[sammyg]

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

I don't know if a roundabout would work, but something needs to be done to fix some of those intersections. Traffic from the Belmont/Lincoln/Ashland corner backs up all the way to Diversey and Addison on Ashland, and that's not even on cubs game days.

Maybe shifting traffic off the diagonal streets, like in Lincoln Square and what NYC's doing with Times Square?

[J_M_Tungsten]

Finally, I am seeing green on a roof top, as was proposed, just delayed :D !!


Rush University June 11
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/photo.jpg

[emathias]

I don't know if a roundabout would work, but something needs to be done to fix some of those intersections. Traffic from the Belmont/Lincoln/Ashland corner backs up all the way to Diversey and Addison on Ashland, and that's not even on cubs game days.

Maybe shifting traffic off the diagonal streets, like in Lincoln Square and what NYC's doing with Times Square?

Even though I was terrified the first time I drove through one (in D.C., in college), I'm a fan of roundabouts (aka traffic circles). But, they take a big chunk of land if you're going to be connecting several streets, and in most parts of Chicago that would often require demolishing some pretty cool vintage buildings. I like cool vintage buildings, too, so it's kind of a quandry.

I think there are a few places you could do it without losing anything of much significance, and a few places where you coud do it just by changing out the signage (Logan Square, I'm looking at you here), but I don't think it could (or even should) be done universally at every intersection that might benefit from it.

I also don't like the idea of re-routing traffic like in Times Square, although the city IS doing that at the DamenFullertonElston (I think that's the trio) intersection.

[Abner]

I also don't like the idea of re-routing traffic like in Times Square, although the city IS doing that at the DamenFullertonElston (I think that's the trio) intersection.

Didn't they find not too long ago that this is the most dangerous intersection in the city? (Not sure of the measure here.) Whether or not there are any worse, that one is absolutely horrible. I don't see how changing it in any way would make it worse.

[SkokieSwift]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-zohn/culture-zohn-pianissimo-f_b_213852.html

Culture Zohn: Pianissimo from Renzo Piano: The New Modern Wing at the Art Institute of Chicago

Architects all over the world are extremely jealous of Renzo Piano . If he weren't such a nice guy, there would probably be an AIA contract out on him. As it is, Piano keeps getting the great museum jobs and cities keep getting very nice places to look at art.

But Chicago has them beat. Even though I absolutely love the undulating green roofs of the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco which remind me of the developing breasts on a young girl and the elegant minimalism of the Menil Collection in Houston, the Modern Wing addition to the Art Institute of Chicago is one of those spaces that makes you catch your breath...

[Mr Downtown]

At Damen/Fullerton/Elston, CDOT is taking advantage of the vacant Vienna Beef land and an underused street ROW to reroute Elston so it intersects Fullerton a couple hundred feet east of where Damen intersects it. Thus two four-way intersections will replace a dangerous six-way one. A couple years ago the city had studied a tunnel for Elston, but decided this would work better and not be such an antiurban solution. I asked about a roundabout, but the volumes are really high, most of it through, so they had decided that wasn't the way to go.

Mini-roundabouts (not the big traffic circles of DC or Boston or New Jersey) are all the rage these days in traffic engineering circles; Colorado has gone crazy for them, as have some new urbanists. But they raise real issues for pedestrians once volumes are moderately high, because there are no longer any interruptions in vehicle traffic.

[denizen467]

^ How far along is that project? Will the crappy Dunkin Donuts (or whatever) mini strip mall die? And wasn't some kind of land deal with the tennis facility necessary too?

[ardecila]

At Damen/Fullerton/Elston, CDOT is taking advantage of the vacant Vienna Beef land and an underused street ROW to reroute Elston so it intersects Fullerton a couple hundred feet east of where Damen intersects it. Thus two four-way intersections will replace a dangerous six-way one. A couple years ago the city had studied a tunnel for Elston, but decided this would work better and not be such an antiurban solution. I asked about a roundabout, but the volumes are really high, most of it through, so they had decided that wasn't the way to go.

I'm not sure how a tunnel would be an anti-urban solution. I understand the extreme cost of such a thing is a major downside, but anti-urban? DC and many other cities have examples of tunnels under intersections. By placing the fast through traffic on a different level, it restricts the surface traffic to right/left-turners and local traffic, which tends to move more slowly and pose less danger to pedestrians at the crosswalks. The best Chicago example is the Western flyover at Belmont. Although the immediate environs aren't too urban and the sight lines are challenging, the traffic tends to move slower. There's also an underpass on Dempster at Milwaukee in Niles, but there aren't many pedestrians there. Not sure how the traffic there ever merited such a costly improvement.

The fast speed of the underpass drivers would need to be compensated for with calming measures on either end - textured pavements (or just rumble strips), narrower lanes, or raised planter medians.

A roundabout would be very tricky to design at Damen/Elston/Fullerton without substantial demolition.

[wrabbit]

.....Mini-roundabouts.....raise real issues for pedestrians once volumes are moderately high, because there are no longer any interruptions in vehicle traffic.

Bingo.

[VivaLFuego]

nevermind

[whyhuhwhy]

At Damen/Fullerton/Elston, CDOT is taking advantage of the vacant Vienna Beef land and an underused street ROW to reroute Elston so it intersects Fullerton a couple hundred feet east of where Damen intersects it. Thus two four-way intersections will replace a dangerous six-way one. A couple years ago the city had studied a tunnel for Elston, but decided this would work better and not be such an antiurban solution. I asked about a roundabout, but the volumes are really high, most of it through, so they had decided that wasn't the way to go.

Mini-roundabouts (not the big traffic circles of DC or Boston or New Jersey) are all the rage these days in traffic engineering circles; Colorado has gone crazy for them, as have some new urbanists. But they raise real issues for pedestrians once volumes are moderately high, because there are no longer any interruptions in vehicle traffic.

This was unveiled in April 2008. Since then I've heard nothing until your post. I'd love more info about this. Any new link or any more new hard information? What brings you to post out about it now, in other words?

Here's the current info: http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockName=Transportation%2fFuture+Projects+%26+Programs%2fI+Want+To&deptMainCategoryOID=-536883911&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Transportation&topChannelName=Dept&contentOID=536983138&Failed_Reason=Invalid+timestamp,+engine+has+been+restarted&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do&context=dept

We all know the intersection is a complete mess as it stands right now. But I'm not sure how much better that new one looks! Any thoughts by anyone? Wouldn't it be cheaper (and better) to do a tunnel than to literally tear down those buildings to build another road and add yet another series of traffic lights? I just can't imagine how much better this would work.

[emathias]

Speaking of streets, how come some of the long blocks in west River North and east Streeterville weren't/aren't split up? Or, at the very least, created with pedestrian routes through them?

I live in River North but rarely go to the Ontario strip of businesses west of Orleans because if I walk over there I have to walk all the way around the block if I decide to go north. And Streeterville has some nearly-as-long blocks, with only one having been broken up as far as I know. Has the City ever looked at cutting some of the long, formerly industrial blocks, into shorter, more pedestrian-friendly blocks?

[spyguy]

According to the Chicago Architecture blog (http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/2009/06/more-concessions-coming-to-chicagos.html), there will be more concession stands in Grant Park, including one possibly at Michigan and Roosevelt.

Also, through some partnership with JCDecaux, there will be a cafe designed by RAM Stern in Pritzker Park.

[k1052]

Speaking of streets, how come some of the long blocks in west River North and east Streeterville weren't/aren't split up? Or, at the very least, created with pedestrian routes through them?

I live in River North but rarely go to the Ontario strip of businesses west of Orleans because if I walk over there I have to walk all the way around the block if I decide to go north. And Streeterville has some nearly-as-long blocks, with only one having been broken up as far as I know. Has the City ever looked at cutting some of the long, formerly industrial blocks, into shorter, more pedestrian-friendly blocks?

Given that there are existing buildings, a major freeway ramp, and signifigant utility obstacles I doubt it's ever really been given any consideration.

I'm over on that part of Ontario at least 3 times a week and feel your pain of that reeaallly long block, especially if I have to park on Erie.

[Mr Downtown]

I thought DPD should demand an extension of St. Clair to Chicago as part of the Childrens Hospital PD. But we're apparently too timid to remake our street system nowadays. We just live with whatever we were bequeathed.

As for through-block pedestrian cut-throughs, New York gives a zoning bonus to encourage them. But Chicago zoning is so generous, I doubt that a residential developer would want to put in a public easement. Witness what just happened at Cityfront Center, where the residents of nearby buildings raised hell about the Waldorf-Astoria, because nonresidents would now finally be allowed to walk along the easement that had been dedicated back in the 80s.

[emathias]

Ogden Replacement Elementary School
...

I downloaded the full presentation tonight (https://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=batch_download&send_id=697438416&email=1a9ff7ebe066e5693ff682dc36408e57).

Unless I'm totally misreading the diagrams, why did the City sign off on a design that left a narrow (it appears to be five-foot, zero-buffer) sidewalk along the very busy, increasingly pedestrian-oriented State Street side? Seriously, what was going through the heads of the people in the City when they allowed barely enough sidewalk for two people to pass, PLUS had the subway grates AND put in trees. If they're building a new school, couldn't they get the sidewalks right on all four sides instead of just three?

[emathias]

I posted this on the Chicago Transportation thread, too. Hopefully I didn't miss someone else already post it here:

FYI (from an email out of Reilly's office, no less):


CTA Transit-Friendly Development Typology Open House

The CTA and the Chicago Department of Zoning and Land Use Planning will be holding an open house on the CTA Station Area Typology Study, to discuss transit-friendly development around CTA rail stations system-wide. Two meetings will be held at the following locations, are accessible to people with disabilities:

North:
Monday, June 22, 2009
6:00- 8:00pm
Chicago Public Library
Sulzer Regional Library
4455 N. Lincoln Ave.
Chicago, IL60625
312.744.7616

South:
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
6:00- 8:00pm
Chicago Urban LeagueCenter
4510 S. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, IL60653
773.258.5800

For more information please call or e-mail:
Ryan Mouw, Senior Government Relations Officer, Chicago Transit Authority at 312.681.2751 or rmouw@transitchicago.com.

[ardecila]

Also, through some partnership with JCDecaux, there will be a cafe designed by RAM Stern in Pritzker Park.

I can't think of a worse architect to design something in Pritzker Park. Although the design is problematic, at least it offers several places of modernist beauty, my favorite being the paved area with trees and short light posts forming a constellation of lights that one may walk through at night.

The incongruity between the modern design of Pritzker Park and the revivalist black metal of Robert AM Stern will be an architectural nightmare.

On a side note, I love how substantial the Library L station is. It's the only station on the Loop that feels like a building rather than a bus shelter. It's also held up well after 2 decades of Chicago winters.

[BWChicago]

I'm not sure how a tunnel would be an anti-urban solution. I understand the extreme cost of such a thing is a major downside, but anti-urban? DC and many other cities have examples of tunnels under intersections. By placing the fast through traffic on a different level, it restricts the surface traffic to right/left-turners and local traffic, which tends to move more slowly and pose less danger to pedestrians at the crosswalks. The best Chicago example is the Western flyover at Belmont. Although the immediate environs aren't too urban and the sight lines are challenging, the traffic tends to move slower. There's also an underpass on Dempster at Milwaukee in Niles, but there aren't many pedestrians there. Not sure how the traffic there ever merited such a costly improvement.

The fast speed of the underpass drivers would need to be compensated for with calming measures on either end - textured pavements (or just rumble strips), narrower lanes, or raised planter medians.

A roundabout would be very tricky to design at Damen/Elston/Fullerton without substantial demolition.

The one at Dempster was done in about 1930. They were planning a ton of them at the time.

[denizen467]

the residents of nearby buildings raised hell about the Waldorf-Astoria, because nonresidents would now finally be allowed to walk along the easement that had been dedicated back in the 80s.
Are you talking about the residents of 440 and 480 McClurg, and the elevated passage (following the Ogden Slip axis) that runs between those buildings?

One thing that might not have been foreseeable back then was the redevelopment of Navy Pier into the state's largest tourist draw - so the summer foot traffic will probably be more than originally thought. On the other hand, their property values have gone up commensurately. Plus, Dick's is gone, so they should just count their blessings.

[Nowhereman1280]

Also, through some partnership with JCDecaux, there will be a cafe designed by RAM Stern in Pritzker Park.

AM Stern is the more expensive, New York, version of Lucien LaGrange. :yuck:

[BWChicago]

The one at Dempster was done in about 1930. They were planning a ton of them at the time.

Expanding on grade separation precedents,

It was modeled on Grand Concourse/Fordham Road in New York and Grand Boulevard/East Jefferson Street in Detroit. And there were also ones constructed at Northwest Highway and Dundee, Northwest Highway and Golf, Southwest Highway and 123rd, Southwest Highway & 96th, Mannheim & North, Mannheim (LaGrange) and Archer (this has been reconstructed as a cloverleaf instead of a circle) and Roosevelt & Rte 53 in Glen Ellyn. Also Palatine at Wolf and Milwaukee, but that came later, I think.

The first four were supposed to also include

29 further separations were proposed, later reduced to 13, including
Dempster/Waukegan, Southwest/Cicero, Cicero/95th,

Mannheim/Joliet, Mannheim/Ogden, Mannheim/Roosevelt, 95th & 96th in Hickory Hills, Mannheim/St. Charles, Mannheim/Lake, Mannheim/Touhy

Kean/Archer in Justice, near LaGrange/Archer (Apparently Keane was designated as 51 at that time and was supposed to act as a relief to 45)Lake/North, Dempster/Niles Center/Skokie Blvd, Milwaukee/Golf, Touhy/Milwaukee, Dixie/Governor's at Homewood (They don't intersect so I guess either they did at one point or they meant both at 183rd),

At the time, they said the intersection carried the highest traffic of any intersection in the county outside Chicago, and was expected to increase as a result of widening the streets to 40 feet.

As for their utility and effect on traffic, you only need to look a little farther down Dempster at Waukegan. A much wider intersection, but with far heavier back A ups. The underpass works, and there should probably have been more like it. Also the one at Belmont & Western was based off a design floated by the Chicago Auto Club in 1928.

[denizen467]

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

Funny, now the south side of Chicago Avenue (Hudson/Sedgwick) also has something being demolished.

The Cabrini building is now rubble. What are CHA's plans for this site?

[ChicagoHiRiser]

Funny, now the south side of Chicago Avenue (Hudson/Sedgwick) also has something being demolished.

The Cabrini building is now rubble. What are CHA's plans for this site?

None AFAIK. Just look to all the other demolished Cabrini highrises over the years: patch of grass & mud.

If it was boom times some developer with connections in the city would wind up buying it for far below market value.

[harryc]

From last month.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SjRRoOdKHaI/AAAAAAABNW8/WoUGjaESlcw/s800/P1370649.JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SjRRpNTILGI/AAAAAAABNXE/2vfXdEfxduI/s800/P1370650.JPG

[harryc]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SjQ8VN9KdeI/AAAAAAABNWA/95gAAyqxg3A/s800/P1400790.JPG

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SjQ8XK9BlkI/AAAAAAABNWI/vcGJAouEoEU/s800/P1400798.JPG

[harryc]

Not sure if this is for a green roof or additional floor.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SjRjOeqEkRI/AAAAAAABNbQ/zx-zBkNkg_A/s800/P1400874.JPG

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SjRjQAAN-vI/AAAAAAABNbY/c0-dBTBkYdA/s800/P1400875.JPG

[ardecila]

The one at Dempster was done in about 1930. They were planning a ton of them at the time.

Honestly? That's surprising - it must have been renovated in the 1980s, because it looks for all the world like other road projects from that time.

Thanks for the additional information. Nowadays, it's just standard procedure to provide 2 left turning lanes and 1 right turning lane at major intersections. Coupled with protected turn signals, it's a much cheaper way to add capacity than an underpass, if the land is available for the wider road. This is, of course, extremely hostile to pedestrians and it only works at simple 4-way intersections. Something more complex, like Elston/Damen/Fullerton, would be a better candidate for an underpass, and even CDOT didn't think it was worth the expense.

Similar problems with 6-way intersections occur at Golf Mill (Golf/Milwaukee/Greenwood) and at Randhurst (Rand/Kensington/Elmhurst). These are candidates for underpasses if ever I did see one.

[the urban politician]

From last month.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SjRRoOdKHaI/AAAAAAABNW8/WoUGjaESlcw/s800/P1370649.JPG


^ I'm curious, was this recently renovated, or did you just decide to take pics of this for the heck of it?

[BWChicago]

Honestly? That's surprising - it must have been renovated in the 1980s, because it looks for all the world like other road projects from that time.

It was rebuilt about 10 years ago

[Busy Bee]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SjQ8VN9KdeI/AAAAAAABNWA/95gAAyqxg3A/s800/P1400790.JPG

Am I the only one that thinks the riverwalk design is just a little overwrought? Personally, I would have rather seen nice handsome park bench type seating rahter than these concrete blocks they've come up with. And what's with all the concrete in general? I thought I remember reading that the walkway was going to be some kind of limestone colored crushed stone?

[harryc]

^ I'm curious, was this recently renovated, or did you just decide to take pics of this for the heck of it?

New to me, I believe it was re-done in conjunction with the Aqua project and/or Millennium park.

[Mr Downtown]

The "underground overpass" pedway connecting Blue Cross/Blue Shield to Millennium Park Garage was finished in 2000.

[SolarWind]

June 12, 2009

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/2940/dsc0088i.jpg
^ Fail

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6896/dsc0457a.jpg
^ Success

[wrabbit]

^ Great idea for a thread, Solar. I had no idea that the building on Lake was getting a green retrofit.

-----

Some stealth shots of the ongoing renovation of the Sullivan Center (formerly Carson Pirie Scott Building) on State St.

Shots taken through cracks in the plywood - I did not enter the site. 6/14:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3303/3627350962_2376ee1602_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2446/3626502365_02de915e87_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3408/3627350482_57c526e164_o.jpg

Can't wait until the wraps come off.

[wrabbit]

Progress underway on rediscovered Louis Sullivan storefront renovation, 22 S Wabash. Bonus double Sullivan (Jewellers' Building) reflection.

6/14:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3539/3627673182_a62e667ac1_b.jpg

[J_M_Tungsten]

June 12, 2009

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6896/dsc0457a.jpg
^ Success

This is what I hope to see on top of all these large flat topped buildings in Chicago. Would definitely give a more acurate meaning to "Urban jungle"

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Am I the only one that thinks the riverwalk design is just a little overwrought? Personally, I would have rather seen nice handsome park bench type seating rahter than these concrete blocks they've come up with. And what's with all the concrete in general? I thought I remember reading that the walkway was going to be some kind of limestone colored crushed stone?

I wouldn't say overwrought but clunky and graceless. I am really unimpressed.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

AM Stern is the more expensive, New York, version of Lucien LaGrange. :yuck:

:koko: I may not be a fan of his style, but Robert Stern is a better architect than Lucien Lagrange could ever hope to be.

[denizen467]

Am I the only one that thinks the riverwalk design is just a little overwrought? Personally, I would have rather seen nice handsome park bench type seating rahter than these concrete blocks they've come up with. And what's with all the concrete in general? I thought I remember reading that the walkway was going to be some kind of limestone colored crushed stone?
Trying to look at the glass as half full, I'll be okay just calling it a solid place holder in budget-strapped times until some future era when there is more money and increased interest in the river (if and when, say, the Hyatt Regency builds their riverwalk building).

[ChiPsy]

Don't know where to put this (feel free to move it), but this is an excellent new promo video from the Chicago Convention & Tourism Bureau built on Burnham's theme of "Make no little plans." Credit the Sun-Times for calling attention to it:

http://www.choosechicago.com/media/Pages/Think_Big.aspx

[ChiMack]

all these developments yet..

south loop buildings half sold (http://chicagojournal.com/Blogs/Near-Loop-Wire/06-15-2009/South_Loop_buildings_half_sold)

map of occupance rates (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/downloads/20090615a.htm)

[spyguy]

http://www.hpherald.com/visimp.html

Arts center unveiled
By Kate Hawley

The University of Chicago is planning to break ground next April on a $114-million arts center — a key element in its wide-ranging construction plan for the south campus.

Schematic drawings for the Reva & David Logan Center for Creative & Performing Arts, presented at a public meeting Monday, June 8, showed a geometric tower that sits alongside a sprawling rectangular building with a distinctive sawtooth roofline.

University architect Steve Weisenthal, who is overseeing the south campus improvements, described the new arts center as a “mixing bowl for the arts.” It will house a gallery, two theaters, a 450-seat auditorium, art studios, digital labs, classrooms, a café and a glass-walled performance venue at the top of the tower. An outdoor courtyard will give students space to congregate or even hold outdoor performances.

...Besides the new construction, the arts center project also includes a full restoration of a historic house and the adjoining Midway Studios, a city landmark where the renowned sculptor Laredo Taft worked in the early 20th century.

A 1972 addition to the Midway Studios by the prolific mid-century architect Edward Dart — a building preservation advocates have recently made a pitch to save — will be demolished, Wiesenthal said.
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/4111/photo2c.jpg

[sentinel]

^^ Thanks spyguy..I've been following this project ever since Williams/Tsien won the competition and it seems like it could be really cool - any images of the update, per the June 8th meeting?

[wrabbit]

These are from the 6/5/ press release:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/approach_sm.jpg
http://www.archinect.com/news/article.php?id=58880_0_24_0_M

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/park_sm.jpg
http://www.archinect.com/news/article.php?id=58880_0_24_0_M

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/courtyard_sm.jpg
http://www.archinect.com/news/article.php?id=58880_0_24_0_M

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/lobby_sm.jpg
http://www.archinect.com/news/article.php?id=58880_0_24_0_M

[J_M_Tungsten]

My friend recently bought a unit in 1600 Museum Park, and due to low sales it is one of many buildings in Chicago that may be converted to apartments.

http://chicagocondosonline.blogspot.com/2009/06/south-loop-units-being-coverted-to.html

South Loop Units Being Coverted To Rentals?

In its June 15 edition, Crain's Chicago Business reports that Centrum Properties, the lead developer of the 12-acre Roosevelt Collection at Roosevelt Road and Wells, is "preparing to tear up contracts with condo buyers" and convert the 342-unit Lofts at Roosevelt Collection into an apartment building.

Crain's says a source familiar with the matter says the decision ultimately rests with a group of six lenders and that "the deal isn't done and might not materialize.

"Such a switch would portend a larger shift as a downtown condo glut turns into an apartment glut," the publication states.

According to Crain's, Roosevelt Collection is one of eight new condo buildings to be delivered this year in the South Loop. As other projects approach their delivery dates, it adds, "there's a good chance more will convert."

The seven other conversion candidates on Crain's list are Astoria Tower at 8 E. 9th; Coliseum Park at 1440 S. Wabash; 1600 Museum Park at 1629 S. Prairie; Museum Park Place South at 1901 S. Calumet; Terrazio at 1935 S. Wabash; Lexington Park at 2138 S. Indiana; and 1555 S. Wabash.

[ardecila]

wrabbit - those renderings, while beautiful, seem to bear little resemblance to the admittedly blurry newest rendering. It would appear the design has evolved since the competition. Regardless, I'm sure it will be a stunner. Williams/Tsien are masters.

[the urban politician]

^ Right now I'm weary of the tower portion. I really hate large, blank concrete walls. I hope it doesn't turn out that way..

[Busy Bee]

Speaking of future south side projects—does anyone here have any inside info on whether that Metropolis project in Bronzeville is going to happen?

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/029y0wufxb9wp/610x.jpg

[spyguy]

^ Right now I'm weary of the tower portion. I really hate large, blank concrete walls. I hope it doesn't turn out that way..

I think that is stone. TWBTA is known for its use of materials, so I'm not too worried.

Speaking of future south side projects—does anyone here have any inside info on whether that Metropolis project in Bronzeville is going to happen?

Whether it moves forward, I don't know. However, the design has changed since they obviously can't build condos at this time.

[spyguy]

http://www.skylinenewspaper.com/News/06-17-2009/Cafe_pitched_for_vacant_Cedar

Cafe pitched for vacant Cedar
By FELICIA DECHTER

...Proposed is a restaurant just shy of 100 seats inside, with 120 seats on the outdoor plaza, according to Chris Oakley, the in-house architect for M Development. The restaurant — which will receive deliveries off of an alley — will occupy 3,000-plus square feet of the building, spanning its ground floor. M Development will illuminate the property’s upper floors so they no longer appear dark and abandoned.

The café will lease the site through 2011, Oakley said. Outdoor seating would close by 11 p.m.

...As far as the rest of the Cedar Hotel goes, all plans are “completely off the table,” Oakley said.

------------
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockName=Planning+And+Development%2fI+Want+To&deptMainCategoryOID=&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Planning+And+Development&topChannelName=Dept&contentOID=537047658&Failed_Reason=Invalid+timestamp,+engine+has+been+restarted&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do&context=dept

DCD issues RFPs for Beverly, South Loop sites

Revival of 9th and State Street Site Redevelopment Project
The CDC authorized the rejection of previous responses to the initial RFP issued in 2003 and the re-advertising and re-issuance of an RFP for the purchase and redevelopment of the property located at the southeast corner of 9th and State Streets. The goal of the RFP is to ultimately see a mixed-use development on this site, which is now vacant City-owned land with a parking lot. The target price is $9.7 million with no TIF or other assistance being offered.

[VivaLFuego]

http://www.skylinenewspaper.com/News/06-17-2009/Cafe_pitched_for_vacant_Cedar

Cafe pitched for vacant Cedar
By FELICIA DECHTER

...Proposed is a restaurant just shy of 100 seats inside, with 120 seats on the outdoor plaza, according to Chris Oakley, the in-house architect for M Development. The restaurant — which will receive deliveries off of an alley — will occupy 3,000-plus square feet of the building, spanning its ground floor. M Development will illuminate the property’s upper floors so they no longer appear dark and abandoned.

The café will lease the site through 2011, Oakley said. Outdoor seating would close by 11 p.m.

...As far as the rest of the Cedar Hotel goes, all plans are “completely off the table,” Oakley said.


80% positive news - it's a great outdoor space, and this will reactivate that stretch of the street in the near term. I'll miss the outdoor drunken debauchery that those old bars provided. I still don't get why all these clowns live right by Rush/Division if they hate nightlife so much. Unless you've lived there for more than about 60 years, you have no excuse to complain about street noise or the presence of bars and entertainment.

[Loopy]

DCD issues RFPs for Beverly, South Loop sites

Revival of 9th and State Street Site Redevelopment Project
The CDC authorized the rejection of previous responses to the initial RFP issued in 2003 and the re-advertising and re-issuance of an RFP for the purchase and redevelopment of the property located at the southeast corner of 9th and State Streets. The goal of the RFP is to ultimately see a mixed-use development on this site, which is now vacant City-owned land with a parking lot. The target price is $9.7 million with no TIF or other assistance being offered.

This is more than a "corner" if I'm not mistaken. The City owns the corner lot and the parcel just South where the "New Ritz" hotel was. Just south of that is a tiny one-story Hilti store and then, anchoring the South corner at 11th Street, a six story loft building with commercial on ground floor and rental residential lofts above.

I wonder if any of the developers will propose acquiring those properties and doing another block-long development such as State Place and Astoria/One Place?

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2135/crackhouse.png

[J_M_Tungsten]

Since were on the South Loop here, does anyone have any info on the XO project? Construction start? Finish?

[Loopy]

Since were on the South Loop here, does anyone have any info on the XO project? Construction start? Finish?
The developer defaulted on a $19 million loan for the project and the architect has filed a lien for $500,000 in unpaid services. So, basically, the project is dead.

[J_M_Tungsten]

The developer defaulted on a $19 million loan for the project and the architect has filed a lien for $500,000 in unpaid services. So, basically, the project is dead.

That is disgusting. I am so sick of these times we live in.

[Busy Bee]

I really wouldn;t go as far as to call it dead. I wouldn't be surprised if they start re-marketing the project in a few seasons.

[aic4ever]

^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.

I'm first off not going to claim to be an expert on this, but one of the handful of law classes I have taken revolved entirely around property rights and the taking clause.

It seems to me first and foremost to be incorrect to state that someone's private property rights extend only to the shoreline. It is actually very common that people's private property rights extend out into the water, and lakebed is actually sold off as a separate lot. Indeed we are building a house (http://www.centaurco.com/Projects/TheBeachHouse) right now on a private beach on the south side that would be jeapordized by this action.

The private property rights do not extend indefinitely out into the water, of course, so the city could easily skirt the taking issue and much, if any, invocation of eminent domain regarding the physical taking of land, if they just build these "islands" far out enough.

However, where the city will invariably end up forking out money to private residents, is going to be in the loss of value in property due to the city's taking of those residents' views. This is going to be a battle, should the private residents want to fight it, on par with the battle happening in the northeast over whether or not to build windmills in the water off the coast. If enough well-to-do people decided to start bitching about it, it's never going to get off the ground.

Overall, I would not be surprised to see the city having to shell out just as much money to compensate for lost property value as they currently estimate the project to cost to build.

Perhaps we could dig up the Dirt Attorney for some further insight?

[wrabbit]

^ Illinois holds the bed of LM in a public trust.

Here's a good post from Mr Downtown (he specifically mentions South Shore in the last paragraph):

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.

[Taft]

^ Illinois holds the bed of LM in a public trust.

But is it well defined where the lake bed begins? That seems to be the prickly issue here...

[wrabbit]

But is it well defined where the lake bed begins? That seems to be the prickly issue here...

Right - just so we're clear that the lake bed isn't what is at issue here.

[cbotnyse]

can someone help me out?! I'm looking for the render of Caltrava's bridge over LSD.

thanks!

[Loopy]

^ Posted by Wrabbit 12-23-2008

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/5380a.jpg

[cbotnyse]

^ Posted by Wrabbit 12-23-2008

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/5380a.jpgthanks!

^^?yeah what?

[denizen467]

^ Posted by Wrabbit 12-23-2008

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/5380a.jpg
Was that part of the LSD bridges competition that involved 31st, 35th, North Ave, etc. as well? Was his River bridge proposal part of that competition or did he come up with that after Kelleher acquired the Spire project?

His infrastructure designs are wonderful, but I think this is inappropriate for Queen's Landing. I think a tall structure like this detracts from Buckingham Fountain, which should remain the king (queen?) of that section of Grant Park. This also mars the openness of marina promenade.

[wrabbit]

Was that part of the LSD bridges competition that involved 31st, 35th, North Ave, etc. as well? Was his River bridge proposal part of that competition or did he come up with that after Kelleher acquired the Spire project?

His infrastructure designs are wonderful, but I think this is inappropriate for Queen's Landing. I think a tall structure like this detracts from Buckingham Fountain, which should remain the king (queen?) of that section of Grant Park. This also mars the openness of marina promenade.

I could be wrong on this, so someone please correct me if I am, but the Queen's Landing project predates both the LSD competitions and the Spire project. This was a separate design process, tied into the restoration of Congress in the late '90s. Bad blood between Calatrava & the city on this one.

[denizen467]

I could be wrong on this, so someone please correct me if I am, but the Queen's Landing project predates both the LSD competitions and the Spire project. This was a separate design process, tied into the restoration of Congress in the late '90s. Bad blood between Calatrava & the city on this one.
Ouch about the bad blood!

I think the idea of building a grade-separated crossing at Queen's Landing does go back a very long way, but on the other hand, isn't Calatrava's presence in the Midwest more recent than the '90s? I have no idea; maybe he has been submitting proposals for much longer than that.

Also, IIRC, this year is something like the 50th anniversary of the Queen's visit ... let's giddyup with this project already! Especially since the fountain has just been re-done.

[wrabbit]

Ouch about the bad blood!

I think the idea of building a grade-separated crossing at Queen's Landing does go back a very long way, but on the other hand, isn't Calatrava's presence in the Midwest more recent than the '90s? I have no idea; maybe he has been submitting proposals for much longer than that.

Also, IIRC, this year is something like the 50th anniversary of the Queen's visit ... let's giddyup with this project already! Especially since the fountain has just been re-done.

Yeah - from what I can dig up, the proposals were submitted sometime around 1999. Epstein was involved in the engineering. Additional renders from their website at:

http://www.epstein-isi.com/portfolio/transportation/transportation_2.htm

I agree that the current pedestrian barriers are just plain wrong and that the city needs to address this.

[spyguy]

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8018/71283759.jpg

[sentinel]

UN Studios Burnham Pavilion
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3112/3644495590_a790b5b40f_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3333/3644497588_a718be8f79_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3389/3644496916_9e5663c06a_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3346/3644498964_1e3e93440d_b.jpg

oops, Zaha Hadid's isn't finished yet
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3380/3643692631_2d7a02db3d_b.jpg

[the urban politician]

^ Wow, I'm looking forward to seeing these in person. Any idea where those will go once they complete their time at MP? I hope the city doesn't lose them...

[ardecila]

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8018/71283759.jpg

I'm much less upset about this now that I know that two of the older buildings are staying along Franklin.

I thought the plaza would go all the way up to Couch Place (the alley) but it seems that this plaza will be a lot smaller than I was imagining. At that size, it could actually be quite pleasant. I hope they don't plaster-coat the newly exposed party wall on the north side - it would look great with the Chicago common brick, if it is tuckpointed nicely. There will also be a fire escape facing the plaza, which should add an element of cool old-Chicago-ness.

It also has bike storage! :tup:

[wrabbit]

Thanks sentinel for the pics. Did you have a chance to climb around on it?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I'm much less upset about this now that I know that two of the older buildings are staying along Franklin.

Which buildings are sticking around? The two just south of the parking garage?

[ardecila]

Which buildings are sticking around? The two just south of the parking garage?

Yes. They are represented by the empty white box in the illustration posted above.

[denizen467]

^ That stairway at the SE corner of the buildings being preserved - is that the old fire escape mentioned above?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Yes. They are represented by the empty white box in the illustration posted above.

Got it. At least there's some cause for optimism then.

[sentinel]

Thanks sentinel for the pics. Did you have a chance to climb around on it?
Unfortunately I didn't - it was still wet from the rain and just by the nature of the pavilion, it looked too slippery to risk breaking my hip to go onto it :haha:

[the urban politician]

Yes. They are represented by the empty white box in the illustration posted above.

^ The other good news is that the "empty white box" doesn't seem to have nearly a large enough floorplate to make room for another large office tower, and since this part of town is almost exclusively office-oriented, I don't presume anybody will be tearing them down for residential or hotel uses either.

[ardecila]

^ That stairway at the SE corner of the buildings being preserved - is that the old fire escape mentioned above?

I can't say for certain, but it certainly looks that way. John Buck doesn't own those two buildings, so presumably they have no say over the fire escapes.

The southernmost one of the two buildings has had a rather ugly modern facade replacement. Oh well, can't win 'em all.

[denizen467]

^ The other good news is that the "empty white box" doesn't seem to have nearly a large enough floorplate to make room for another large office tower, and since this part of town is almost exclusively office-oriented, I don't presume anybody will be tearing them down for residential or hotel uses either.
And too small for a parking garage as well. However, note the "infill hotel" that was/is proposed next to 1 N Wacker's pocket park - its site is about the same size as what we have here!

[harryc]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sj6xdNwAv0I/AAAAAAABN0U/NsyPf8GENnk/s800/2009_06_21B.JPG

Small world , out here biking with my eldest, who I used as a prop when she was an infant and I was a docent at the Rice Research Center at the Field Museum.

The river was pretty high today - the flood plain was ......
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sj6zonP4QSI/AAAAAAABN1I/BomFJkoE160/s800/P1410619.JPG

[wrabbit]

^ I've never been to the research center. Looks pretty neat. Good thing it's raised up above ground level!

[wrabbit]

When Zaha Met Ben? Burnham Pavilions, Millennium Park 6/21:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3634/3649011132_a5309c4f7b_b.jpg

[sentinel]

^^Nice!!!

Here's a picture of the site for the Poetry Foundation center, taken last week - I guess I'm kinda answering my own question from a few weeks ago, regarding if anything was moving on this site (apparently not :rolleyes: ):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/3639975864_40d4b0ae21_b.jpg

[the urban politician]

^ There ya go. Tear down historic buildings and just put some fencing around it. That's the way to draw the creative class to your city...

The Poetry Foundation still doesn't even have the money for their new building. Developers are allowed to turn parts the city into Detroit even without a penny of financing to build a replacement, and still city leadership doesn't do a thing about it. Right now that intersection consists of some concrete garage walls, a small restaurant with a parking lot, and now ANOTHER brand new empty lot.

World class, ain't it?

[J_M_Tungsten]

But on the bright side we get yet another stunning view of a parking garage. Break out the champagne...

[woodrow]

^^ What do you mean, the Poetry Foundation doesn't even have the money? Did I miss something? Serious question. Did the Lilly millions go away? The foundation was LOADED.

I hope they still got the cash. Sad about the buildings, but I am excited about a Ronan building there.

[the urban politician]

In New York and London buildings are torn down and pretty quickly replaced with other things, hence very few empty lots.

In Chicago, buildings are torn down, period. Maybe Chicago should stop acting like it's New York or London and recognize that its real estate just ain't quite as desirable. The city just keeps on doing what it did in the 60's expecting different results.

Enacting policy that makes unnecessary teardowns a bit more difficult would be a good start, or else people will keep visiting Chicago and come away with the impression "it's got a nice downtown but what's with all those vacant lots everywhere?". You don't see people saying that about other "world class" cities..

[the urban politician]

^ To further illustrate this point, I give you an excerpt from a post made last November at SSC. This was a British forumer who visited Chicago for the first time, one gets the impression that he was deciding whether to live in NYC or Chicago. Well, he gave his impressions of Chicago below, which I have cut into excerpts separated by a bunch of periods to make my point (see the bolded portion). Maybe somebody should send a copy of this post to the Mayor and the City Council:

So I have left Chicago, and have landed at JFK airport in NYC (I have a 4 hr delay). I feel like I have not relaxed since I landed in Chicago on Monday, I have done and seen so much! First off, let me say that I think you have a great city and it is completely different than I had expected!
I will give you guys a rundown of my trip since I have the time, but I wont be able to post photos until I get home.........My friend and I were having a discussion about the different housing in the neighborhoods, and how inconsistant it felt. We would walk a few blocks and notice how great some of the older homes looked and then we would pass a few blocks of ugly 70's highrises. We noticed a great set of row houses on Clark/Monomenee (sp?) but then didn't see anything else like them the rest of teh way. Did the city tear down a lot of its older houses? I expected to seee a bigger collection of late 1800's early 1900's architecture (similar to Nyc).........Some things that I didn't enjoy were the Public Transportation (blue line was a nightmare!), I wish the city had street vendors to grab a quck bite to eat, I wanted to get a chicago style hotdog but didn't find a vendor to get one from, I didn't really like the "downtown" area as much as the neighborhoods, it just seemed a bit cold (lots of car parks, parking lots, etc)

thanks for reading!

[woodrow]

Just checked the Poetry Foundation website. The Building is on hold. Seems they didn't lose too much money, just an abundance of caution.

I just don't fully understand the harsh attacks on the foundation. They had a plan, they had a location, they had the money. BOOM - the economy tanks and they are cautious. They could wait for the economy to get better before tearing down the old buildings (I would have rather them do that), but they are committed to the building program. With a cleared lot, they can proceed more quickly when the situation improves.

[sentinel]

^^ Well, I don't know if that's the case for this project - the Poetry Foundation received a grant from Ruth(?)Lilly in 2003 which was initially valued at $100 million but it was re-valued that same year at very close to $200 million (there was a Tribune article about it as well, a while back), so I don't think that the project is not going up due to funding - perhaps it's a permit issue, perhaps it's a design delay, or perhaps the CDs aren't complete yet. I was planning on getting in touch with the foundations PR representation to inquire about the project...just out of my own annoying curiousity :)

[the urban politician]

Just checked the Poetry Foundation website. The Building is on hold. Seems they didn't lose too much money, just an abundance of caution.

I just don't fully understand the harsh attacks on the foundation. They had a plan, they had a location, they had the money. BOOM - the economy tanks and they are cautious. They could wait for the economy to get better before tearing down the old buildings (I would have rather them do that), but they are committed to the building program. With a cleared lot, they can proceed more quickly when the situation improves.

^ I don't buy this argument. Name a developer that isn't "committed" to building their project. This is about protecting the city from the continued defacement of its built environment, not about blaming the Poetry Foundation or any other developer.

[sentinel]

^^I actually just contacted the foundation and spoke to someone who echoed the same thing - the project is on hold for unnamed reasons, but she did re-iterate that it is not a funding issue which considering what the foundation is worth I don't doubt her. She did mention that John Ronan Arch. has completed the design but that doesn't mean that CDs have been started let alone completed (presumably, if design development is theoretically just now being completing then it could be a number of months until the project even goes in for permitting, let alone for construction bidding, depending on when the CDs are completed/the level of complexity of the project).

I'm not too worried about this project actually being built - it will be eventually. The one project that really saddens me is the Museum of Broadcast communication which is actually (partially) built but no funding to support it :(
Anyone wanna get in touch with the 'First Bank of Oprah'?

[spyguy]

I just don't fully understand the harsh attacks on the foundation. They had a plan, they had a location, they had the money. BOOM - the economy tanks and they are cautious.

Here's what they say on their website:

When market conditions turn more favorable, we look forward to the sale of a bond issue and the start of construction.

As for New York, look at the Helmut Jahn building or Foster's Shangri-La hotel.

[VivaLFuego]

They're waiting for interest rates to drop on secured debt when they have an endowment of that size? Something doesn't add up here. Considering basically everyone is in agreement that massive inflation (and a resulting need for significant interest rate hikes / increased cost of borrowing necessary to clamp down on it) is coming in the near future, one would think they'd rather issue the debt sooner rather than later? What am I missing?

[Mr Downtown]

Enacting policy that makes unnecessary teardowns a bit more difficult would be a good start

What kind of ordinance do you think could successfully do this?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Probably the only thing that could do that is a required notification of imminent demolition and a waiting period of 15 or 30 days afterwards in which the future plans must be disclosed to the public. However that would be an excessive burden on developers and could kill a lot of good projects as well...

[the urban politician]

How about requiring proof of financing before issuing a demolition permit to a developer for any project that replaces a building built more than x years ago.

[Mr Downtown]

^Wouldn't that just encourage owners of marginal buildings to demolish them now so they could sell the property unencumbered by such a requirement?