[Abner]

I have a (thankfully non-meter-related) question. On the corner of 18th and Ashland there's a public notice of Alderman Solis's request to "remove pedestrian street designation" from 18th St. (The address written on the notice is 1800 S. Ashland and the notification simply says "along W. 18th St." without anything more specific.) What does this mean? What is pedestrian street designation? On the surface it sure sounds like a bad thing... 18th St. is definitely a pedestrian street. There may have been more of these notices elsewhere but I didn't happen to see them.

[the urban politician]

^ Doesn't sound like a good thing to me.

Pedestrian designation insures that new buildings are built to the sidewalk and that there is not any parking requirement. I'm not sure why the Alderman would want to remove that.

[Abner]

Well, because aldermen are generally assholes.

[the urban politician]

^ Will there be a hearing?

If so, it might be a good idea to figure out what's going on.

[Abner]

I don't think the notice gave any information about what a person might conceivably do if they wanted to know more about what was going on, and it certainly didn't give any indication about it being anything other than a done deal. City government is not known for soliciting the opinions of residents about most matters (highrises in well-heeled neighborhoods notwithstanding, perhaps).

[VivaLFuego]

Not good news. The pedestrian street designation is one of the few true bright spots in the non-downtown sections of Chicago's zoning code. I can only assume there is a specific person with a specific street-murdering development in mind who holds specific sway with Mr Solis. I'd like to think Dept of Zoning and Land Use (or whatever Planning is called now) goes to the mattresses on this one, but Mayor Mumbles seems to only care about steamrolling aldermanic perogative when it comes to building stuff in Grant Park.

[Abner]

Not good news. The pedestrian street designation is one of the few true bright spots in the non-downtown sections of Chicago's zoning code. I can only assume there is a specific person with a specific street-murdering development in mind who holds specific sway with Mr Solis. I'd like to think Dept of Zoning and Land Use (or whatever Planning is called now) goes to the mattresses on this one, but Mayor Mumbles seems to only care about steamrolling aldermanic perogative when it comes to building stuff in Grant Park.

Ugh. In some places, a row as generally well-preserved as 18th would be treasured and protected. There's almost nothing on 18th in that area that's worth replacing with some large new development, with the exception of a large and almost always empty MB Financial parking lot just west of Ashland--but considering that it's a bank parking lot, I doubt that would be the property being monkeyed with.

There is, however, what seems to be an abandoned foundation for a one-lot condo project between Laflin and Ashland that has been filled with water and debris for well over a year. I always thought aldermen were supposed to do something about stuff like that.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ Seriously. 18th is on its way to becoming one of the most vibrant corridors in the city. It needs elbow grease, not demolition. I hope the nascent activist community there catches wind of this.

[brian_b]

Someone wants a drive-thru bank branch on the corner.

Who wants to bet against me?

[the urban politician]

^ I was just thinking the same thing.

What's the point of Pedestrian street zoning if a single developer can so easily overturn it. Why even bother with creating the zoning then?

[Abner]

Well, you know the rules. Aldermen can do whatever they want, unless the mayor wants to do something different.

^ Seriously. 18th is on its way to becoming one of the most vibrant corridors in the city. It needs elbow grease, not demolition. I hope the nascent activist community there catches wind of this.

I would say it isn't on its way, it already is one--albeit one that's been more fragile economically. There aren't that many neighborhoods in the city with incomes as low as Pilsen's that support so many businesses (and 18th doesn't even really serve as a Latino shopping destination like 26th does). You're right though, there's nothing about 18th St. that is going to benefit from teardowns.

[ChiMack]

i have a question about the ex robert taylor area, what did they built there and are people living there already? is it a mixed income area

[the urban politician]

On the corner of 18th and Ashland there's a public notice of Alderman Solis's request to "remove pedestrian street designation" from 18th St. (The address written on the notice is 1800 S. Ashland and the notification simply says "along W. 18th St." without anything more specific.) What does this mean? What is pedestrian street designation? On the surface it sure sounds like a bad thing... 18th St. is definitely a pedestrian street. There may have been more of these notices elsewhere but I didn't happen to see them.

^ Credit Jonathan Fine, director of Preservation Chicago, for quickly getting to the bottom of this issue. Here is what he found out:

The zoning change was for the MB Bank building their new building across the
street where their parking lot is. There will now be 1 driveway access vs.
the 2 that are there now. It is just for that block and once they are
complete, the zoning will go back to what it was.

Jonathan Fine
Executive Director, Preservation Chicago

[wrabbit]

The Chicago Architecture Foundation is in the process of installing a new Chicago city model in the atrium of the Santa Fe Building, to replace the smaller, less detailed one in their CitySpace gallery. When fully installed, it will cycle through a simulated 24-hour day. It is looking really great!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3415/3599343388_f4a02d4218_b.jpg

[Busy Bee]

Looking awesome! Is that Ryan Reynolds in the background?

[Abner]

^ Credit Jonathan Fine, director of Preservation Chicago, for quickly getting to the bottom of this issue. Here is what he found out:

Whew. Thanks, TUP. Did you take the initiative of emailing him yourself? I didn't know Preservation Chicago was plugged into that sort of thing.

[Hayward]

You know, I thought about laser cutting a chunk of Chicago, but after seeing the size of this......don't think the apartment can hold it.

[denizen467]

Jonathan Fine, director of Preservation Chicago ...
Speaking of old buildings that embody the city's history:

The 4-story red stone building on the southwest corner of St Clair & Grand used to have "Lindsay Light Co" (that century-old (polluting) company headquartered there) in stone at the very top on the Grand side, even just a couple months ago.

Now it says "Schmo Bros." or something like that, in new-ish looking stone. WTF?!?

[SolarWind]

June 4, 2009

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/4634/dsc0255c.jpg

Greenway Self-Park Presentation
http://www.slideshare.net/DavidBrinn/greenway-selfpark-presentation-presentation

[SolarWind]

I visited slideshare.net (http://slideshare.net) for the first time today and I noticed a bunch of presentations that have to do with Chicago.

A bit dated, but here's one:

Current Construction Projects, City of Chicago, August 21, 2008
http://www.slideshare.net/juggernautco/current-construction-projects-city-of-chicago-august-21-2008

[harryc]

Speaking of old buildings that embody the city's history:

The 4-story red stone building on the southwest corner of St Clair & Grand used to have "Lindsay Light Co" (that century-old (polluting) company headquartered there) in stone at the very top on the Grand side, even just a couple months ago.

Now it says "Schmo Bros." or something like that, in new-ish looking stone. WTF?!?

Feb 13 - 2009
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SivD17TtubI/AAAAAAABM1E/NzYO7pm2M_c/s720/P1250213.JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SivESZdYQTI/AAAAAAABM1k/JaXNRCbVjDg/s800/P1250210.JPG

I had gone looking for this when it was mentioned in conjunction with the McDs ripping down 270E Grand.

[the urban politician]

Here (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=2229+s+halsted+chicago&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.231745,79.101563&ie=UTF8&ll=41.851902,-87.646437&spn=0.008327,0.019312&z=16&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=41.851817,-87.646431&panoid=jy0V7HbADJf8lDBLWQsaHA&cbp=12,104.7,,0,5) is a street view of the building and its surroundings--always good to see these historic industrial buildings get another life:

Last updated: June 5, 2009 12:06pm
Sterling Bay Cos. Buys 68,000-SF Building (http://www.globest.com/news/1425_1425/chicago/179064-1.html)

CHICAGO-Sterling Bay Cos. has purchased a 68,000-square-foot industrial building at 2229 S. Halsted. The building was sold and previously occupied by Sandler Sanitary Wiping Cloth Co. Chicago-based Sterling plans to rehab the interior and exterior of the building to create loft industrial space, as well as add parking to the back of the building.
The three-story building sits on less than an acre at the corner of Cermak Road and South Halsted Street. The facility offers 16-foot clear ceilings, two freight elevators and an additional 20,000 square feet of space in the basement. The sales price was not disclosed on this deal, which is reportedly the first industrial building sale to close this year in the city of Chicago.

The property is located in the southern Chicago submarket, where overall occupancy is around 94%, according to Cushman & Wakefield's Q1 industrial market report. Asking lease rates in the submarket range from $3 to $7 per square foot net, according to Cushman's research.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Great, I feel like that whole area has a promising future. Once it starts developing more residential the whole canal corridor will sure have a lot of unique and interesting urban spaces that will provide that "not straight streets" feel that most of Chicago lacks.

[denizen467]

Feb 13 - 2009
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SivD17TtubI/AAAAAAABM1E/NzYO7pm2M_c/s720/P1250213.JPG

What the heck is that about. Is that really a real company's name? It almost sounds like a fake name being used in a commercial or sitcom, i.e. like this is just a temporary change for that purpose. But per your photo it has been that way for at least 4 months.

If they want to rename this (non-landmark) building (by putting the name in the lobby or adding it in places on the exterior, etc. etc.), fine, but if the changes in the stone are permanent then they are defacing part of the city's history. It's not major and they may be legally entitled to do it, but that doesn't make it smart or right. (Kind of a different example but) I think Hard Rock Hotel had the wisdom to leave Carbide & Carbon emblazoned on their tower.

Also, the new photo has multiple differences from the "Lindsay Light Co" sign still available on Google street view -- the shape of the parapets is different. So it looks like there was more change than just the words.

[nomarandlee]

^^^ Great, I feel like that whole area has a promising future. Once it starts developing more residential the whole canal corridor will sure have a lot of unique and interesting urban spaces that will provide that "not straight streets" feel that most of Chicago lacks.



Yes, if there was any kind of residential and retail base in that area I would love to live around there. The brides, old brick warehouses/factories, bending river, old rail spurs, a stones throw from downtown. I wonder if in the next twenty years if river condos will ever line the banks around there. Or would zoning not allow it.

[Mr Downtown]

^Protected manufacturing district. No residential conversion allowed. I think may be some people living in the building at Jefferson/Cermak, but they're pretending they just sometimes stay overnight in their "office."

[ardecila]

What the heck is that about. Is that really a real company's name? It almost sounds like a fake name being used in a commercial or sitcom, i.e. like this is just a temporary change for that purpose. But per your photo it has been that way for at least 4 months.

It appears to be a real company, perhaps the owners of the building. Schmo Brothers, LLC is listed on several sites as a "real estate" company. It could be an agency of realtors, but most likely, it is merely the name of a corporation set up to manage this particular building.

The name is rather odd, of course, but that's the best part. I object to the craftsmanship involved in this sign, and I had a bit of an attachment to the old one, but at least the funny name will perform exactly the same role that "Lindsay Light Company" did - an obscure, forgotten, and intriguing piece of the past in the middle of the busy, modern city. One only needs to look up to see it.

[Abner]

^Protected manufacturing district. No residential conversion allowed. I think may be some people living in the building at Jefferson/Cermak, but they're pretending they just sometimes stay overnight in their "office."

Right, notice how the article was about that building's redevelopment for industrial purposes. Occupied industrial space is better than vacant industrial space, but it doesn't create fun neighborhoods. This area is pretty barren and kind of scummy (there's scrap recycling across the street, which doesn't attract the hippest crowd). The only thing even remotely approaching a destination for blocks around is the Skylark.

However, it looks like there's been a lot of progress on the Schoenhofen administration building at 18th and Canalport. (If anyone is in the area, it's worth a picture.) That is probably more the kind of thing Nowhereman was going for.

[Abner]

And if you want to get your heart broken, here's a slideshow of the demolition of four buildings, including the Colt Building, in Oak Park. They will be replaced with an enormous "temporary" parking lot because the Village bungled the process so badly and missed the entire construction boom.

http://www.wjinc.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=14727

Here's a real juicy quote:

Oak Park considered paying another $60,000 to preserve pieces of the Colt's art-deco façade, but decided, instead, to save that money.

[the urban politician]

However, it looks like there's been a lot of progress on the Schoenhofen administration building at 18th and Canalport. (If anyone is in the area, it's worth a picture.) That is probably more the kind of thing Nowhereman was going for.

^ Can you remind me what that project is?

[Nowhereman1280]

I hope that "temporary parking lot" in Oak Park becomes a "temporary crack corner". I can only wish complete urban decay upon any city or ward dumb enough to level quality buildings and replace them with parking lots.


In other news: The Chicago Place conversion to hotel is well under way, the facade on the second floor was completely blown out today, its going to be nice to see windows on that base instead of just blank panels. Someone should grab some pictures of this, looks like it could be a gain for our city an a vast streetscape improvement.

[Abner]

I hope that "temporary parking lot" in Oak Park becomes a "temporary crack corner". I can only wish complete urban decay upon any city or ward dumb enough to level quality buildings and replace them with parking lots.

The stupidity going on in Oak Park regarding the downtown superblock isn't really that kind of stupidity. The Village bought the largest building (at a ridiculously high price) from a developer in 2006 with the intention of taking bids to either rehab it or redevelop the lot. There was fierce debate over whether the building could be saved, and the Village hired a bunch of consultants who claimed it would be like $6 million to rehab a building that was short and aesthetically compromised already, so after an incredible amount of foot-dragging, they finally decided to take bids to redevelop it along with some (much nicer) buildings behind it on Westgate and a parking lot behind those across the street from the Harlem Green Line station. The intention was for major TOD, albeit with a big parking garage component. In the meantime, they kicked out all the tenants.

The bidding process was also absurd; two companies became the finalists by claiming they wouldn't need TIF money, which of course turned out to be BS. The Village picked one, and then the deal fell apart when the economy tanked.

So the bottom line is that the Village wanted to do something good and worthwhile with the space, but overpaid for everything and frittered away the time window it had to do it. Then they threw out the good with the bad and knocked down some very good buildings. This has a good chance of being Oak Park's own little Block 37: a big, horrendous example of why local governments shouldn't get into the real estate business.

[spyguy]

Ogden Replacement Elementary School
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4128/ogdenelem2.jpg
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9549/ogdenelem1.jpg

[sukwoo]

The stupidity going on in Oak Park regarding the downtown superblock isn't really that kind of stupidity. The Village bought the largest building (at a ridiculously high price) from a developer in 2006 with the intention of taking bids to either rehab it or redevelop the lot. There was fierce debate over whether the building could be saved, and the Village hired a bunch of consultants who claimed it would be like $6 million to rehab a building that was short and aesthetically compromised already, so after an incredible amount of foot-dragging, they finally decided to take bids to redevelop it along with some (much nicer) buildings behind it on Westgate and a parking lot behind those across the street from the Harlem Green Line station. The intention was for major TOD, albeit with a big parking garage component. In the meantime, they kicked out all the tenants.

The bidding process was also absurd; two companies became the finalists by claiming they wouldn't need TIF money, which of course turned out to be BS. The Village picked one, and then the deal fell apart when the economy tanked.

So the bottom line is that the Village wanted to do something good and worthwhile with the space, but overpaid for everything and frittered away the time window it had to do it. Then they threw out the good with the bad and knocked down some very good buildings. This has a good chance of being Oak Park's own little Block 37: a big, horrendous example of why local governments shouldn't get into the real estate business.

I'm sure there's plenty of stupidity to go around, but I put the majority of the blame on VCA-dominated village board in office from 2005-2007. Their decision to attempt to save the Colt building regardless of the economic considerations resulted in Oak Park missing the window of opportunity for development. Now we're stuck with the financial burden of the purchase and a big parking lot for who knows how long right in the middle of the downtown.

[Abner]

God, that is one hostile-looking school.

I'm sure there's plenty of stupidity to go around, but I put the majority of the blame on VCA-dominated village board in office from 2005-2007.

I agree. I'd put it squarely on their shoulders. The village board had a role to play in redeveloping the superblock, but that role got badly, badly mangled.

[Busy Bee]

Yuck! That exterior is brutal.

[VivaLFuego]

The stupidity going on in Oak Park regarding the downtown superblock isn't really that kind of stupidity. The Village bought the largest building (at a ridiculously high price) from a developer in 2006 with the intention of taking bids to either rehab it or redevelop the lot. There was fierce debate over whether the building could be saved, and the Village hired a bunch of consultants who claimed it would be like $6 million to rehab a building that was short and aesthetically compromised already, so after an incredible amount of foot-dragging, they finally decided to take bids to redevelop it along with some (much nicer) buildings behind it on Westgate and a parking lot behind those across the street from the Harlem Green Line station. The intention was for major TOD, albeit with a big parking garage component. In the meantime, they kicked out all the tenants.

The bidding process was also absurd; two companies became the finalists by claiming they wouldn't need TIF money, which of course turned out to be BS. The Village picked one, and then the deal fell apart when the economy tanked.


Sounds suspiciously like what may soon ensure with Harper Court, though at least the University, not being a government entity run by elected officials, won't be subject to the collective stupidity and morass of the activist community.

[VivaLFuego]

Ogden Replacement Elementary School

Well, it's actually a bit more modern and less schockish than I expected it to be given the architect's past work. But as noted by others, it still sucks hard, especially in comparison to the elegant Moderne building it will replace.

[i_am_hydrogen]

The last four miles: Friends of the Parks unveils a plan for an entirely-open lakefront

Cityscapes | by Blair Kamin

Lakefront2 Chicagoans love to brag about their open, people-friendly lakefront. In reality, 4 of the city’s 30 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline are unavailable to the public—cordoned off by an intimidating combination of high-rises, “Private Property” signs and fences topped by razor wire. That’s more than 13 percent of the waterfront, an outrageous violation of Daniel Burnham’s ringing epigram that the lakefront “by right belongs to the people.”

On Tuesday, however, the advocacy group Friends of the Parks will unveil a visionary plan that seeks to change that.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/06/the-last-four-miles-friends-of-the-park-unveils-a-new-plan-for-an-entirelyopen-lakefront-.html

[whyhuhwhy]

The last four miles: Friends of the Parks unveils a plan for an entirely-open lakefront

Cityscapes | by Blair Kamin

Lakefront2 Chicagoans love to brag about their open, people-friendly lakefront. In reality, 4 of the city’s 30 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline are unavailable to the public—cordoned off by an intimidating combination of high-rises, “Private Property” signs and fences topped by razor wire. That’s more than 13 percent of the waterfront, an outrageous violation of Daniel Burnham’s ringing epigram that the lakefront “by right belongs to the people.”

On Tuesday, however, the advocacy group Friends of the Parks will unveil a visionary plan that seeks to change that.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/06/the-last-four-miles-friends-of-the-park-unveils-a-new-plan-for-an-entirelyopen-lakefront-.html

AWESOME. Honestly the most exciting thing I've seen since the Spire proposal! What are the chances this would be even possible? It seems too good to be true!

[Chicago Shawn]

^Friends of the parks has been refining this idea for a couple of years now, and I do hope it does come to fruition.

This was my response on Kamin's blog to some of the 'uninformed' posters:

First off, everyone who claims this is a property rights issue; is is dead wrong. No private property would be acquired. The plan crafted by friends of the parks calls for building chains of islands, essentially rising sections of the lake bed which belongs to the state of Illinois. That's right, the lake bed is PUBLIC land that happens to be submerged. The lakefront land owners own property up to the water, not beyond the shoreline; just like how none anywhere else owns property beyond their respective lot line or condo walls. On top of that, where the private property ends and the public land begins is not just where the water is either, it often includes sections of the beach. This is why the Michigan courts determined beach walkers are allowed to walk anywhere on the state's shorelines of Lakes Michigan and Huron, despite the presence of waterfront homes.

Building out the rest of the lakefront would be a great public benefit to all the other citizens of this city. I do agree that the Park District must focus on upgrading services and maintenance in our often neglected inland parks first. However, the lakefront park system's marinas, yacht clubs and concessions are major revenue generators for the Park District which funnels funds into the rest of the park system. Of course, the potential new revenue generators have been stripped from the plans to placate the selfish folks on Sheridan Road and South Shore Drive. There will be however a very large new marina built off shore from the Southworks land.

[cbotnyse]

hopefully this will finally turn into something.


Old downtown post office to go on auction block
June 9, 2009 1:07 PM | No Comments
The U.S. Postal Service postal service announced Tuesday that, after more than a decade of trying to sell the 3-million-square-foot former Chicago facility through conventional channels, it has decided to auction it to the highest bidder.

While the suggested opening bid for the facility that spans the Eisenhower Expressway is $300,000, there is no minimum bid, said postal service spokesman Mark Reynolds.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/06/old-downtown-post-office-to-go-on-auction-block.html

[Taft]

AWESOME. Honestly the most exciting thing I've seen since the Spire proposal! What are the chances this would be even possible? It seems too good to be true!

I'm not sure how likely it is. Ignoring the financial issue for a moment, there is pretty fierce opposition to the plan from a lot of Roger's park residents (mostly people who stand to have the value of their land go down because of the plan). I can't find it right now, but the opposition even has a website.

[lawfin]

^Friends of the parks has been refining this idea for a couple of years now, and I do hope it does come to fruition.

This was my response on Kamin's blog to some of the 'uninformed' posters:

First off, everyone who claims this is a property rights issue; is is dead wrong. No private property would be acquired. The plan crafted by friends of the parks calls for building chains of islands, essentially rising sections of the lake bed which belongs to the state of Illinois. That's right, the lake bed is PUBLIC land that happens to be submerged. The lakefront land owners own property up to the water, not beyond the shoreline; just like how none anywhere else owns property beyond their respective lot line or condo walls. On top of that, where the private property ends and the public land begins is not just where the water is either, it often includes sections of the beach. This is why the Michigan courts determined beach walkers are allowed to walk anywhere on the state's shorelines of Lakes Michigan and Huron, despite the presence of waterfront homes.

Building out the rest of the lakefront would be a great public benefit to all the other citizens of this city. I do agree that the Park District must focus on upgrading services and maintenance in our often neglected inland parks first. However, the lakefront park system's marinas, yacht clubs and concessions are major revenue generators for the Park District which funnels funds into the rest of the park system. Of course, the potential new revenue generators have been stripped from the plans to placate the selfish folks on Sheridan Road and South Shore Drive. There will be however a very large new marina built off shore from the Southworks land.
^^^1st that is Michigan law...it may or may not be indicative of how an Il ct might hold

2nd you grossly simplify the arguments in the opinion which include discussions of law of the seas, public trust, meander lines and high water marks...yadda, yadda

Leave the description of legal theories to the lawyers please

[Chicago Shawn]

^^^1st that is Michigan law...it may or may not be indicative of how an Il ct might hold

2nd you grossly simplify the arguments in the opinion which include discussions of law of the seas, public trust, meander lines and high water marks...yadda, yadda

Leave the description of legal theories to the lawyers please

Excuse me. The point I was trying to make is that the lake bottom is public land, rather than private. The Michigan case was just an example I brought up to illustrate that. I never said that the Michigan ruling was to interpreted as law here.

If you wish to elaborate on the legal languages of the topic, then by all means please share. Not trying to start a flame war, as I do appreciate your postings.


-----


The post office news is fantastic. Hopefully someone with some actual creative vision will buy it.

[VivaLFuego]

^^^1st that is Michigan law...it may or may not be indicative of how an Il ct might hold

2nd you grossly simplify the arguments in the opinion which include discussions of law of the seas, public trust, meander lines and high water marks...yadda, yadda

Leave the description of legal theories to the lawyers please

How are properties with riparian rights affected (legally) when land is filled in extending the shoreline? Is there any case law as to whether such landfills constitute any sort of taking, or what the thresholds/guidelines are for determining the newly-created (or rather, newly fixed, now that water marks/tide/etc aren't an issue) boundary of the private property? Clearly there will be some state-by-state nuances in regards to how the properties are defined.

Regardless, it seems quite feasible in concept that the public waterfront could be extended without any compensation due the property owners assuming the precise dimensions of any fills were carefully designed with an eye on the law. Back to Shawn's main point, this whole project would only be a 'property rights issue' i.e. a taking if some unit of government tried to force the current owners of private beachfront to allow public access to their property, e.g. the Nollan situation, no? This is not what's proposed - what's proposed is new public waterfront beyond the extend of the currently existing private property. Naturally the value of the private property would be negatively impacted, but since the economic value of the land would hardly be said to be obliterated, I can't see how such fill could be construed as a taking, even though the property owners would surely try to waste theirs and every other taxpayers' time and money in court arguing the point.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Ogden Replacement Elementary School
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9549/ogdenelem1.jpg

Is it just me, or does pretty much every new construction project have a green roof proposal?!? Usually these green roofs don't even get built, and they end up just throwing rocks on top, as the case with the Rush University outpatient ambulatory building. Is it only to make the design more appealing to people, or are they actually putting grass on these roofs elsewhere in the city?

[harryc]

Is it just me, or does pretty much every new construction project have a green roof proposal?!? Usually these green roofs don't even get built, and they end up just throwing rocks on top, as the case with the Rush University outpatient ambulatory building. Is it only to make the design more appealing to people, or are they actually putting grass on these roofs elsewhere in the city?

Still waiting for the green on top of One11 Illinois and 353 N Clark.

[denizen467]

Tangentially related to the shoreline access topic -- have people seen the new lakefront trail underpass at the Adler / Solidarity Drive? I was kind of expecting a somewhat utilitarian concrete-lined tunnel, maybe like the North LSD underpasses ... but (at least viewed from the street; didn't go through it) it turned out to be a really very big and attractive feature for that isthmus area. It may or may not be not as nice as the underpasses connecting the Field Museum to Grant Park, but props to the city for another city-beautiful project done well.

[lawfin]

How are properties with riparian rights affected (legally) when land is filled in extending the shoreline? Is there any case law as to whether such landfills constitute any sort of taking, or what the thresholds/guidelines are for determining the newly-created (or rather, newly fixed, now that water marks/tide/etc aren't an issue) boundary of the private property? Clearly there will be some state-by-state nuances in regards to how the properties are defined.

Regardless, it seems quite feasible in concept that the public waterfront could be extended without any compensation due the property owners assuming the precise dimensions of any fills were carefully designed with an eye on the law. Back to Shawn's main point, this whole project would only be a 'property rights issue' i.e. a taking if some unit of government tried to force the current owners of private beachfront to allow public access to their property, e.g. the Nollan situation, no? This is not what's proposed - what's proposed is new public waterfront beyond the extend of the currently existing private property. Naturally the value of the private property would be negatively impacted, but since the economic value of the land would hardly be said to be obliterated, I can't see how such fill could be construed as a taking, even though the property owners would surely try to waste theirs and every other taxpayers' time and money in court arguing the point.

I do not know. But it is at least one of the distinguishing characteristics of those Michigan cases and what might transpire along the north lakefront. There is a property professor at Chicago-Kent who is often advised with when it comes to riparian and sub0surface rights

[wrabbit]

Riparian rights extend out over the surface of the lake to the point of navigability, but Illinois holds the lake bed itself in public trust.

The FOTP plans for Rogers Parks appear to be straight-out beachfront - not a string of islands as I'd originally thought. I don't see how they plan to accomplish this w/o a land grab. http://fotp.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/l4m-2brochure3.pdf

[simcityaustin]

Modern Art Wing + Bonus Taken this weekend.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3613627714_68e43e65dd_b.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3656/3612811461_3bb19c2bf4_b.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2467/3613626962_d2ce224769_b.jpg

[harryc]

Riparian rights extend out over the surface of the lake to the point of navigability, but Illinois holds the lake bed itself in public trust.

The FOTP plans for Rogers Parks appear to be straight-out beachfront - not a string of islands as I'd originally thought. I don't see how they plan to accomplish this w/o a land grab. http://fotp.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/l4m-2brochure3.pdf

It would appear that the new beach would be fill - here is an old shot of Howard st beach.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Si-Q7Tbx2yI/AAAAAAABNCU/QZKsRfduS1k/s800/IMG_7994.JPG
Greg is explaining that it can't be time to go - there are still rocks on the beach that need to be thrown into the water. (1/28/06)

[whyhuhwhy]

I'm not sure how likely it is. Ignoring the financial issue for a moment, there is pretty fierce opposition to the plan from a lot of Roger's park residents (mostly people who stand to have the value of their land go down because of the plan). I can't find it right now, but the opposition even has a website.

Wouldn't the value of their land go UP being the very first property rights at the doorstep of Chicago's newest park? Right now each property just has a little plot of land and a stretch of beach that isn't even congruent or walkable. I can't imagine the value going down much!

[Chicago Shawn]

Riparian rights extend out over the surface of the lake to the point of navigability, but Illinois holds the lake bed itself in public trust.

The FOTP plans for Rogers Parks appear to be straight-out beachfront - not a string of islands as I'd originally thought. I don't see how they plan to accomplish this w/o a land grab. http://fotp.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/l4m-2brochure3.pdf

It must be the cheaper alternative mentioned in BK's blog. The previous plans that Friends of the Parks had been drafting always included off-shore islands.

[Nowhereman1280]

So the bottom line is that the Village wanted to do something good and worthwhile with the space...

Yeah, but Chicago was attempting to do something good when they tore down B37, and when they leveled a neighborhood for Cabrini Green, and when they leveled another for Robert Taylor, and when they forced freeways through healthy neighborhoods and we all know how those turned out. There is a reason we rely on private enterprise to run our society, because the government sucks at not completely fucking everything up. I don't think the "they wanted to do something good" argument in any way justifies their stupidity in tearing down their buildings. I hope Austin starts gentrifying and all the crime moves to this superblock teardown in Oakpark.

I do not know. But it is at least one of the distinguishing characteristics of those Michigan cases and what might transpire along the north lakefront.

Just for the record I believe there is a similar court ruling in Wisconsin that forces all shorelines along lake Michigan and Superior to be open to the public. That ruling says something about the property owner's rights ending at the high water mark, which the lake is almost never at...

[Mr Downtown]

Illinois law is that riparian rights extend to the "still water line," where the water of a lake begins when the water is calm. However, only a few property owners on the north lakefront actually have riparian rights: only 11 or 12 total (including Loyola University) in the entire stretch between Evanston and Hollywood. All the rest were purchased or negotiated away by the Lincoln Park District in the 1920s, for expansion of Lincoln Park that never was finished.

Elsewhere along the north lakefront, particularly in Streeterville and between Foster and Bryn Mawr, the issue was handled by swapping property owners a portion of the new dry land in return for them giving up the riparian rights. And the alternative plans calling for peninsulas out in the lake avoid the issue altogether. The island plans were very preliminary sketches done a few years ago before doing any engineering.

The situation is a little different in South Shore. Some of the lots between 71st and 75th were platted with eastern property lines that are now under water. In fact, a street was platted east of these lots. So the jurisprudence of water lots and accretion would control, not the law of riparian rights. Here again, one alternative is to just avoid the situation by building a peninsula out from South Shore Cultural Center and another from 75th, sheltering a lagoon east of the private property.

[VivaLFuego]

Yeah, but Chicago was attempting to do something good when they tore down B37, and when they leveled a neighborhood for Cabrini Green, and when they leveled another for Robert Taylor, and when they forced freeways through healthy neighborhoods and we all know how those turned out. There is a reason we rely on private enterprise to run our society, because the government sucks at not completely fucking everything up.

Verily, private enterprise would have fixed Little Hell and the wretched slums along Federal Street. Private enterprise is also responsible for North Michigan Avenue, the State Street Subway, the lakefront park system, the....

Oh, wait.

[Nowhereman1280]

Verily, private enterprise would have fixed Little Hell and the wretched slums along Federal Street. Private enterprise is also responsible for North Michigan Avenue, the State Street Subway, the lakefront park system, the....

Oh, wait.

And the City of Chicago built the railroads that caused it to exist as well as all of the EL system except the subways and all of the skyscrapers and all of the neighborhoods and it runs all of the companies that provide jobs and it redevelops neighborhoods and maintains all of the buildings...

By the way, those wretched slums would not have been nearly as bad if it weren't for the city actively separating them from the rest of the city and eventually building freeways to allow the middle class to bypass them.

[VivaLFuego]

And the City of Chicago built the railroads that caused it to exist as well as all of the EL system except the subways and all of the skyscrapers and all of the neighborhoods and it runs all of the companies that provide jobs and it redevelops neighborhoods and maintains all of the buildings...
I never maintained that government is responsible for all good and private investment is responsible for none; you, however, stated the converse as fact. I'm usually the one arguing with leftists/socialists and sounding like a pro-business laissez-faire kook, but I still feel obligated to retort against nonsense when it comes from the other side, as well.

By the way, those wretched slums would not have been nearly as bad if it weren't for the city actively separating them from the rest of the city and eventually building freeways to allow the middle class to bypass them.
South Federal/Dearborn streets and Little Hell were slums long before the era of freeways and white flight - and Robert Taylor and Cabrini-Green were actually marked improvements over those slums, to give you a sense of just how bad they were.

[wrabbit]

.....(A)lternative plans calling for peninsulas out in the lake avoid the issue altogether.....Here again, one alternative is to just avoid the situation by building a peninsula out from South Shore Cultural Center and another from 75th, sheltering a lagoon east of the private property.

Yeah - this would be my preference as well, a creative response to a set of constraints, with more visual interest than a simple landfill extension, and most in harmony with Burnham's original vision of breakwalls & islands.

Thanks BTW for the clarification on the North lakefront & SS.

[Chicago Shawn]

Illinois law is that riparian rights extend to the "still water line," where the water of a lake begins when the water is calm. However, only a few property owners on the north lakefront actually have riparian rights: only 11 or 12 total (including Loyola University) in the entire stretch between Evanston and Hollywood. All the rest were purchased or negotiated away by the Lincoln Park District in the 1920s, for expansion of Lincoln Park that never was finished.

Elsewhere along the north lakefront, particularly in Streeterville and between Foster and Bryn Mawr, the issue was handled by swapping property owners a portion of the new dry land in return for them giving up the riparian rights. And the alternative plans calling for peninsulas out in the lake avoid the issue altogether. The island plans were very preliminary sketches done a few years ago before doing any engineering.

The situation is a little different in South Shore. Some of the lots between 71st and 75th were platted with eastern property lines that are now under water. In fact, a street was platted east of these lots. So the jurisprudence of water lots and accretion would control, not the law of riparian rights. Here again, one alternative is to just avoid the situation by building a peninsula out from South Shore Cultural Center and another from 75th, sheltering a lagoon east of the private property.

Thank you for that detailed post.

Intriguing information about the street plated into the lake. I believe I have seen that on reprints of an old map that was published somewhere. Wasn't it a further south segment of Lake Park Place?

[Mr Downtown]

The peninsulas would also shelter quiet lagoons safe for small boats. That's something we currently don't have anywhere along the lakefront. They're also good for aquatic habitat.

Yes, the never-built street was named Lake Park Avenue. Here's the plat for the South Shore area:

http://i43.tinypic.com/2ivle01.png

[VivaLFuego]

edit: nevermind

[lawfin]

Excuse me. The point I was trying to make is that the lake bottom is public land, rather than private. The Michigan case was just an example I brought up to illustrate that. I never said that the Michigan ruling was to interpreted as law here.

If you wish to elaborate on the legal languages of the topic, then by all means please share. Not trying to start a flame war, as I do appreciate your postings.


-----


The post office news is fantastic. Hopefully someone with some actual creative vision will buy it.

Sorry I was a little grouchy the other day....my apologies

[VivaLFuego]

Crain's reporting that the Jewel near Southport/Addison will be closing imminently to replaced with a new, larger one with underground parking (more parking spaces total, but if this means that the new grocery will no longer have a sidewalk-killing stripmall format then it's surely a big improvement regardless). Does anyone have any more details on this, i.e. renderings?

[Chicago Shawn]

^Lawfin, no problem. I am also guilty of knee jerk reactions at times. As I mentioned earlier, I do really appreciate your postings on this forum.


The peninsulas would also shelter quiet lagoons safe for small boats. That's something we currently don't have anywhere along the lakefront. They're also good for aquatic habitat.

Yes, the never-built street was named Lake Park Avenue. Here's the plat for the South Shore area:

http://i43.tinypic.com/2ivle01.png

Ah yes, that is what I meant Lake park Avenue. I had a brain fart and mixed it up with Lake Park Place, that stub street that used to exist at the south end of Grant park in front of Central Station.

[Chicago Shawn]

Crain's reporting that the Jewel near Southport/Addison will be closing imminently to replaced with a new, larger one with underground parking (more parking spaces total, but if this means that the new grocery will no longer have a sidewalk-killing stripmall format then it's surely a big improvement regardless). Does anyone have any more details on this, i.e. renderings?

If I remember correctly, this went to plan commission at least a year ago, and was praised for doing this design choice. In fact Alderman Mary Ann Smith who sat on the commission asked if this could be done with the Jewel on Broadway in her ward. I don't remember what the renderings looked like exactly.

[the urban politician]

If I remember correctly, this went to plan commission at least a year ago, and was praised for doing this design choice. In fact Alderman Mary Ann Smith who sat on the commission asked if this could be done with the Jewel on Broadway in her ward. I don't remember what the renderings looked like exactly.

^ Is that going to free up any land, or is the store simply going to occupy its current footprint + the current parking lot?

I ask this because, seriously, if the latter is true that is going to be one gargantuan store, perhaps one of the largest urban grocery stores in the country..

[Abner]

Yeah, but Chicago was attempting to do something good when they tore down B37, and when they leveled a neighborhood for Cabrini Green, and when they leveled another for Robert Taylor, and when they forced freeways through healthy neighborhoods and we all know how those turned out. There is a reason we rely on private enterprise to run our society, because the government sucks at not completely fucking everything up. I don't think the "they wanted to do something good" argument in any way justifies their stupidity in tearing down their buildings. I hope Austin starts gentrifying and all the crime moves to this superblock teardown in Oakpark.

You're reading things into my post that I never said or implied, and you are not reading things that I did say, such as:

This has a good chance of being Oak Park's own little Block 37: a big, horrendous example of why local governments shouldn't get into the real estate business.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't take every opportunity to turn discussions about specific and limited situations into broad attacks on all government.

Your statement about hoping crime infests downtown Oak Park is mean-spirited and antisocial.

[VivaLFuego]

^ Is that going to free up any land, or is the store simply going to occupy its current footprint + the current parking lot?

I ask this because, seriously, if the latter is true that is going to be one gargantuan store, perhaps one of the largest urban grocery stores in the country..

By my calculations:

The current store is about 25,000 sq ft, sitting on half the lot.

The replacement store will reportedly be 50,000 sq ft (quite large, but still not as large as the gargantuan 80,000 sq ft Whole Foods that just opened at Sheffield/Kingsbury). Parking underground, and the store will have a second floor.

My guess is the store will have something on the order of 80% lot coverage, with some left over for minor plaza space at the corner or main entryway and for loading areas in the rear. Offhand, it sounds rather fantastic given the overall context/location, which is serving a moderately dense walkable neighborhood with high car ownership on a site with realistically no chance of a large mixed-use/TOD/highrise development, though we'll see how it turns out aesthetically once we get renderings or the finished product.

[Mr Downtown]

Southport/Addison Jewel, from (the amazing) Spyguy on SSC

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/69/jewelstportoq3.jpg

[Nowhereman1280]

I never maintained that government is responsible for all good and private investment is responsible for none; you, however, stated the converse as fact.

No I didn't, I said that "the government sucks at not fucking things up" clearly in reference to their involvement in altering street scapes and neighborhoods. How does that translate to "there should be no government of any kind anywhere"?


I'd appreciate it if you didn't take every opportunity to turn discussions about specific and limited situations into broad attacks on all government.


How is my saying that the government should have no role in real estate development equate to a "broad attack on all government". I'm pretty sure that "City Government" =/= "All government" and that railing against city governments thinking they can improve their standard of living by tearing things down no way equates to a "broad attack". Last time I checked attacking specific issues is the exact opposite of a "broad attack"...

That said I don't hope that people be hurt or injured, but I hope that the Oak Park block turns into a huge money wasting boondoggle that Oak Park's city government will never be allowed to forget just like B37 has been for Chicago. It is my hope that whatever problems happen (crime, lost money, urban decay) so frighten the city of Oak Park that voters and tax payers never allow them to something as stupid as this again. I don't care if you think its anti social (so is destroying a pedestrian friendly streetscape btw), but Oak Park needs to learn from its mistakes now and not after they've done this a half dozen more times.

[Abner]

How is my saying that the government should have no role in real estate development equate to a "broad attack on all government".

I'm sorry but I am not sure what I am supposed to conclude when I make a similar point to the one you claimed to be making ("local governments shouldn't get into the real estate business") and you argue against it, saying,

There is a reason we rely on private enterprise to run our society, because the government sucks at not completely fucking everything up.

"Run our society" certainly sounds like a broader set of actions than "altering streetscapes and neighborhoods."


That said I don't hope that people be hurt or injured, but I hope that the Oak Park block turns into a huge money wasting boondoggle that Oak Park's city government will never be allowed to forget just like B37 has been for Chicago. It is my hope that whatever problems happen (crime, lost money, urban decay) so frighten the city of Oak Park that voters and tax payers never allow them to something as stupid as this again. I don't care if you think its anti social (so is destroying a pedestrian friendly streetscape btw), but Oak Park needs to learn from its mistakes now and not after they've done this a half dozen more times.

It's a little odd to say, instead of "I expect this will fail," "I hope this fails." Furthermore, Oak Park already voted out the village board that was responsible for this mess, and it was largely because of their mismanagement. Everybody already thinks it was a terrible idea to buy the Colt Building. Should they suffer more just to pay the price of their past sins?

[Nowhereman1280]

I'm sorry but I am not sure what I am supposed to conclude when I make a similar point to the one you claimed to be making ("local governments shouldn't get into the real estate business") and you argue against it, saying,

"Run our society" certainly sounds like a broader set of actions than "altering streetscapes and neighborhoods."

In the English language, sometimes (actually most times) the exact subject of a sentence isn't actually in the sentence. You are supposed to describe the specifics of what you are talking about in one sentence and then allow it to carry over into subsequent sentences thereby avoiding redundancy. I'm sorry you didn't get that out of what I said, it was probably poorly worded, but that really is how this language works...

In this case the word "things" was meant to mean the subjects of public real estate intervention, demolition, etc. Also the word "government" in all of my previous sentences was referring to either Chicago or Oak Park city government. Then in the sentence you quoted those two words were to retain those meanings without me restating what exactly I am referring to.



It's a little odd to say, instead of "I expect this will fail," "I hope this fails." Furthermore, Oak Park already voted out the village board that was responsible for this mess, and it was largely because of their mismanagement. Everybody already thinks it was a terrible idea to buy the Colt Building. Should they suffer more just to pay the price of their past sins?

Well I expect and hope this fails. I didn't know all the people who got OP into this in the first place had been voted out, but the buildings haven't been torn down yet so whoever is there right now and approving this demolition is also a fool and should be voted out. If it takes urban decay to get their political careers ruined as well then I hope for urban decay.

[sukwoo]

Well I expect and hope this fails. I didn't know all the people who got OP into this in the first place had been voted out, but the buildings haven't been torn down yet so whoever is there right now and approving this demolition is also a fool and should be voted out. If it takes urban decay to get their political careers ruined as well then I hope for urban decay.

The political party responsible for this boondoggle (VCA) has likely permanently besmirched their reputation and will hopefully never hold the levers of power again. I swear, watching some of those village board meetings was cringe-inducing. I moved to Oak Park in 2005 just as the VCA took majority control, so I missed all the back story to that election. The prior VMA-dominated board must have really pissed voters off to have gotten replaced by the incompetent fools of the VCA.

The Colt building would have be demo'd under any scenario short of a wealthy philantropist donating 6 million dollars to the village solely for its renovation. The only question was by whom and when. I was quite looking forward to a new high-density TOD at that site (one block from Metra and Green line stations), and we'll hopefully get one eventually.

[ardecila]

The political party responsible for this boondoggle (VCA) has likely permanently besmirched their reputation and will hopefully never hold the levers of power again. I swear, watching some of those village board meetings was cringe-inducing. I moved to Oak Park in 2005 just as the VCA took majority control, so I missed all the back story to that election. The prior VMA-dominated board must have really pissed voters off to have gotten replaced by the incompetent fools of the VCA.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[emathias]

...
Parking underground, and the store will have a second floor.
...

So why is it a store in a low-margin business like groceries in a medium-density neighborhood location can afford underground parking, but high-margin luxury condos in high-density downtown locations get away with saying it's too expensive downtown?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Probably because the condos on the first floor don't sell for very much anyhow because no one wants to live that low? I think people in Chicago have a much different idea of cities than New York. I think because our skyline is so much more spread out with lots of peaks and valleys that maintain views, people here expect at least a decent view from wherever they live. Also, I think the fact that they can go just a mile or two away and live in an awesome neighborhood on the 3rd or 4th floor and enjoy the neighborhood life as well for far less makes the first 5-10 floors or so of a high rise in Chicago less attractive, in a place like NY the nearest "neighbhorhood" not cut off from downtown by a treacherous river crossing commute is Harlem, not exactly the best place to live...

The political party responsible for this boondoggle (VCA) has likely permanently besmirched their reputation and will hopefully never hold the levers of power again. I swear, watching some of those village board meetings was cringe-inducing. I moved to Oak Park in 2005 just as the VCA took majority control, so I missed all the back story to that election. The prior VMA-dominated board must have really pissed voters off to have gotten replaced by the incompetent fools of the VCA.

If that's truly the case then I feel a little better, but if not I still hope the consequences come back and bite again.

[the urban politician]

^^^ Probably because the condos on the first floor don't sell for very much anyhow because no one wants to live that low? I think people in Chicago have a much different idea of cities than New York. I think because our skyline is so much more spread out with lots of peaks and valleys that maintain views, people here expect at least a decent view from wherever they live.

^ Do the numbers support this claim? In the recent buildings in which parking podiums were not built, did the units on the second and third levels not sell?

Harlem, not exactly the best place to live...

^ Harlem is actually not nearly as bad as you think. It's a very vibrant and liveable place

[VivaLFuego]

No I didn't, I said that "the government sucks at not fucking things up" clearly in reference to their involvement in altering street scapes and neighborhoods. How does that translate to "there should be no government of any kind anywhere"?

Sigh, to which I cited a few off-hand anecdotes of public projects that enhance our built environment - i.e. evidence directly contrary to your assertion. Abner and I respond to your (initial) absurd statements, then you move the goalposts and try to redefine what you said, usually with yet another absurd statement. We could be here til the end of the time refuting this circular nonsense. One option for you would be to back down when you realize you've dubiously opined on a topic that you don't know much about (the nuances of Oak Park village politics, the history of Chicago's urban renewal, etc.), but instead you dig in your heels. I'm out.

So why is it a store in a low-margin business like groceries in a medium-density neighborhood location can afford underground parking, but high-margin luxury condos in high-density downtown locations get away with saying it's too expensive downtown?

Good question. Surely, many downtown developments in recent years could have traded underground parking for density bonuses or lower profit margins. But it's important to remember: the area around Southport is, by any measure, one of the wealthiest in the city in terms of aggregate income and average household income. Retailers will pay a premium to best serve such a market, particularly when developable land is so scarce (unlike in the overbuilt boom/bubble downtown where any old Joe Clout could get anything approved). There are also site-specific nuances that impact the cost/feasability of excavating, e.g. having room for staging, soil conditions, etc

thanks to spyguy/MrD for posting the rendering - looks quite nice considering

[the urban politician]

I'm just curious if anybody thinks that some of Chicago's 3 way intersections would benefit from small landscaped islands (perhaps with a decorative element), which could work to improve the intersection's sense of enclosure and calm traffic by way of creating a semi-circular intersection--thus improving the pedestrian experience?

Here are some conceptual examples randomly found on Google:

Concept:
http://epg.modot.mo.gov/files/3/3e/620.2_Examples_of_Markings_for_Roundabout_Intersections_with_Two-Lane_Approaches_(MUTCD_Fig._3B-28).gif

Example of a landscaped island:
http://www.insurancehotline.com/insider/images/traffic-island.jpg

Example in an urban area (not as landscaped in this case as I would like):
http://www.pps.org/graphics/upo-pages/12Queenstown_NZ_roundabout_large

Here are just some streetview examples of intersections in Chicago where they could potentially be applied:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=belmont+and+western+chicago&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.219929,79.101563&ie=UTF8&ll=41.939685,-87.668431&spn=0.003623,0.019312&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.93968,-87.668592&panoid=dpuN8U7K3EaesNgOHHqkUw&cbp=12,309.84,,0,5

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Lincoln+Avenue+and+Wisconsin+Avenue,+chicago&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.956293,104.414063&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=41.916553,-87.636437&spn=0.008079,0.019312&z=16&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=41.916555,-87.636284&panoid=NjYYHPZlexq-vd8QjWmouA&cbp=12,290,,0,5

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=clark+and+diversey+chicago&sll=41.916553,-87.636437&sspn=0.008079,0.019312&ie=UTF8&ll=41.932981,-87.644892&spn=0.008077,0.019312&t=h&z=16&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=41.932803,-87.644887&panoid=mzZU-08fpJK1s0dP0lL0XA&cbp=12,9.6,,0,4.9

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Lincoln+Avenue+and+Wisconsin+Avenue,+chicago&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.956293,104.414063&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=41.910901,-87.649634&spn=0.00808,0.019312&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.910898,-87.649474&panoid=mQhkdC1SO-ILcHihyeRvNA&cbp=12,168.22,,0,5

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=milwaukee+and+damen&sll=41.879535,-87.624333&sspn=0.517374,1.235962&ie=UTF8&ll=41.953347,-87.747288&spn=0.003622,0.019312&z=16&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=41.953418,-87.747301&panoid=cZD-DZi2GT6kEt2TRpHVGw&cbp=12,133.02,,0,5

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=chicago&sll=41.953347,-87.747288&sspn=0.003622,0.019312&g=milwaukee+and+damen&ie=UTF8&ll=41.857959,-87.661114&spn=0.016173,0.038624&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.857867,-87.661216&panoid=9kFkK0ZCcctzTN_Ee--G_Q&cbp=12,248.32,,0,5

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=chicago&sll=41.953347,-87.747288&sspn=0.003622,0.019312&g=milwaukee+and+damen&ie=UTF8&ll=41.857959,-87.661114&spn=0.016173,0.038624&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.857867,-87.661216&panoid=9kFkK0ZCcctzTN_Ee--G_Q&cbp=12,248.32,,0,5

Any thoughts?

[BVictor1]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/06/against-the-last-four-miles-or-at-least-the-last-two-on-the-north-side-.html#comments

Against the Last Four Miles, or at least the last two on the North Side

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/.a/6a00d834518cc969e201156ff10b8d970c-320wi

One of the most articulate responses to yesterday's Cityscapes column comes from Bill Savage, who teaches Chicago literature, history, and politics at Northwestern University, where he is a Senior Lecturer in the English Department. Bill opposes Friends of the Parks' proposal for two miles of lakefront parkland in Rogers Park and Edgewater. He summons the ghost of the Jane Jacobs, that champion of the stoop and small-scale city life, to vie with Friends of the Parks' evocation of Daniel Burnham, Mr. Big Plans.



(At left, Pratt Boulevard Beach.)




By Bill Savage

Anyone who thinks, as Erma Tranter of Friends of the Parks and the Tribune’s Blair Kamin apparently do, that citizens of Rogers Park “don’t sense that they have a lakefront park system” due to “an intimidating combination of high rises, “Private Property” signs and fences topped with razor wire” hasn’t spent a lot of time in the summer in Rogers Park and Edgewater. The street-end beaches in Rogers Park teem with picnickers, swimmers, volleyball and frisbee players, dog-walkers and sun-bathers. Good luck finding a parking spot within a half mile of the beach. We know damn well we have a lakefront park system, some right at our doorsteps, though sometimes we have to ride our bikes or take the El a few blocks or miles south to get to the larger part of it.


But the street-end beaches that citizens from all of Chicago—and Evanston, too—enjoy aren’t enough, it seems. We have to add two miles of landfill to really have a park system, the FoP argue. And of course, their proposal invokes Daniel Burnham’s 1909 Plan of Chicago. Any urban planner doing anything in Chicago has to make this rhetorical move, singing the praises of St. Daniel of Burnham and his Holy Plan. But whether a proposal has roots in Burnham’s Plan really should no longer matter. We simply ignore those aspects of the Plan which are now politically unthinkable, like the massive central train station and an airport on the Lakefront Burnham proposed, as well as bulldozing whole neighborhoods to create a concentric ring of Parisian-style boulevards.

But any time anyone wants to get something done, if it was in the Plan, the Plan provides political cover.

Instead of Burnham, how about a little Jane Jacobs? One of the things that makes cities vital, she proved, is variety in various forms.



Variety of age of buildings, variety of uses of urban spaces throughout the day, economic variety woven into neighborhoods. Rogers Park’s street-end beaches should be preserved if for no other reason than to have a variety of ways in which Chicago’s urban spaces connnect to the natural world of the Lake. Sure, it would be great if there were no private beaches, but it’s not the end of the world. That land was private before Rogers Park and Edgewater became part of Chicago; it’s history, not economic perfidy, that created these exceptions.

Of course, in the Chicago Way, it will all come down to money. The hundreds of millions of dollars this plan would cost would be better spend maintaining and improving the parks we have, and—especially—improving access to the south half of the current lakefront parks, woefully cut off from South Siders by the IC tracks.

Remember the design competition a few years ago for bridges and underpasses to improve Lakefront access? Let’s build those things and give South Siders who really are cut off from their lakefront access to what’s already built. Let’s add more bike lanes and improve maintenance at the parks we already have. But such ideas are “little plans” and that’s right out, since we all remember what St. Daniel of Burnham said about those. . . .

Full disclosure: I am a lifelong Rogers Parker, who almost never uses the street-end beaches, though I have a view of them from my apartment.

I am a cyclist and regularly ride the entire length of the lakefront bike path. Rehabilitating the former industrial land at the south end of the current system may be the right thing to do: but it’s not necessary or desired on the Far North Side, which has an abundance of access to the Lake.

But the FoP seem to think in all-or-nothing terms. I attended one of the meetings Friends of the Park held a couple of years ago to discuss this plan. The crowd, when asked “How would you like to see these last two miles of parkland created” overwhelming said “We wouldn’t.” When asked, “Ok, if something were to be built, how would you want it built,” we replied “We don’t want it built.” The Friends of the Park clearly had its agenda and the “engagement” with the neighborhood was a dog and pony show of the first order.

Every time a referendum has been held on this topic, citizens of the neighborhood—whether defined as just the lakefront precincts or the whole neighborhood--vote overwhelmingly against any extension northward of lakefill park. But Friends of the Park soldier on, and show, with their willful refusal to consider the opinions of the people who would be most directly affected by their plans, that they are no friends of Rogers Park.

[sukwoo]

I'm just curious if anybody thinks that some of Chicago's 3 way intersections would benefit from small landscaped islands (perhaps with a decorative element), which could work to improve the intersection's sense of enclosure and calm traffic by way of creating a semi-circular intersection--thus improving the pedestrian experience?

Any thoughts?

Having spent considerable time in Massachusetts, I've had quite a bit of experience with traffic circles. I'm not really sure, however, that they really improve the pedestrian experience over a well-timed and signaled intersection. Furthermore, building traffic circles in Chicago would generally require widening of intersections and loss of those quirky triangle buildings that I so enjoy.

[Via Chicago]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/06/jahn-no-longer-designing-off-salvation-armys-kroc-center-on-far-south-side-project-reduced-in-size.html#more
Jahn no longer designing Salvation Army's Kroc Center on Far South Side; project reduced in size

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/.a/6a00d834518cc969e201156ffe9484970c-320wi

By Lauren R. Harrison

Tribune reporter

Due to fundraising troubles hampering non-profits across the country, the Salvation Army has revamped plans to break ground on a Far South Side community center named after the family who founded McDonald's Corp.

The initial site preparation for the Ray and Joan Kroc Corps Community Center in West Pullman is scheduled to begin this fall, a year after its proposed date.

Supporters have raised $16.4 million but need to raise $33 million more to complete the building's endowment fund, officials said Wednesday.

The slowdown has forced a redesign of the building's plan into three phases so construction can begin while fundraising continues. Planners also have reduced the center's size to 160,000 square feet from 220,000 square feet, and swapped the project's earlier design by noted architect Helmut Jahn (above) for a more economical one.

Bummer.

[Busy Bee]

You're talking less about putting in a landscaped island and more about reworking the intersection into a true roundabout. I like roundabouts but most roundabout intersections in urban settings have street corners with arced or chamfered sections—whereas in Chicago, historically most multi-directional intersections' corners were built to a point or sharp corner. As far as I can think the closest thing to a roundabout in Chicago is Logan Square.


Bad example but you get the idea:
http://pedshed.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/plessis-robinson-roundabout.jpg
Outside Paris

[Busy Bee]

The loss of Jahn for the Kroc center is VERY dissapointing. And sense they've said they're going with a more 'economical' design, is it too early to give up hope that another local favorite (K+S, Gang, etc.) might be tagged?

[wrabbit]

The loss of Jahn for the Kroc center is VERY dissapointing. And sense they've said they're going with a more 'economical' design, is it too early to give up hope that another local favorite (K+S, Gang, etc.) might be tagged?

^ That'd be great. Or Ronan. S/G is especially good at working with material constraints.

I'm just curious if anybody thinks that some of Chicago's 3 way intersections would benefit from small landscaped islands (perhaps with a decorative element), which could work to improve the intersection's sense of enclosure and calm traffic by way of creating a semi-circular intersection--thus improving the pedestrian experience?

Not quite the same thing, but the city has been replacing speed bumps on the side streets with mini islands for a while now, to slow down the speeders.

[Mr Downtown]

So why is it a store in a low-margin business like groceries in a medium-density neighborhood location can afford underground parking, but high-margin luxury condos in high-density downtown locations get away with saying it's too expensive downtown?

The grocery is building one level of underground parking, and it's at Southport, where the water table is a little higher. (Remember that at Addison, the Kennedy Expressway actually had to cut through rock.)

For downtown condos, it's a problem of dealing with four to seven levels of parking, and that gets pretty daunting in Chicago's swampy muck.

[Marcu]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/06/against-the-last-four-miles-or-at-least-the-last-two-on-the-north-side-.html#comments

Against the Last Four Miles, or at least the last two on the North Side

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/.a/6a00d834518cc969e201156ff10b8d970c-320wi

One of the most articulate responses to yesterday's Cityscapes column comes from Bill Savage, who teaches Chicago literature, history, and politics at Northwestern University, where he is a Senior Lecturer in the English Department. Bill opposes Friends of the Parks' proposal for two miles of lakefront parkland in Rogers Park and Edgewater. He summons the ghost of the Jane Jacobs, that champion of the stoop and small-scale city life, to vie with Friends of the Parks' evocation of Daniel Burnham, Mr. Big Plans.



(At left, Pratt Boulevard Beach.)




By Bill Savage

Anyone who thinks, as Erma Tranter of Friends of the Parks and the Tribune’s Blair Kamin apparently do, that citizens of Rogers Park “don’t sense that they have a lakefront park system” due to “an intimidating combination of high rises, “Private Property” signs and fences topped with razor wire” hasn’t spent a lot of time in the summer in Rogers Park and Edgewater. The street-end beaches in Rogers Park teem with picnickers, swimmers, volleyball and frisbee players, dog-walkers and sun-bathers. Good luck finding a parking spot within a half mile of the beach. We know damn well we have a lakefront park system, some right at our doorsteps, though sometimes we have to ride our bikes or take the El a few blocks or miles south to get to the larger part of it.


But the street-end beaches that citizens from all of Chicago—and Evanston, too—enjoy aren’t enough, it seems. We have to add two miles of landfill to really have a park system, the FoP argue. And of course, their proposal invokes Daniel Burnham’s 1909 Plan of Chicago. Any urban planner doing anything in Chicago has to make this rhetorical move, singing the praises of St. Daniel of Burnham and his Holy Plan. But whether a proposal has roots in Burnham’s Plan really should no longer matter. We simply ignore those aspects of the Plan which are now politically unthinkable, like the massive central train station and an airport on the Lakefront Burnham proposed, as well as bulldozing whole neighborhoods to create a concentric ring of Parisian-style boulevards.

But any time anyone wants to get something done, if it was in the Plan, the Plan provides political cover.

Instead of Burnham, how about a little Jane Jacobs? One of the things that makes cities vital, she proved, is variety in various forms.



Variety of age of buildings, variety of uses of urban spaces throughout the day, economic variety woven into neighborhoods. Rogers Park’s street-end beaches should be preserved if for no other reason than to have a variety of ways in which Chicago’s urban spaces connnect to the natural world of the Lake. Sure, it would be great if there were no private beaches, but it’s not the end of the world. That land was private before Rogers Park and Edgewater became part of Chicago; it’s history, not economic perfidy, that created these exceptions.

Of course, in the Chicago Way, it will all come down to money. The hundreds of millions of dollars this plan would cost would be better spend maintaining and improving the parks we have, and—especially—improving access to the south half of the current lakefront parks, woefully cut off from South Siders by the IC tracks.

Remember the design competition a few years ago for bridges and underpasses to improve Lakefront access? Let’s build those things and give South Siders who really are cut off from their lakefront access to what’s already built. Let’s add more bike lanes and improve maintenance at the parks we already have. But such ideas are “little plans” and that’s right out, since we all remember what St. Daniel of Burnham said about those. . . .

Full disclosure: I am a lifelong Rogers Parker, who almost never uses the street-end beaches, though I have a view of them from my apartment.

I am a cyclist and regularly ride the entire length of the lakefront bike path. Rehabilitating the former industrial land at the south end of the current system may be the right thing to do: but it’s not necessary or desired on the Far North Side, which has an abundance of access to the Lake.

But the FoP seem to think in all-or-nothing terms. I attended one of the meetings Friends of the Park held a couple of years ago to discuss this plan. The crowd, when asked “How would you like to see these last two miles of parkland created” overwhelming said “We wouldn’t.” When asked, “Ok, if something were to be built, how would you want it built,” we replied “We don’t want it built.” The Friends of the Park clearly had its agenda and the “engagement” with the neighborhood was a dog and pony show of the first order.

Every time a referendum has been held on this topic, citizens of the neighborhood—whether defined as just the lakefront precincts or the whole neighborhood--vote overwhelmingly against any extension northward of lakefill park. But Friends of the Park soldier on, and show, with their willful refusal to consider the opinions of the people who would be most directly affected by their plans, that they are no friends of Rogers Park.

I'm mostly with BK on this. Frankly, there is already sufficient lakefront access to beach goers, bikers, etc. through most of RP and Edgewater. The issue is not access, but continued access for those walking/biking/jogging along the water. There are 5 or so buildings that block access to the public, requiring one to go around via Sheridan Rd (or more inland) and causing a break in access to the Lake. All that seems necessary to cure this problem is a public easement through those particular buildings, not landfill. A sidewalk sized path through otherwise private property. This is much more feasible, cost effective solution that and should satisfy all sides.

[wrabbit]

^ Just a caveat - that isn't Kamin - it's a letter to Kamin from RP resident Bill Savage. Kamin hasn't quite weighed in yet.

[ChicagoChicago]

TUP,

I'm not sure how the traffic circles would improve pedestrian traffic in the areas. Can you elaborate?

Personally, I think disallowing all left hand turns or putting in turn signals, and coupling them with red light cameras would improve traffic flow. As it stands now, the only way to turn left at most lights is to wait until the light is red, and then turn. It makes no sense.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-observatory-nu-kellogg-jun11,0,253387.story

Former observatory site one possible spot for Kellogg School of Management

By Greg Burns
8:54 AM CDT, June 11, 2009

Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management may be getting fresh digs in one of the most spectacular locations on the Evanston lakefront campus.

The vacant site of the Lindheimer Observatory, demolished in 1995, is the leading contender in the top-ranked business school's plans for a new home base. It would give future MBA students several hundred feet of waterfront as well as a view of the Chicago skyline.

[BVictor1]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1617847,CST-EDT-edit11a.article

All of city's lakefront should be public land


June 11, 2009

Chicagoans are rightly proud of their glorious ribbon of lakefront. Tourists marvel at it.

Residents flock to it in the summer, swarming its paths.

But for all its raging popularity, its success story is just partly complete.

Out of the 30 miles of Chicago's lakefront, four miles are closed to the public -- some by fences topped by barbed wire or plastered with "private property" signs.

An advocacy group, Friends of the Parks, wants to change that with a bold, visionary plan to link the lakefront with parks and paths, starting north at the border with Evanston, all the way south to the Indiana border.

Under the plan, 500 acres of recreational space would be added in neighborhoods that need more park space, including South Chicago, Edgewater and Rogers Park -- about 400 acres on the South Side and 100 acres on the north.

It would let many residents, especially those on the South Side, feel like they actually have access to the lakefront for the first time.

It would provide an economic boost to the surrounding areas and offer environmental benefits for generations to come.

There are problems with the idea, of course.

Such a grand plan comes with a grand price tag, roughly $350 to $450 million, according to an estimate by Friends of the Parks. And if history tells us anything, the original estimate won't be within shouting distance of the final price tag.

State and local governments are having trouble keeping their doors open, much less looking to spring for visionary ideas. (The City of Chicago has not signed on to the idea.)

Nor has Friends of the Parks calmed the worries of private land owners along the lake, who fear their rights will be trampled.

All reasonable points that need to be addressed, but ones that miss the big picture: The Friends of the Parks plan would take Chicago's most marvelous resource -- and make it better.

This is a project that could have an impact on the city equivalent to Millennium Park, but to the benefit of more than just the folks with the time and money to head downtown to hear a symphony under the Gehry band shell.

It's a plan that needs to be talked up and promoted, shaping it up to be carried out when our economy comes out of the doldrums.

It's a long shot, sure.

[the urban politician]

You're talking less about putting in a landscaped island and more about reworking the intersection into a true roundabout. I like roundabouts but most roundabout intersections in urban settings have street corners with arced or chamfered sections—whereas in Chicago, historically most multi-directional intersections' corners were built to a point or sharp corner. As far as I can think the closest thing to a roundabout in Chicago is Logan Square.

^ Actually, I would probably de-emphasize the roundabout concept, on retrospect, and focus more on the landscaped island concept.

If you look back at the intersections that I posted streetviews of, doesn't it seem that many of them would be greatly enhanced by central landscaped islands? Imagine some of them with fountains, artwork, or perhaps statues.

It could potentially be part of a citywide beautification project

[ardecila]

The grocery is building one level of underground parking, and it's at Southport, where the water table is a little higher. (Remember that at Addison, the Kennedy Expressway actually had to cut through rock.)

For downtown condos, it's a problem of dealing with four to seven levels of parking, and that gets pretty daunting in Chicago's swampy muck.

Right. It's really not much more technically complex than the average basement, except the column spacing and depth of excavation is a bit more. Highrises often need 1 or 2 stories below grade for mechanical areas and utilities, but digging down to 5 or 6 stories becomes increasingly costly.

[Rilestone75]

^ Not quite the same thing, but the city has been replacing speed bumps on the side streets with mini islands for a while now, to slow down the speeders.

I live in Edgewater, where both the center mini islands and speed "humps" are both located. I have to say that the mini islands are great. The speed humps are retarded! Not that they don't work, but that the spacing of them is so moronic that I wonder if a chimp came up with the plan!

The only problem I see with the mini islands is that our incredibly smart american drivers are very easily confused by them and are never really sure if they should just turn left or if they should circle around the island in order to go left.... perhaps painting an arrow on the street was just too much to ask?!

[ChiMack]

1)do you think that general developments in chicago will be affected when daley leaves office? he might lose the next election, will it depend on who beats him?

2) i asked this q before but got no answer and hopefully you guys can answer me..the Robert Taylor area i read they put up buildings there are they misex income affordable market rate and are people living there yet?

[i_am_hydrogen]

I came across this post at another website in a thread discussing Cabrini Green:

i live right by cabrinigreens . and my school invited the mayor to come see us and i ask hi are there going to be any cabrini greens left.and he said they were going fix those last of them up and turn them into highrises because the cant tear them down by the state

Has anyone heard anything to this effect? I wonder if they are slated to receive a treatment similar to that of Dearborn Homes (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/05/cha-architecture-gets-it-right-with-dearborn-homes-new-limestone-decorations-transform-the-buildings.html#more).

[VivaLFuego]

I came across this post at another website in a thread discussing Cabrini Green:



Has anyone heard anything to this effect? I wonder if they are slated to receive a treatment similar to that of Dearborn Homes (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/05/cha-architecture-gets-it-right-with-dearborn-homes-new-limestone-decorations-transform-the-buildings.html#more).

...flame on, but I would be seriously pleased if at least a few of them were renovated/modernized and saved, with the poor planning fixed. Nothing inherently wrong with the architecture itself (fans of modernism might actually find some of the PJs attractive and thoughtful if only in a very abstract sense), though I suppose the catwalks enclosed in chain link could be improved upon. Fill in the street grid and get rid of some of the worthless windswept open space, of course, but saving a couple of the highrises could be very interesting indeed (reference the project in Chinatown to show what can be done with these buildings).