[ardecila]

Yea, I'm not sure that a successful legal mechanism can be crafted to solve this problem. NYC and London obviously don't worry so much because land values are so high. It's extremely damaging to leave an empty lot, since the property taxes are high and the property is not generating revenue to cover the taxes.

Someone used to NY is most likely going to find fault with Chicago. Get over it. Chicago is not, and will not become, Detroit. Nor will it ever have the ridiculous development pressures of NY, save for a select few highly-desirable areas. There's only so much that legislation can compensate for an economic problem. We can improve the public realm, which the city has been doing well lately (streetscaping, public transit, parks, design guidelines).

Offhand, you could probably lessen the blow with an ordinance requiring developers to put up attractive long-term construction fencing. Rather than chain-link, let them put up an extra $1000 for cedar plank. We already know that Da Mare has friends in the fencing business. :haha:

[the urban politician]

Yea, I'm not sure that a successful legal mechanism can be crafted to solve this problem. NYC and London obviously don't worry so much because land values are so high. It's extremely damaging to leave an empty lot, since the property taxes are high and the property is not generating revenue to cover the taxes.

Someone used to NY is most likely going to find fault with Chicago. Get over it. Chicago is not, and will not become, Detroit. Nor will it ever have the ridiculous development pressures of NY, save for a select few highly-desirable areas. There's only so much that legislation can compensate for an economic problem. We can improve the public realm, which the city has been doing well lately (streetscaping, public transit, parks, design guidelines).


^ I hear ya, and don't get me wrong I don't think Chicago has a chance in hell of turning into Detroit. What we're arguing is small potatoes compared to the big picture, ie downtown Chicago is one of the world's great successes in urbanity, not a failure.

Having said that, in response to your statement "there's only so much that legislation can compensate for an economic problem", demolishing the building that the Poetry Foundation will replace, or the buildings 150 E Ontario was to replace, or the old CME Building, was completely unnecessary. What's the rush as long as the buildings are in active use? Is this really the product of Chicago having an 'economic' problem?


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

^ Why not just issue a citywide freeze on demolition permits while considering the ordinance? (after all, these days the City Council can make big decisions within days--think parking meter deal)

[ardecila]

Almost any problem can be thought of in economic terms. I can't explain the Poetry Foundation's actions, since I don't know the backstory. For whatever reason, they think that their various costs associated with construction (capital, maintenance, social) will be lower in the future than they would be today.

For 150 East Ontario and any other skyscraper in a similar position: demolition is a fixed cost. By demolishing the buildings, the owners improve the site's resale value by offering a clean slate to prospective buyers. This gain in value, and the removal of building maintenance costs, is enough to offset the loss in revenue from the (now evicted) tenants.

I imagine the story is the same with regard to the (former) former CME Building. This is my best guess... An aging building, with high maintenance costs, in a part of the Loop almost exclusively office, with several glassy new Wacker Drive towers rising, and little hope for residential conversion. The big-name tenants had all but left, defecting to newer and shinier buildings - even the building's namesake had decamped. What remained was a smattering of smaller firms who could not afford the high rents typical of the area. With Hines and John Buck buying parcels left and right, the Pritzkers (owners of the building, and tenants across the street) took a gamble that a vacant, block-long site would get developers salivating. When it didn't, the Pritzkers decided to go long-term and wait for the area to fill up in order to get top dollar.

[Mr Downtown]

I didn't mean while the ordinance was under consideration, but after it was passed. Current owners would demolish buildings just so theoretical future purchasers wouldn't be encumbered by the ordinance's requirement to show financing in hand. The way office development projects are structured these days, the developer has to already have a big tenant on the hook, which generally means he has to deliver the building in record time. That's one reason we get a lot of 500,000 sq ft buildings instead of taller ones, and it's a reason developers strongly prefer empty sites.

[the urban politician]

^ I'm not sure I'm following. Once the Ordinance takes effect, developers can't demolish their properties unless they have shown proof of financing of their replacement projects.

I realize this becomes a problem in some of Chicago's highest zoned office districts, so how about this: exempt some districts (parcels in the West Loop near Wacker Dr, parcels along the main branch of Chicago River, etc) from this requirement.

That would prevent encumbrance of class A office development while still discouraging nonsense like the 150 E Ontario and Poetry Foundation demo's from happening.

[VivaLFuego]

For 150 East Ontario and any other skyscraper in a similar position: demolition is a fixed cost. By demolishing the buildings, the owners improve the site's resale value by offering a clean slate to prospective buyers. This gain in value, and the removal of building maintenance costs, is enough to offset the loss in revenue from the (now evicted) tenants.

I imagine the story is the same with regard to the (former) former CME Building. This is my best guess... An aging building, with high maintenance costs, in a part of the Loop almost exclusively office, with several glassy new Wacker Drive towers rising, and little hope for residential conversion. The big-name tenants had all but left, defecting to newer and shinier buildings - even the building's namesake had decamped. What remained was a smattering of smaller firms who could not afford the high rents typical of the area. With Hines and John Buck buying parcels left and right, the Pritzkers (owners of the building, and tenants across the street) took a gamble that a vacant, block-long site would get developers salivating. When it didn't, the Pritzkers decided to go long-term and wait for the area to fill up in order to get top dollar.

In other words, the property owners aren't being charged for the external costs they impose on the surrounding streetscape and the overall welfare of the city, and thus make decisions about their real property with only their interest in mind (as is, generally, their right, within the guidelines of zoning and such). I agree that there isn't much that can be done from an ordinance/legal standpoint, it's more of a philosophical issue. One could make an economic argument for a "demolition tax" that basically charges for the cost the newly vacant parcel would impose on the city - naturally, nearly impossible to price something like that, and very highly location-specific. Maybe the ordinance could be for a demolition tax under the auspices of the "environmental impact" or something, with the tax charged per ton of removed debris.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ What the city should do is impose a tax on surface lots and open lots of any kind. Any lot without a "significant, occupiable structure" would be subject to a tax per acre. Say the tax is equivalent to 1/12th the yearly property taxes on the property per month left unoccupied. Suddenly anyone who decides to tear down for an open lot or a parking lot is facing twice the yearly property taxes, something that would severely decrease the value of vacant land without decreasing the value of nearby lots occupied by a building. It would also have to have a provision of some type excluding lots with active construction and a grace period of 30 days or so between end of demolition and beginning of construction. But as soon as they tear something down, the 30 day counter starts, after that they start being forced to pay thousands of dollars a month for putting a gouge in the streetscape.

Think about it though, a tax like this would instantly drop the property values of all vacant lots in the city thereby stimulating a building boom on lots where the property values were too high to support the construction of smaller buildings like 3 flats or midrises. This would essentially encourage the construction of infill on "squatter lots" where a land speculator has bought a lot to sit on it and wait for values to increase.

This would of course be limited to neighborhoods that can support this kind of development to avoid putting an excessive burden on landowners in poorer parts of town. For example, it would apply in places like downtown (maybe the tax rate would increase with higher zoned properties) and Lincoln Park and other northside neighborhoods, but not in bombed out industrial districts or places like the far southside and Austin which cannot sustain new development to fill in vacant lots. Perhaps a hold on these taxes could be requested by a developer who has bought the lot within the last 3 or 6 months to give them time to plan and obtain financing for building on the property.

Now that I wrote this, I am starting to think this is an ordinance that could actually work and provide a significant benefit not only to the streetscape, but the city budget as well. Essentially forcing people to increase the value of their open lots (thereby generating more tax revenue) or pay a tax out of their own pockets. What do you all think?

[ardecila]

Hypothetical: vacant lots in Chicago's central area are taxed heavily. As a result, parking costs at existing lots rise, and vacant lots elsewhere are paved so that the parking income can offset the higher taxes.

Even if the tax worked as you intend, vacant lots would be filled with cheap, low-density, and out-of-scale buildings, like the 4-story Belmont Avenue-style condos they just threw up near Halsted/Washington. This would increase the development pressure on small historic buildings, leading to more teardowns of Chicago's fabric for tower construction.

Here's another side effect: negligent owners are now discouraged from tearing their buildings down. So owners who cannot afford to maintain their buildings now cannot tear them down either, leading to crumbling and dangerous buildings that are possibly a bigger drain on the streetscape than a vacant lot.

[lawfin]

^^^ What the city should do is impose a tax on surface lots and open lots of any kind. Any lot without a "significant, occupiable structure" would be subject to a tax per acre. Say the tax is equivalent to 1/12th the yearly property taxes on the property per month left unoccupied. Suddenly anyone who decides to tear down for an open lot or a parking lot is facing twice the yearly property taxes, something that would severely decrease the value of vacant land without decreasing the value of nearby lots occupied by a building. It would also have to have a provision of some type excluding lots with active construction and a grace period of 30 days or so between end of demolition and beginning of construction. But as soon as they tear something down, the 30 day counter starts, after that they start being forced to pay thousands of dollars a month for putting a gouge in the streetscape.

Think about it though, a tax like this would instantly drop the property values of all vacant lots in the city thereby stimulating a building boom on lots where the property values were too high to support the construction of smaller buildings like 3 flats or midrises. This would essentially encourage the construction of infill on "squatter lots" where a land speculator has bought a lot to sit on it and wait for values to increase.

This would of course be limited to neighborhoods that can support this kind of development to avoid putting an excessive burden on landowners in poorer parts of town. For example, it would apply in places like downtown (maybe the tax rate would increase with higher zoned properties) and Lincoln Park and other northside neighborhoods, but not in bombed out industrial districts or places like the far southside and Austin which cannot sustain new development to fill in vacant lots. Perhaps a hold on these taxes could be requested by a developer who has bought the lot within the last 3 or 6 months to give them time to plan and obtain financing for building on the property.

Now that I wrote this, I am starting to think this is an ordinance that could actually work and provide a significant benefit not only to the streetscape, but the city budget as well. Essentially forcing people to increase the value of their open lots (thereby generating more tax revenue) or pay a tax out of their own pockets. What do you all think?

Its an interesting thought experiment....but what if say in a demand crunch which we are currently in...say a developer had the unfortunate timing to do demo just before or at the start of the crunch....the underlying tenant walks....now the guy who had been engaging in legitimate development is going to get slammed.

Also just briefly....could this also incentive the building of buildings for buildings sake.....are empty / derelict building any better than empty lots?

[ChiMack]

whats the deal with the WESTAHAVEN PARK development and the Rockwell Gardens redevelopment im reading many people arent happy with them

[Nowhereman1280]

Hypothetical: vacant lots in Chicago's central area are taxed heavily. As a result, parking costs at existing lots rise, and vacant lots elsewhere are paved so that the parking income can offset the higher taxes.

Ideally the tax would be linked to the zoning or property assessments and apply to all neighborhoods that are adjacent to downtown and have a reasonable chance of healthy development occurring. For example, you wouldn't include the canal corridor since its industrial wasteland and would have no hope of development. Anyhow, excluding industrial zoned areas, there would be a gradual decrease in the tax along with values or zoing.

Even if the tax worked as you intend, vacant lots would be filled with cheap, low-density, and out-of-scale buildings, like the 4-story Belmont Avenue-style condos they just threw up near Halsted/Washington. This would increase the development pressure on small historic buildings, leading to more teardowns of Chicago's fabric for tower construction.

Frankly I don't care if they are filled with cheap low density buildings, even a crappy strip mall is a world of difference from an open lot or parking lot. Ideally Chicago's preservation laws would block the destruction of quality historic structures, but even assuming that fails, I think its been handily demonstrated that the availability of vacant land has little to no bearing on the likelihood of smaller historic buildings being torn down (see things like 155 wacker's plaza).

Here's another side effect: negligent owners are now discouraged from tearing their buildings down. So owners who cannot afford to maintain their buildings now cannot tear them down either, leading to crumbling and dangerous buildings that are possibly a bigger drain on the streetscape than a vacant lot.

That's the genius of only taxing open lots, it doesn't affect the decision to demolish, it only affects the decision to demolish and leave an open lot. So if someone has the ability to tear down a crumbling building and replace it with something new, they don't get punished, but if they decide to let it rot and it gets condemned and torn down, then they are in big financial trouble. I think we can both agree that a building in poor condition is usually much better than an open lot.

Its an interesting thought experiment....but what if say in a demand crunch which we are currently in...say a developer had the unfortunate timing to do demo just before or at the start of the crunch....the underlying tenant walks....now the guy who had been engaging in legitimate development is going to get slammed.

Also just briefly....could this also incentive the building of buildings for buildings sake.....are empty / derelict building any better than empty lots?

That is probably the biggest downside of the law. It would punish developers in market-wide downturns. However, that might also encourage developers to think a little bit more before tearing down and push them to ensure they have their entire deal legally guaranteed (signed K with down payment that could be used to pay the taxes until the economy turns around) before proceeding with a demo.

As far as empty lots vs derelict buildings, I would say the derelict building is better because we already have laws against letting buildings decay. There are tons of ordinances regarding mandatory maintenance and repairs. If someone decides to let their building decay, then the city can just slap them with condemnation (in which case the property could be resold at a lower cost to a more owner developer) or fines.

[Mr Downtown]

Some people believe the reason downtown Pittsburgh lost fewer buildings to parking lots than other cities is that they use a modified Georgist property tax system, which taxes the value of the property only, not the improvements.

[wrabbit]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3569/3654827611_e4ff636b1f_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3397/3654825027_1cacf38817_b.jpg

[Busy Bee]

^Finally.

While everyone keeps praising this pocket park that retains two of those buildings I still stand by in believing it would be better to clear the site all the way to Couch Place. I'm not a huge fan of grit or plazas/parks who's boundries are not streets. I don't know about you but the idea of a park being shoehorned into a site with an ugly party wall looming over it sounds like bad urban design and looks like State and Van Buren.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ If I owned those other two buildings I would slap a massive advertisement on that wall. I would literally offer to paint the logo of the highest bidder across the entire side of that building, so much for your lovely little plaza...

Some people believe the reason downtown Pittsburgh lost fewer buildings to parking lots than other cities is that they use a modified Georgist property tax system, which taxes the value of the property only, not the improvements.

Fascinating. Do you have any reading about this tax system? Any more specifics on the Pittsburgh tax code?

[emathias]

Some people believe the reason downtown Pittsburgh lost fewer buildings to parking lots than other cities is that they use a modified Georgist property tax system, which taxes the value of the property only, not the improvements.

I think every place should use that method, it's an excellent tool not only for preventing destruction of improvements, but to encourage density and best-use for parcels.

[Nowhereman1280]

I think every place should use that method, it's an excellent tool not only for preventing destruction of improvements, but to encourage density and best-use for parcels.

Not to mention land taxes are one of the few taxes that don't distort economic systems...

[VivaLFuego]

Not to mention land taxes are one of the few taxes that don't distort economic systems...

They are in theory one of the best taxes, but the practical issue with relying upon them becomes rather stark in establishing assessed values via objective, non-corruptible means... and I will here reference my cousin (not direct ancestor, phew), Russell Wolden of San Francisco fame...

[ardecila]

^Finally.

While everyone keeps praising this pocket park that retains two of those buildings I still stand by in believing it would be better to clear the site all the way to Couch Place. I'm not a huge fan of grit or plazas/parks who's boundries are not streets. I don't know about you but the idea of a park being shoehorned into a site with an ugly party wall looming over it sounds like bad urban design and looks like State and Van Buren.

Hold up. You'd rather have an even larger empty park, with a sterile and soulless parking garage forming one of its walls? :koko:

This would, of course, indicate that you favor the further demolition of the block, and additional loss of buildings that (presumably) are profitable, just for some ideal you have that parks should be bounded by streets/alleys only. Most buildings have alley elevations that are no more attractive than a party wall anyway, so I'm not sure how Couch Place mckakes a better boundary. I'm pretty sure that there will be some cleaning and tuckpointing on the party wall, considering that Buck is freely using taxpayer money for this plaza.

Remember that crapholes like Pritzker Plaza are considered acceptable in this city. Buck's plaza was lamentable because of the loss of historic buildings. Excuse me if I am glad when I find out that the hole cut in the urban fabric will be appropriately-scaled, and that the replacement plaza *gasp* has a decent design.

[Busy Bee]

Yep. I think parks should look planned. Not have the look of a knee jerk reaction of what to do with a couple vacant parcels. If you ask me, the perimeter with Couch Place could be 'designed' up a lot more convincingly than old buildings rough party walls that were never intended to be seen, let alone in a park like setting. Keeping them around just seems like a compromise and feels like a weak scheme.

[wrabbit]

A couple more shots of the Burnham Pavilions at MP, 6/22:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3311/3653085366_7740d232e5_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/3653444795_e2d5476093_b.jpg

[emathias]

Crains mentioned the proposed Sears Tower hotel building again http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34530 which seems to actually be a reference to a Wall Street Journal article here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124579804465944269.html)

They quote Fioretti saying this:
"Obviously they know their business better than I do, but I'm concerned about other hotels that the competition might cause to close,"

How stupid is this guy? If a green hotel causes non-green hotels to close, that's a good thing and the way market economies work to improve the overall environment while preserving a robust, healthy marketplace. Is Fioretti a communist now? His pandering is one thing, but this blatent anti-competition stance is just plain disgusting.

[lawfin]

^^^Yeah the guy is a total douche

[ChicagoChicago]

Crains mentioned the proposed Sears Tower hotel building again http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34530 which seems to actually be a reference to a Wall Street Journal article here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124579804465944269.html)

They quote Fioretti saying this:
"Obviously they know their business better than I do, but I'm concerned about other hotels that the competition might cause to close,"

How stupid is this guy? If a green hotel causes non-green hotels to close, that's a good thing and the way market economies work to improve the overall environment while preserving a robust, healthy marketplace. Is Fioretti a communist now? His pandering is one thing, but this blatent anti-competition stance is just plain disgusting.

Wow...Fiorettis sounds like one of the politicians (looters) in Atlas Shrugged. Competition? [gasp!]

[Taft]

Wow...Fiorettis sounds like one of the politicians (looters) in Atlas Shrugged. Competition? [gasp!]

That quote is staggeringly bad...even by the standards of Chicago politicians.

Following Fioretti's logic, no new businesses should be allowed to open. Won't somebody think of existing business owners!!!

[Nowhereman1280]

I am still shocked that someone as dumb as Fioretti could ever get elected in the first place. The guy is just a dunce. I might have to move into the 2nd ward so I can run against him in a few years. I have a feeling that all one would need is to go around with a list of quotes like the last few and show them to local businesses and ask for a donation and your campaign chest would fill in minutes...

[Haworthia]

I am still shocked that someone as dumb as Fioretti could ever get elected in the first place. The guy is just a dunce. I might have to move into the 2nd ward so I can run against him in a few years. I have a feeling that all one would need is to go around with a list of quotes like the last few and show them to local businesses and ask for a donation and your campaign chest would fill in minutes...

How can this guy get elected? Take a look at some of the comments here:
http://www.chicagojournal.com/Blogs/Near-Loop-Wire/06-19-2009/Dorm,_Rockwell,_Congress_projects_get_the_go-ahead

Some people are upset that he isn't NIMBY enough! All the more amusing since these projects are in or near the CBD which is one of the densest parts of the city.

[emathias]

How can this guy get elected? Take a look at some of the comments here:
http://www.chicagojournal.com/Blogs/Near-Loop-Wire/06-19-2009/Dorm,_Rockwell,_Congress_projects_get_the_go-ahead

Some people are upset that he isn't NIMBY enough! All the more amusing since these projects are in or near the CBD which is one of the densest parts of the city.

This is why infrastructure and zoning should be removed from Alderman perogative - at least for the Central Area. There is no earthly reason to individual districts dictate the use of city-wide resources.

[BWChicago]

If a green hotel causes non-green hotels to close, that's a good thing and the way market economies work to improve the overall environment while preserving a robust, healthy marketplace.

The hotel buildings cease to exist with no impact on the environment?

[ardecila]

What hotels exist in the 2nd Ward that could possibly compete with one at the Sears? Given its location, it will be almost 100% business travelers. The only immediate competition I can think of is the JW Marriott on LaSalle. Since hotels are scarce in the financial district, business travelers tend to spread out among the North Loop and River North hotels, so this hotel would only steal a few guests from each one. Even in this depressed economy, I doubt a Sears hotel would cause a closure of another hotel elsewhere.

[emathias]

The hotel buildings cease to exist with no impact on the environment?

I didn't say instantly, did I?

it allows them to trend down to other, potentially less-intensive, uses. Or if the primary tenant goes out of business an investor can more easily retrofit the building to be more efficient before it goes back into service.

Assuming growth ever happens again (which I think is a safe assumption in the mid-to-long term), there will be more demand for buildings. Stopping buildings because some businesses can't compete isn't a good long-term strategy.

[wrabbit]

My head's going to explode from reading the nonsense that Fioretti is spouting. Who could he possibly be pandering to with this? Or is he really that dim?

[emathias]

What hotels exist in the 2nd Ward that could possibly compete with one at the Sears? Given its location, it will be almost 100% business travelers. The only immediate competition I can think of is the JW Marriott on LaSalle. Since hotels are scarce in the financial district, business travelers tend to spread out among the North Loop and River North hotels, so this hotel would only steal a few guests from each one. Even in this depressed economy, I doubt a Sears hotel would cause a closure of another hotel elsewhere.

I don't know where the exact 2nd ward boundaries are in the Loop, but there is the W Hotel on Adams between Lasalle and Wells, the Club Quarters on Adams between Clark and Lasalle, the new La Quinta on Franklin (probably not in the same competitive sphere as those, though), then whatever that hotel at Madison and Halsted is called these days, a Holiday Inn at Harrison and Canal, Union League has rooms on Jackson at Federal, Hotel Blake at Congress and Federal, and Hotel Allegro on Randolph between Lasalle and Wells. I think those are all the ones ostensibly within a fast-paced 10-minute walk. There is also a hotel being built out in that older bank building on the corner of Adams and Lasalle, scheduled for 2010. But I don't think 300 rooms added within walking distance of millions of square feet of new office space from the past 10 years is a threat to anyone.

[emathias]

My head's going to explode from reading the nonsense that Fioretti is spouting. Who could he possibly be pandering to with this? Or is he really that dim?

I had sent him a complaint via his website. I'm not one of his constituents - Reilly's my alderman - but he called me back and left a voicemail anyway. He basically said he's concerned because of all the recent hotel construction.

Of course that cuts both ways. Until two years ago, hotels were at pretty high capacity and average room prices were rising pretty strongly. It's good for Chicago to have lower average hotel costs. Lower costs help attract convention business and tourism, both of which are especially important both to the central area in general and to blue and pink collar workers.

Overbuilding hotels isn't good for hotel companies, but building a hotel is always a speculative investment, so I don't begrudge them high profits when times are good, and I don't have any special sympathy when times are hard.

[ardecila]

I don't know where the exact 2nd ward boundaries are in the Loop, but there is the W Hotel on Adams between Lasalle and Wells, the Club Quarters on Adams between Clark and Lasalle, the new La Quinta on Franklin (probably not in the same competitive sphere as those, though), then whatever that hotel at Madison and Halsted is called these days, a Holiday Inn at Harrison and Canal, Union League has rooms on Jackson at Federal, Hotel Blake at Congress and Federal, and Hotel Allegro on Randolph between Lasalle and Wells. I think those are all the ones ostensibly within a fast-paced 10-minute walk.

Wow, a lot of these I haven't even heard of. No, it's true, La Quinta and Holiday Inn are nowhere near the level of the other properties you mentioned. Club Quarters, Union League, and Hotel Blake are new to me, however. I stand corrected. Those three have fantastic locations, architecturally-speaking.

[wrabbit]

6/24 Riverwalk

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3548/3660128270_8d7313c86d_b.jpg

[Busy Bee]

Really though, I think the crush granite would have been a better surface for a riverwalk than concrete that will look like old concrete in less than 10 years.

[Hayward]

^ Yikes, recessiontecture. I don't like the concrete either.

[TorancisOMP]

Grant Park Freestyling

By Phil Geib and Keith Claxton | Tribune Graphics

With tricks that require dropping from towers, flying high and inventing intricate choreography in the air, the events at this weekend's Nike 6.0 BMX Open could easily be confused with Cirque du Soleil routines.

The Dew Tour begins the first of five stops of this season on Friday in Grant Park, where some of the world's best riders will compete in BMX park, dirt and vert events.

Beyond the two-day competition, spectators can enjoy daily Festive Village interactive events, athlete autograph signings and a concert by Chicago-native Lupe Fiasco and Lady Sovereign.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-bmx-html,0,6969593.htmlpage

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34545

New owner to renovate small North Michigan building
By Samantha Sleevi, June 25, 2009

...J. B. Realty Inc. plans a complete renovation of 326 N. Michigan, a 22,500-square-foot structure that has been empty for at least four years, says principal John Balourdos.

...Mr. Balourdos is planning to put a new facade on the structure, which was built in 1910. He is marketing the first and second floors to retailers and wants to land an office tenant for the third floor.

“Hopefully we’ll be starting construction by the beginning of next year,” he says.

[VivaLFuego]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34545

New owner to renovate small North Michigan building
By Samantha Sleevi, June 25, 2009

...J. B. Realty Inc. plans a complete renovation of 326 N. Michigan, a 22,500-square-foot structure that has been empty for at least four years, says principal John Balourdos.

...Mr. Balourdos is planning to put a new facade on the structure, which was built in 1910. He is marketing the first and second floors to retailers and wants to land an office tenant for the third floor.

“Hopefully we’ll be starting construction by the beginning of next year,” he says.

Street view: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=326+n.+michigan+chicago+il&sll=37.509726,-95.712891&sspn=48.135694,76.904297&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.887558,-87.624505&panoid=-hnL5d7J6jKerl-4bBNP8g&cbp=12,271.27,,1,-6.88

[Via Chicago]

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34545

New owner to renovate small North Michigan building
By Samantha Sleevi, June 25, 2009

...J. B. Realty Inc. plans a complete renovation of 326 N. Michigan, a 22,500-square-foot structure that has been empty for at least four years, says principal John Balourdos.

...Mr. Balourdos is planning to put a new facade on the structure, which was built in 1910. He is marketing the first and second floors to retailers and wants to land an office tenant for the third floor.

“Hopefully we’ll be starting construction by the beginning of next year,” he says.

Ughh, are you kidding me. What the hell is with this fascination of facade alteration....

[denizen467]

It does look the existing facade might be a little weary, in need of restoration (if worth it - hard to tell from google). The question is, do they have to wreck the existing facade or can they carefully just envelop it?

[Mr Downtown]

It might be the second time that building's been refaced. Here's that block when Michigan Avenue was being widened in the late teens (on the left; the church is elsewhere). They just cut the front 30 feet off existing buildings:

http://www.chicagocarto.com/burnham/images/refacing_lourdes.jpg

[Via Chicago]

It might be the second time that building's been refaced. Here's that block when Michigan Avenue was being widened in the late teens (on the left; the church is elsewhere). They just cut the front 30 feet off existing buildings:

http://www.chicagocarto.com/burnham/images/refacing_lourdes.jpg

i always wondered how they did that; I just assumed they demolished anything in their path.

In any case, its still a beautiful facade that with some moderate restoration work would be good as new. I just have a hard time imagining what they put up is going to look appropriate or appealing. Every time I've seen these plastered-on facades they look horrendous.

[MrLakepoint]

6/24 Riverwalk

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3548/3660128270_8d7313c86d_b.jpg

I was sitting at the Vietnam war memorial today and they were testing the water sprinklers there and I was sitting next to one of the workers who was working on the riverwalk and he told me that they will be down in two weeks. Also, he told me that he heard that the Chicago "spire" hole may be filled in the next few weeks. Take it for whats worth.

[Busy Bee]

^Not worth anything, even if the Spire hypothetically went kaput, no way, especially not this soon, would they do anything as drastic as fill a multi million dollar investment with dirt. There would be no marketing advantage to a submerged dirt filled steel core for sale over just leaving everything as is. This is all a silly rumor anyway.

[pilsenarch]

^Not worth anything, even if the Spire hypothetically went kaput, no way, especially not this soon, would they do anything as drastic as fill a multi million dollar investment with dirt. There would be no marketing advantage to a submerged dirt filled steel core for sale over just leaving everything as is. This is all a silly rumor anyway.

Liability?

[wrabbit]

Not sure what's going on here, but the wraps look pretty good:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3663581989_46579ec580_b.jpg

[ardecila]

It's probably just a new paint job on the fire escape. Nothing too dramatic. I agree, though, the tarps do look kinda cool.

Via Chicago: This building has the advantage of being between two others. Nobody will be able to tell that the building is old. In other situations, where one or more party walls are exposed, the incongruity of Old Chicago brick and the shiny facade is irritating.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2655020.story

City's second waterfront
Riverwalk improved, but hurdles remain
Blair Kamin Cityscapes
June 28, 2009

...........While this stretch of river walk has faults, including some areas with too much concrete, it nonetheless sets a high standard for future riverwalk development. In the next couple of weeks, the city hopes to advertise a request for proposals for the State-to-Lake Street portion of the riverwalk, according to Michelle Woods, the CDOT project manager who oversaw the new riverwalk.

And during the summer, the architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill will present to the Chicago Plan Commission a long-range "framework plan" for the 1.3-mile-long trunk of the river between Lake Street and Lake Michigan.

The plan, still in draft form, calls for creating four "identity districts" along the river, according to Wilson, who is urban planning practice leader for Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. Among them would be a new chunk of green space at the confluence of the river's North and South Branches that would extend 50 feet into the water and feature a restaurant or some other "destination amenity."..................,,

[wrabbit]

"Destination Amenities" are great and all, but sometimes all you want to do is sit, like at the Vets' Memorial.

[harryc]

Britanicca roof ( I still think of it as traffic court)
June 23
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SkfqJXqzi1I/AAAAAAABVl4/mbGCVQLqzCw/s800/P1410776.JPG
heated floor
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SkfqLmVCA5I/AAAAAAABVmA/BcHVEdIJ_-k/s800/P1410777.JPG
June 24
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SkfqNu1_34I/AAAAAAABVmI/u2N4F_0rDCI/s800/P1410874.JPG

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I'm still very curious to find out what they are doing up there. I thought it might have been a green roof, but now they are putting thermal coils in it to give it snow melting capability. I wonder if we will be seeing the installation of a new restaurant or something up there? It would certainly be an excellent place for an outdoor terrace.

[harryc]

^^^ I'm still very curious to find out what they are doing up there. I thought it might have been a green roof, but now they are putting thermal coils in it to give it snow melting capability. I wonder if we will be seeing the installation of a new restaurant or something up there? It would certainly be an excellent place for an outdoor terrace.

The thermal coils are only on the Norhter 2/5's ( dark gray sections on the R in the photo above ).
This is also the section that has obvious stubs for further beams.
The desk guard said they were adding another floor, he feels that this is an affront to an historic building - but they didn't ask him ;)

[spyguy]

:previous:
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/5296/reidmurdochbldgpenthous.jpg

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Thanks guys. That's pretty decent looking, its a cool way to use the top floor of this building. Any idea what's going to be occupying that space? I would assume a restaurant.

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer 6/28/09


http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4572/dsc0262slp.jpg


http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/1331/dsc0263d.jpg


http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4592/dsc0266.jpg

[Busy Bee]

We could talk this one to death, but while nice these parkhomes just don't do it for me.

[AdrianXSands]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer 6/28/09


http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4572/dsc0262slp.jpg


"a new urban masterpiece"
WOW. i'm frightened by the thought of a person who'd look at this and think: now this is luxury.

these parkhomes are an embarrassment, not only to the city... to the entire world.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer 6/28/09
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4572/dsc0262slp.jpg


http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/632c3979-4087-4845-bdfd-511a0a21b16d.jpg

Reminds me of the Schaumburg Library for some reason in Schaumburg IL. What is that big dome on top for? or is that behind these homes?

[lawfin]

"a new urban masterpiece"
WOW. i'm frightened by the thought of a person who'd look at this and think: now this is luxury.

these parkhomes are an embarrassment, not only to the city... to the entire world.

This I think is the first time Adrian and I agree...

This is pure schmaltz

[lawfin]

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/632c3979-4087-4845-bdfd-511a0a21b16d.jpg

Reminds me of the Schaumburg Library for some reason in Schaumburg IL. What is that big dome on top for? or is that behind these homes?

its a swimming pool for one the the building behind...I forget which one now

[BWChicago]

:previous:
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/5296/reidmurdochbldgpenthous.jpg

Also a Chicago Landmark. The commission seems pretty permissive of additions.

[denizen467]

Who is the proud architect of the LSE parkhomes - Loewenberg, presumably?

[denizen467]

The desk guard said they were adding another floor, he feels that this is an affront to an historic building - but they didn't ask him ;)
I like desk guards with attitude - and their opinions on historical and cultural issues :tup:

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

This I think is the first time Adrian and I agree...

This is pure schmaltz

They really are truly terrible.

[cbotnyse]

"a new urban masterpiece"
WOW. i'm frightened by the thought of a person who'd look at this and think: now this is luxury.

these parkhomes are an embarrassment, not only to the city... to the entire world.I think this is a bit extreme. These townhomes are nothing special architectually, but I'd certianly love to own that much square footage at that location.

[BVictor1]

I think this is a bit extreme. These townhomes are nothing special architectually, but I'd certianly love to own that much square footage at that location.

I agree.

They aren't special, but they aren't the abomination of the world. They should have been more diverst with the brick color and accents.

[ChicagoChicago]

From BK's blog:

City's second waterfront: Riverwalk improved, but hurdles remain

It was lunchtime downtown and Justin Grant felt like sunning himself. But instead of heading to a tanning spa, the 23-year-old sales manager left his office building and strolled to the newest stretch of Chicago's riverwalk, where he stripped off his blue shirt and stretched out on a concrete bench.

"This is a great place to come," Grant said. "You can watch the boats go by."

In recent weeks, scores of walkers, joggers, bicyclists and others have discovered the riverwalk that just opened on the Chicago River's south bank. Stretching from east of the Michigan Avenue Bridge to Wabash Avenue, with an extension to State Street due to wrap up in early July, the handsome, people-friendly public space marks the latest step in Mayor Richard Daley's ambitious drive to make the riverfront a prime public space downtown and in the city's outlying neighborhoods...

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/06/citys-second-waterfront-riverwalk-improved-but-hurdles-remain.html



I didn't know that the plan was to improve the riverwalk all the way to Lake St. That's promising.

[harryc]

d.p.

[harryc]

May 12
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SkoMyJRY0qI/AAAAAAABWjE/a-FeqwR9Ir4/s800/P1360923.JPG

May 28
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SkoMy_6Oq0I/AAAAAAABWjM/aBoWWnXGEUs/s800/P1390166.JPG

June 13
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SkoMzh4yZoI/AAAAAAABWjU/WyKyh2QOJPw/s800/P1410103.JPG

June 23
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SkoKsDLIEgI/AAAAAAABWiE/G0KdSQBpksY/s800/P1410801.JPG

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SkoKsoJVKWI/AAAAAAABWiM/liyf16AjRSk/s800/P1410802.JPG

[EarlyBuyer]

Who is the proud architect of the LSE parkhomes - Loewenberg, presumably?

Steinberg Architects, California

http://www.steinbergarchitects.com/

[Via Chicago]

May 12
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SkoMyJRY0qI/AAAAAAABWjE/a-FeqwR9Ir4/s800/P1360923.JPG


Its still too hard for me to look at this....

[Via Chicago]

And in related news...

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/06/oak-park-redevelopment-plan-advances.html

Oak Park redevelopment plan advances

The downtown gateway of Oak Park's Frank Lloyd Wright Historic District may soon look very different with a 19-story glass residential tower, 120-room hotel and new retail space wrapped around a new enclosed parking garage....

This is going to look atrocious...

And I still cant place where this will be. Is that the former site of the old Pancake House?

[jcchii]

^yes. pancake house and that parking deck next to it

basically right across the street from the tall residential building on Lake

[AdrianXSands]

finally made it to the modern wing today. the bridge is spectacular, and the building is absolutely stunning, flawless details. best building this city has seen since... i can't even say...
it's up there with crown hall and inland steel.

it blows away the calatrava in milwaukee... easily. it is, quite simply, a masterpiece.

[J_M_Tungsten]

They are all nice.

[lawfin]

finally made it to the modern wing today. the bridge is spectacular, and the building is absolutely stunning, flawless details. best building this city has seen since... i can't even say...
it's up there with crown hall and inland steel.

it blows away the calatrava in milwaukee... easily. it is, quite simply, a masterpiece.

This maybe the second time I agree with AX

[denizen467]

it blows away the calatrava in milwaukee... easily. it is, quite simply, a masterpiece.
Would you generally feel that Piano bests Calatrava in institutional and similar projects?

also... i thought i'd share a pretty cute architectural opinion...
my son says: the trump tower isn't as cool as the serious (sears) tower or the john hancock tower because it only has one spike. but it is cool because it's blue and shiny.
Is that true - thought you said you were an architecture student - or are both correct?

[sukwoo]

And in related news...



This is going to look atrocious...

And I still cant place where this will be. Is that the former site of the old Pancake House?

Here's more detail from the local paper.

http://wjinc.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=14939

[ChicagoChicago]

Here's more detail from the local paper.

http://wjinc.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=14939

What does the hotel market look like in Oak Park? At first thought, I'm struggling to see how this thing will be financially viable.

[sukwoo]

What does the hotel market look like in Oak Park? At first thought, I'm struggling to see how this thing will be financially viable.

Supposedly, market research commissioned by the village suggests that demand exists (otherwise the village presumably wouldn't be subsidizing this proposal.) Oak Park only has two hotels (plus a few B&Bs). Outside the village, the nearest hotels are 6+ miles away near O'hare/Franklin Park. The proprietor of the Carleton Hotel (in Oak Park) isn't happy about having a new (subsidized) competitor for obvious reasons.

Personally, I'm happy to see that block get a big density boost. I know lot of the old-timers around here don't like the idea, but I think most of that is NIMBYism.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Old Colony Building looking good.

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_2026.jpg

235 W. Van Buren

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/235w.jpg

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_2016.jpg

155 N. Wacker

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_1991.jpg

[AdrianXSands]

Old Colony Building looking good.

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_2026.jpg


:stunned:
unbelievable

[BVictor1]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/1648523,thomas-roszak-chapter-7-bankruptcy-070109.article

Developer Thomas Roszak, companies file for Chapter 7

July 1, 2009

BY DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com

Not even a highly publicized auction of condominiums could save the business of architect and developer Thomas Roszak. Roszak and companies he controls filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. The filing indicates he will liquidate rather than reorganize operations.

He has been a busy developer from Evanston to the South Loop, drawing acclaim for his designs and lawsuits over his business practices. Roszak has been sued by investors who accused him of mishandling money from their partnerships, and he settled at least one case.

Roszak designed a 31-story tower at 601 S. Wells called Vetro. In March, he staged an auction that led to the sale of 45 units in a slow market. But his court filing listed such creditors as Bank of America, a lender at Vetro, and debts associated with an Evanston condo project called Sienna.

In an e-mail, Roszak attributed his plight to “an unprecedented decline in housing values.” His filing claimed less than $10 million in assets vs. at least $50 million in liabilities.

[BorisMolotov]

Regarding the Old Colony Building, are there any other old buildings in desperate need of cleaining? I always see one in the northern part of the loop with like almost yellow and dirty black bricks, is that intentional or is that on purpose?

[wrabbit]

Notice in window is for development of 470' building at 421-25 & 430-38 S Michigan - this would be the Roosevelt U dorm tower.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2626/3682998828_4353694c83_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3549/3683199563_7ea85919cc_b.jpg

It's a strange little building - cast iron/terra-cotta mix on the face? - but I'm kinda fond of it and will be sorry if it goes.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Old Colony Building looking good.
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_2026.jpg

I never even noticed the fire escape stairs until they started cleaning this thing. They blended in so well with the rest of the building. I wish they would get rid of them, quite an eyesore for such a nice building (now).

[Busy Bee]

You could really get into a real debate on an architecture forum like this when one starts to talk about pro and anti fire escapes. It's really 50/50 for me. The shielded turds that were on the Palmer House, yeah those were terrible and I'm glad they're gone. But others on old apartment houses in NY or like these on the Old Colony I don't mind—they seem to add texture, dimension and interest.

[J_M_Tungsten]

I agree that some buildings look good with fire escaped, especially darker brick buildings, but just try to image the Old Colony building with out the stairs, it would look amazing, just like it did when it was built, but yes some buildings do look like they were meant to have them.

[BWChicago]

This photo also shows the repainting going on at Harold Washington Library - which makes no sense to me, I thought the color was supposed to be like patina-ed copper. The dark green just looks like... dark green.

[Mr Downtown]

are there any other old buildings in desperate need of cleaning?

The Edison (now Board of Education) Building at Clark/Adams. I think there's resistance to doing anything that might be thought of as a "waste" of money needed for education, though a few years ago there was a rumor that TIF money had been allocated for the project.

[denizen467]

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/235w.jpg
You were on the Skydeck?!?? How was The Ledge?
More pressingly, how long are the lines??

[J_M_Tungsten]

It was pretty sweet actually, I highly recommend it! I thought it would have been more "thrilling" honestly though. I got there right at 10 so the lines weren't so bad, but when we we're leaving around 1130 the line was out the door and went down Jackson! Im going to post more pics from inside later on other threads so keep an eye out! :cheers:

[ardecila]

This photo also shows the repainting going on at Harold Washington Library - which makes no sense to me, I thought the color was supposed to be like patina-ed copper. The dark green just looks like... dark green.

Yea, you're right. My only thought is that it might be an overcompensation for fading, so that once the paint fades, it will be the appropriate shade?

Fading certainly hasn't been kind to the Thompson Center - I can see why CPL would want to avoid that problem.

[wrabbit]

.....Fading certainly hasn't been kind to the Thompson Center - I can see why CPL would want to avoid that problem.

Yeah - the TC is looking rat-eared.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/20090614-20090614-_1180491-1-2.jpg



Or is that supposed to be the Korean Peninsula in the top panel?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/20090614-20090614-_1180491-1-3.jpg

[the urban politician]

Surprised this was never posted.

Now if Chicago can just keep up this growth for a decade, it will gain 200,000 residents:

Chicago population rises for 2nd year in a row (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-city-population-01-jul01,0,754485.story?track=rss)
Recession forces many residents to stay put

Tribune staff report
July 1, 2009
For the second year in a row, Chicago's overall population increased, challenging the trend of declining population as the economy causes many urban residents to put off moves to suburbia.

From July 1, 2007, to July 1, 2008, Chicago grew by 20,606 people, according to population estimates released Wednesday by the Census Bureau. That's more than three times the previous year's reported increase of 6,400 people, which reversed five consecutive years of population declines.

Part of the explanation for Chicago's population increase are changes in domestic migration patterns. The number of residents leaving Cook County slowed by nearly 11 percent from 2006 to 2007, while those entering the county fell by only 0.4 percent, according to demographer Kenneth Johnson, a professor of the University of New Hampshire who previously taught at Loyola University Chicago.

Large cities across the country continue to lose people who leave for other communities in the United States, but the rate of loss has diminished in the last year as more people remain in place.

Chicago is still the third largest U.S. city, with 2.85 million people.

[wrabbit]

^ I'm somewhat suspicious of these interim census reports, as they have been inaccurate in the past. The full 10-year census coming up should be a better indicator. Last time round, the interim reports were showing population losses whereas in fact the full census showed a population gain for the period.

[sentinel]

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_2026.jpg
:stunned:
unbelievable

Adrian I was thinking the same exact thing!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Talk about a transformation!!! It looks like a brand new building. In fact I think this revelation deserves a :banana: