tax anymore, stuff like this is on the table. Remember, the city now has an extra billion in the bank. Put that in risk free treasuries, and that's $30+ million a year in interest income - when just last year, the city was getting about $25 million in meter revenue and had to pay for maintenance etc.

[pip]

and the health benefits, pensions, etc.

[Abner]

Once again, someone with zero knowledge of either public or investment finance opining with populist bunk. The William Blair analysis leaked as part of the Reader piece clearly showed that $1.15 billion is on the very high end of the expected bid range. At least Hoffman's analysis was somewhat more informed than the dribble out of Waguespack's office.

No argument from me on the lameness of Hizzonner's response to questioning, though. Ideally the deal wouldn't have been necessary, but since it's impossible to have an adult conversation about revenue from reliable sources like Chicago's absurdly low residential property tax anymore, stuff like this is on the table. Remember, the city now has an extra billion in the bank. Put that in risk free treasuries, and that's $30+ million a year in interest income - when just last year, the city was getting about $25 million in meter revenue and had to pay for maintenance etc.

Did you read the IG report? It goes over the Blair report in detail and specifically argues that the Blair report was only tasked with considering what a private company might pay for the meters, and not what the meters were worth to the city. These are two completely different things. The biggest difference is in the discount rate. The private sector employs a much higher one than the public sector because of the need to raise funds and repay lenders at higher rates. The Blair report used a discount rate of "between 10 and 14 percent." I've looked at a lot of cost-benefit analyses. Nobody uses a discount rate as high as even 10 percent for the public sector; 7 percent is typically used as the most conservative discount rate.

Furthermore, this is a 75 year lease. Discount rates start to lose meaning when you are looking that far into the future--the IG report notes that the first 37 years of the lease were valued at $1.08 billion, whereas the last 38 years were valued at only $77 million. Therefore a 75-year lease was not necessary. Do you have any substantive arguments against the IG report?

Second, you're wrong about what the city is doing with the money. The parking meter lease was explicitly intended to go toward filling today's budget holes ($150 million last year alone). That means it's not all going into the bank and collecting interest. As a CTA employee, you know all about diverting capital funds to operating expenses. Second, even if the whole sum were functioning as an endowment and we were living off the interest, the value of the meters is expected to rise over time, while the interest on a billion dollars, drawn out and consumed continuously (i.e. not compounded), is not.

You also omit the fact that the rates were drastically increased with the sale, so they are almost sure to bring in much more than $30 million. In fact the Blair report estimated that in year 5, NET revenue would be "anywhere from $85 million to $135 million." Let me know when you find risk-free Treasuries paying between 8 and 13 percent. (The answer is "in 1981.")

[VivaLFuego]

Did you read the IG report? It goes over the Blair report in detail and specifically argues that the Blair report was only tasked with considering what a private company might pay for the meters, and not what the meters were worth to the city. These are two completely different things. The biggest difference is in the discount rate. The private sector employs a much higher one than the public sector because of the need to raise funds and repay lenders at higher rates. The Blair report used a discount rate of "between 10 and 14 percent." I've looked at a lot of cost-benefit analyses. Nobody uses a discount rate as high as even 10 percent for the public sector; 7 percent is typically used as the most conservative discount rate.
Well yes, I'm not saying the meters should have been leased out to the private sector, but given that they were the city got a good price. Once public goods/services are taken to the private sector/free market, they have to abide some of the basic groundrules far outside the control of a mere municipal government.


Furthermore, this is a 75 year lease. Discount rates start to lose meaning when you are looking that far into the future--the IG report notes that the first 37 years of the lease were valued at $1.08 billion, whereas the last 38 years were valued at only $77 million. Therefore a 75-year lease was not necessary. Do you have any substantive arguments against the IG report?

Yes. 75 years ago, parking meters didn't exist. 75 years before that, cars didn't exist. To fork over $1.1 billion now is take on a lot of risk over what the future holds. It's not clear that the city could have gotten $1.08 billion for a 37 year lease (if they could have, then by all means they should have, but I suspect that would have changed some of the fundamental assumptions of the private equity investor).

Second, you're wrong about what the city is doing with the money. The parking meter lease was explicitly intended to go toward filling today's budget holes ($150 million last year alone). That means it's not all going into the bank and collecting interest. As a CTA employee, you know all about diverting capital funds to operating expenses. Second, even if the whole sum were functioning as an endowment and we were living off the interest, the value of the meters is expected to rise over time, while the interest on a billion dollars, drawn out and consumed continuously (i.e. not compounded), is not.

Going back to a previous point I made, it's impossible to have an honest adult conversation about revenue in this city (country?) anymore. It's a fallacy to think City government could have raised rates as you say - in fact, raising meter rates was proposed as part of balancing the 2007 operating budget but shot down for political reasons. The BRT money, to be leveraged by downtown peak period surcharges, was forfeited for political reasons, and was otherwise ready to rock and roll from a technical/operational standpoint. Unfortunately, the only way governments around here can raise revenue is to wait for any given structural deficit problem to be a do-or-die crisis, so from the politician/government staff side it's a question of pick your target poison for public backlash (e.g. Cook county going for a sales tax increase since property tax was off the table and decreasing in real terms every year).

You also omit the fact that the rates were drastically increased with the sale, so they are almost sure to bring in much more than $30 million. In fact the Blair report estimated that in year 5, NET revenue would be "anywhere from $85 million to $135 million." Let me know when you find risk-free Treasuries paying between 8 and 13 percent. (The answer is "in 1981.")
Yes, but:
1. now the city doesn't pay for maintenance, which is in the millions per year
2. the city doesn't have to make the capital investment to upgrade the infrastructure, or rather replace meters with pay-and-display boxes. These boxes would be required as part of any rate increase whether being operated by city government or the private operator. As with all capital investments, the private sector has an inherent advantage over government as the assets can be depreciated to reduce the corporate income tax burden - meaning, when all is said and done, corporations pay around two-thirds to three-quarters what government does for capital improvements depending on their specific tax situation. This is the same logic that was used in the transit industry in recent decades to have equity outfits purchase/own railcars and buses then lease them back to the transit agency, with the agency saving money over buying them directly because the owner passes the tax savings through the lease agreement.

[Taft]

Did you read the IG report? It goes over the Blair report in detail and specifically argues that the Blair report was only tasked with considering what a private company might pay for the meters, and not what the meters were worth to the city. These are two completely different things. The biggest difference is in the discount rate. The private sector employs a much higher one than the public sector because of the need to raise funds and repay lenders at higher rates. The Blair report used a discount rate of "between 10 and 14 percent." I've looked at a lot of cost-benefit analyses. Nobody uses a discount rate as high as even 10 percent for the public sector; 7 percent is typically used as the most conservative discount rate.

Furthermore, this is a 75 year lease. Discount rates start to lose meaning when you are looking that far into the future--the IG report notes that the first 37 years of the lease were valued at $1.08 billion, whereas the last 38 years were valued at only $77 million. Therefore a 75-year lease was not necessary. Do you have any substantive arguments against the IG report?

Second, you're wrong about what the city is doing with the money. The parking meter lease was explicitly intended to go toward filling today's budget holes ($150 million last year alone). That means it's not all going into the bank and collecting interest. As a CTA employee, you know all about diverting capital funds to operating expenses. Second, even if the whole sum were functioning as an endowment and we were living off the interest, the value of the meters is expected to rise over time, while the interest on a billion dollars, drawn out and consumed continuously (i.e. not compounded), is not.

You also omit the fact that the rates were drastically increased with the sale, so they are almost sure to bring in much more than $30 million. In fact the Blair report estimated that in year 5, NET revenue would be "anywhere from $85 million to $135 million." Let me know when you find risk-free Treasuries paying between 8 and 13 percent. (The answer is "in 1981.")

If you don't like the opinions, why keep coming back for more? ;)

As for this inspector general report...I view his conclusions with a lot of skepticism. His rebuttals of expected criticism come down to "I'm right and the other people are wrong" and his assumptions, to me, are no more or less valid than Blair's or the alderman's report. In particular, I find his "wholly optimistic" and "wholly pessimistic" valuations of future revenues to be seriously skewed towards an optimistic viewpoint. Given his "midpoint" valuation is much higher than even the alderman's large assumptions gives me reason to pause and consider whether the figures he used were sound. Further, his dismissal of the "impossibility argument" is, IMO, absurd, completely misses the point and is as biased and unscientific as anything Daley pulls out of his arse.

Another point I think the IG minimizes is the cost of upgrades to the meters. The city would not have been able to pay for those upgrades given currently financial constraints, which would have limited their ability to collect all of that supposed new revenue. On that same line of thought, how was the city going to enforce over-night and late night violations? With city/union labor? How much would that have cost them and how does that impact revenue projections?

One point I disagree with YOU on is the fact that Blair's report did do evaluation of the expected future revenues of the meters. The report didn't focus on that aspect, but it certainly provided an estimate, which was dismissed out of hand by the IG as conservative.

And are you really surprised by Daley's reaction? Really? He is, after all, a politician who needs to provide a succinct sound bit to the press. But further, he isn't exactly a man known for his wit and intelligence at press conferences. To me, this is classic Daley...for better or for worse.

I completely agree with the IG regarding the way this particular deal went through (and the way business gets done in this city in general). But I have to come back to: why this deal? Why now? After two decades of making shady deals and ramming his agenda through the city council, why is the public finally going nuts? The answer in my mind is simple: you don't mess with people's "right" to drive EVERYWHERE.

I don't view this deal as particularly great for the long term financial health of the city, but I'm not particularly convinced by the arguments being shopped by the IG or our aldercreatures, either. I do find the public outrage over the entire episode to be completely selfish and, quite frankly, pretty hypocritical given their tolerance over the last two decades.

[Jibba]

New Loyola building near Chicago/State:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6671/img0095trq.jpg

[the urban politician]

^ Is that the frame of the entire building? Looks really small, almost like they're just building the elevator shaft

[ardecila]

^ No, it will come out to the sidewalk. For staging reasons, they are framing the back first (so the crane can sit on their lot instead of in the street). The next phase of construction will probably require a lane closure on Chicago.

[Abner]

Well yes, I'm not saying the meters should have been leased out to the private sector, but given that they were the city got a good price. Once public goods/services are taken to the private sector/free market, they have to abide some of the basic groundrules far outside the control of a mere municipal government.

So if I have something that's worth $100 and I sell it to somebody for $50, I should be satisfied knowing nobody else would have paid more? I realize you're not necessarily defending the decision to lease the meters, but it seems silly to start with the assumption that they were going to be leased, and that the terms of the lease we wound up with were the only possible terms. The IG report has a list of different lease terms that would have raised the necessary revenue if the city really needed it.

Yes. 75 years ago, parking meters didn't exist. 75 years before that, cars didn't exist. To fork over $1.1 billion now is take on a lot of risk over what the future holds. It's not clear that the city could have gotten $1.08 billion for a 37 year lease (if they could have, then by all means they should have, but I suspect that would have changed some of the fundamental assumptions of the private equity investor).

Considering the relatively trivial cost of the second half of the lease term, it's not that huge a risk. Furthermore, the city has already told an alderman that it can't change meter pricing without paying back the company for the foregone revenue. If that's part of the lease, then if we all get our jet packs in 20 years and leave parking meters behind, Morgan Stanley will just get its money back (money, of course, that we would have already spent). As for your second point, by the analysis used by the city itself, the valuation of a 37-year lease would have been around $1.08 billion. What are you saying would be so different about a shorter-term lease?

Going back to a previous point I made, it's impossible to have an honest adult conversation about revenue in this city (country?) anymore.

Sure, I agree with this, but...

It's a fallacy to think City government could have raised rates as you say - in fact, raising meter rates was proposed as part of balancing the 2007 operating budget but shot down for political reasons.

I'm sorry, this is absolute BS. The City DID change the meter rates! It just did it as part of a long-term lease. Let me ask you, exactly how many people in the city of Chicago are falling for this ruse? How many people somehow believe that the City leased the meters and the big bad private company is the one that jacked up the rates in a way that the City couldn't have foreseen? I'm guessing roughly zero. Who is everybody in the city pissed off at? Morgan Stanley? No. They're pissed at the City because they have the basic competence to understand that the City is the main actor here. This issue was also explicitly addressed in the IG report.

Unfortunately, the only way governments around here can raise revenue is to wait for any given structural deficit problem to be a do-or-die crisis, so from the politician/government staff side it's a question of pick your target poison for public backlash (e.g. Cook county going for a sales tax increase since property tax was off the table and decreasing in real terms every year).

Yes, the government funding system all over the country, especially in Cook County, is broken. It's especially broken here because the local levels of government (we can at least agree on county and state, right?) are flagrantly corrupt and nobody trusts their tax money with them. None of this is an excuse for the City to enter into such a lousy lease. On the contrary, when the City does something like this, in the disastrous manner in which it was done--rushed, secretively, with zero room for public comment--it makes people trust government less and makes the problem worse.

Yes, but:
1. now the city doesn't pay for maintenance, which is in the millions per year

$3-4 million per year, with a significant increase to install pay boxes. But note the word "net" in my sentence.

2. the city doesn't have to make the capital investment to upgrade the infrastructure, or rather replace meters with pay-and-display boxes. These boxes would be required as part of any rate increase whether being operated by city government or the private operator. As with all capital investments, the private sector has an inherent advantage over government as the assets can be depreciated to reduce the corporate income tax burden - meaning, when all is said and done, corporations pay around two-thirds to three-quarters what government does for capital improvements depending on their specific tax situation. This is the same logic that was used in the transit industry in recent decades to have equity outfits purchase/own railcars and buses then lease them back to the transit agency, with the agency saving money over buying them directly because the owner passes the tax savings through the lease agreement.

This is yet another thing that is addressed in the supposedly amateur IG report:

According to federal tax law, in order to claim accelerated depreciation, the private concessionaire must demonstrate effective ownership of the asset, which requires the lease term to be at least 75 percent of the useful life of the asset. These larger tax deductions allow the private concessionaire to realize a return on its investment faster than it otherwise would [...] However, based on available research and a depreciation schedule from another jurisdiction, the useful life of the parking meters is not likely to exceed 10 years. Thus, extending the length of the lease to 75 years was not necessary to allow the concessionaire to claim accelerated depreciation and thus increase the size of the upfront payment.

Besides that, the tax advantage on an expenditure estimated at $50 million does not outweigh foregoing over $900 million in net present value.