[lawfin]

New construction housing is dramatically uneconomical if being built for low-income residents, and all the more so in the city where the land value per square foot is higher than way out in the sprawly urban fringe - it has been ever since the advent of basic building codes that made super cheap and flimsy wood frame shacks illegal. It's just sort of a basic law of life now that lower income people don't live in brand new housing unless that housing is drastically subsidized, and one has to wonder if all levels of government don't have more important things to spend money on than subsidized housing when unsubsidized housing units still exist.

Saying that low income folk deserve subsidized brand new housing is akin to saying low income folk deserve a subsidized fresh-off-the-factory-line Land Rover, rather than simply having to live within their means and get a cheaper used car.

I wish people wouldnt be so offended by the fact that new construction housing generally targets the middle, upper-middle, and upper income brackets because those are the only price points at which it's economical to develop. It is what it is. Poor people live in 'used' housing, just like they drive used cars. By all means their housing should not be 'sub-standard' and should be livable, safe, and sanitary, but that's a big difference from demanding new construction.

Well said

[J_M_Tungsten]

New construction housing is dramatically uneconomical if being built for low-income residents, and all the more so in the city where the land value per square foot is higher than way out in the sprawly urban fringe - it has been ever since the advent of basic building codes that made super cheap and flimsy wood frame shacks illegal. It's just sort of a basic law of life now that lower income people don't live in brand new housing unless that housing is drastically subsidized, and one has to wonder if all levels of government don't have more important things to spend money on than subsidized housing when unsubsidized housing units still exist.

Saying that low income folk deserve subsidized brand new housing is akin to saying low income folk deserve a subsidized fresh-off-the-factory-line Land Rover, rather than simply having to live within their means and get a cheaper used car.

I wish people wouldnt be so offended by the fact that new construction housing generally targets the middle, upper-middle, and upper income brackets because those are the only price points at which it's economical to develop. It is what it is. Poor people live in 'used' housing, just like they drive used cars. By all means their housing should not be 'sub-standard' and should be livable, safe, and sanitary, but that's a big difference from demanding new construction.

Spot on my friend. The Land Rover analogy is perfect.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Not quite sure where to ask this question, but all my Chicago people seem to know what they are talking about, so here goes.


http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_1848.jpg
Does anybody know how they plan on removing these two cranes out of the center of this 14 story building once it is done with the steel framework? I know they built a foundation for it to sit on, so right now it is firmly anchored to the ground. I saw them adding pieces to jump the crane up another 50ft, but how will they remove it? I've read that they can use a bigger crane to pull the pieces out, but what crane can they get that is bigger than the 268ft cranes already in place?! Besides that, they would have to close Harrison st, and Ashland, something I'm sure the city would not be happy about.


Second question. What is the point of filling up this area with water? A leak test for the basement below? They put down that orange and black stuff and then turn on the hose? what gives?
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/2.jpg


If you want to see more pics to get a better picture of this project and the cranes positioning, here is the link http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=169510

Thanks guys.

[BWChicago]

Tell them to get jobs so they can afford affordable housing!

Yeah, there are all sorts of jobs out there!

[lawfin]

Yeah, there are all sorts of jobs out there!
Hey I am looking too.....JkAz....but you know what?

I am not clamoring for someone to build me affordable housing....if I have to rent I have to rent...

Since when is homeownership a right?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

New construction housing is dramatically uneconomical if being built for low-income residents, and all the more so in the city where the land value per square foot is higher than way out in the sprawly urban fringe - it has been ever since the advent of basic building codes that made super cheap and flimsy wood frame shacks illegal. It's just sort of a basic law of life now that lower income people don't live in brand new housing unless that housing is drastically subsidized, and one has to wonder if all levels of government don't have more important things to spend money on than subsidized housing when unsubsidized housing units still exist.

Saying that low income folk deserve subsidized brand new housing is akin to saying low income folk deserve a subsidized fresh-off-the-factory-line Land Rover, rather than simply having to live within their means and get a cheaper used car.

I wish people wouldnt be so offended by the fact that new construction housing generally targets the middle, upper-middle, and upper income brackets because those are the only price points at which it's economical to develop. It is what it is. Poor people live in 'used' housing, just like they drive used cars. By all means their housing should not be 'sub-standard' and should be livable, safe, and sanitary, but that's a big difference from demanding new construction.

Since when is homeownership a right?

:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:

[ChicagoHiRiser]

Hey I am looking too.....JkAz....but you know what?

I am not clamoring for someone to build me affordable housing....if I have to rent I have to rent...

Since when is homeownership a right?

Since America went to an entitlement paradigm.

More specifically since this is Chicago: Bronzeville residents have a lot of votes and would prefer voting themselves money as most voters do.

But at least if they locate the low income housing units in Bronzeville they're not in my neighborhood.

[ChiMack]

Since America went to an entitlement paradigm.

More specifically since this is Chicago: Bronzeville residents have a lot of votes and would prefer voting themselves money as most voters do.

But at least if they locate the low income housing units in Bronzeville they're not in my neighborhood.




with the elections around the corner wouldnt daley be inclinedto listen, what if we dontgetthe olypmics will hebe inclined to listen more to them cause i think in the next election he will be more vulnerable...

[aic4ever]

Not quite sure where to ask this question, but all my Chicago people seem to know what they are talking about, so here goes.


http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_1848.jpg
Does anybody know how they plan on removing these two cranes out of the center of this 14 story building once it is done with the steel framework? I know they built a foundation for it to sit on, so right now it is firmly anchored to the ground. I saw them adding pieces to jump the crane up another 50ft, but how will they remove it? I've read that they can use a bigger crane to pull the pieces out, but what crane can they get that is bigger than the 268ft cranes already in place?! Besides that, they would have to close Harrison st, and Ashland, something I'm sure the city would not be happy about.


Second question. What is the point of filling up this area with water? A leak test for the basement below? They put down that orange and black stuff and then turn on the hose? what gives?
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/2.jpg


If you want to see more pics to get a better picture of this project and the cranes positioning, here is the link http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=169510

Thanks guys.

They will likely use one crane to take down the other, then a street crane to take down the remaining one. If it's too high, they'll use a helicopter. The city is all too happy to close off a piece of street if you've got the money for it. Depending on where it is, it can be as much as or more than $20,000 a day.

[sammyg]

Hey I am looking too.....JkAz....but you know what?

I am not clamoring for someone to build me affordable housing....if I have to rent I have to rent...

The only reason you and i can afford to rent is that enough affordable housing has been built to absorb some of the demand.

[emathias]

The only reason you and i can afford to rent is that enough affordable housing has been built to absorb some of the demand.

I kinda doubt he's in the same marketplace as your average recipient of affordable housing, in terms of unit size, desired location location and amenities, etc.

[emathias]

...
Saying that low income folk deserve subsidized brand new housing is akin to saying low income folk deserve a subsidized fresh-off-the-factory-line Land Rover, rather than simply having to live within their means and get a cheaper used car.
...

Actually, could I have a Mercedes CL63 instead?

Seriously, though, that's not a bad analogy, since I suspect that close on the heels of people losing their homes due to job loss is people losing their homes because they didn't realize how much more expensive it was to keep them up vs. renting. A Land Rover will cost you quite a bit more to keep up than, for example, a used Ford Explorer, even if they are comparable in function.

Edmunds puts an estimated "True Cost to Own" on a new Range Rover at $113,000 over five years, vs. just under $35,000 for a used 2004 Ford Explorer over five years. Even ignoring depreciation and finance fees (since in the housing comparision, it's like "giving" them away), it's $48,000 vs. $28,500. Obviously, like home ownership, Range Rovers aren't for everyone.

[Chicagoguy]

I was wondering if anyone has heard what will be moving into the old Barneys New York location on Rush Street. I passed by it the other day and saw nothing promising. I was also wondering if anyone knows of more designer stores or boutiques that are scheduled to open in Chicago. I know Marc Jacobs is opening a store at the base of the Elysian but other than that I haven't heard any news lately!

[spyguy]

I was wondering if anyone has heard what will be moving into the old Barneys New York location on Rush Street. I passed by it the other day and saw nothing promising. I was also wondering if anyone knows of more designer stores or boutiques that are scheduled to open in Chicago. I know Marc Jacobs is opening a store at the base of the Elysian but other than that I haven't heard any news lately!

Hermes so far, maybe Faconnable. There is a retail thread on SSC (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=441045) that might better answer your questions.

[harryc]

Not quite sure where to ask this question, but all my Chicago people seem to know what they are talking about, so here goes.

...

Second question. What is the point of filling up this area with water? A leak test for the basement below? They put down that orange and black stuff and then turn on the hose? what gives?
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/2.jpg


If you want to see more pics to get a better picture of this project and the cranes positioning, here is the link http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=169510

Thanks guys.

Testing for leaks

[Nowhereman1280]

The only reason you and i can afford to rent is that enough affordable housing has been built to absorb some of the demand.

No, if you haven't noticed, almost none of the existing housing stock in Chicago was "built as affordable housing". Almost all of it was built as super luxury housing or by the occupants themselves before the onset of labor unions. Look at the northside, it was constructed in waves of extreme wealth. Edgewater is very affordable today, but only because it had two massive waves of ultra-desirable markets that encouraged the construction of tons of housing. One in the 1920's built all the old apartments, then in the 60's a bunch of Highrises were built. None of it was originally constructed as affordable housing, but rather, as the buildings age, the housing has become affordable.

[BWChicago]

Anybody ever hear of the FHA or GI Bill? Post-war building boom?

[wrabbit]

Marina City? Hull House? Bungalows? Four-plus-ones?

[VivaLFuego]

But those are middle class housing, not "affordable housing" limited to people making 60% or less than the median area income, which is what the various local housing advocates are after. Furthermore many such projects (full disclosure: I live in Sandburg Village) targeted solidly at the middle instead of the upper-middle or upper still required some subsidy in terms of public write-downs of land value or public financing for construction (both being used for middle-class urban housing like Sandburg Village, Presidential Towers, etc.).

And of course, FHA was (or rather, is) housing subsidization, so doesn't that just support the point that building anything for lower strata of the buyer pool generally requires some form of subsidy?

The conditions that naturally make low-to-middle-income housing construction uneconomical are exaggerated further by (1) expensive construction labor costs, (2) building codes, and (3) high urban land values (in contrast to the greenfield fringe). I think (1) is debatable but defendable as a good thing, (2) is almost definitely a good thing, and (3) is a market force.

I guess the broader point is I don't see why it's not accepted as a given that lower-income people will live in "used" (sanitary and safe) housing just like they are expected to drive (or should be at least, per emathias's post) a used car.

[ChicagoChicago]

Anybody ever hear of the FHA or GI Bill? Post-war building boom?

GI Bill was paid for by the soldiers with their duty...paid for and then some.

FHA sucks. Do we need a recap of the last 2 years to remind you of that?

[BWChicago]

I'm talking about post-war FHA. Why we have suburban sprawl. It was affordable housing. For example, the neighborhoods of colonial-style duplexes.

[spyguy]

http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2009/07/22/r_aezea0knsh6irkx7aovhpa/index.xml

Woodstock City Council approves plan for Grace Hall to be torn down
By BRIAN SLUPSKI

The City Council cleared the way for the demolition of Grace Hall on Tuesday night, determining that Woodstock Christian Life Services made a good faith effort to save the building.

The Prairie-style brick building once was part of the Todd School for Boys. The building served as a classroom and dormitory for Orson Welles, among others. The Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission also has recommended that the 7,300-square-foot structure be preserved as a landmark.
---
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5659/69444235.jpg
John C. Trione - The Woodstock Independent (http://www.thewoodstockindependent.com/story.php?id=109)

Photo of a young Orson Welles in front of Grace Hall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26427913@N07/2628281813/

[jstush04]

^ well, that's just dandy...

[spyguy]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/1676100,CST-NWS-riverwalk21.article

City solicits designs for riverwalk, lacks money to build
July 21, 2009

BY FRAN SPIELMAN

Now that Chicago has filled in the "missing links" in the Wacker Drive riverwalk, it's time to design the rest -- even though the city still doesn't have the money to build it.

The Daley administration has issued a "request for proposals" from firms interested in designing the final phase of the San Antonio-style riverwalk -- the six-block stretch between State and Lake streets.
---

http://www.ci.chi.il.us/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockName=Transportation%2fI+Want+To&deptMainCategoryOID=&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Transportation&topChannelName=Dept&contentOID=537051815&Failed_Reason=Session+not+found&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do&context=dept

Bloomingdale Trail design firm selected

The City of Chicago has selected ARUP North America Ltd. to begin preliminary design and engineering work on the Bloomingdale Trail, a project to convert an unused elevated rail line to a 2.7-mile multi-use path.

ARUP was one of 23 firms that responded to a request for proposals seeking qualified firms for the work. The City selected five teams for interviews about their vision and qualifications for the Trail project. The five teams each included strong interdisciplinary experience (design, architecture, planning), experience with other projects of similar magnitude, and success in incorporating community input into creative and sustainable design.

ARUP was chosen following team interviews, reference checks, and extensive deliberation by a committee comprising several city departments and agencies including the Department of Zoning and Planning, Department of Cultural Affairs and the Chicago Park District. The team showed outstanding strengths in all of the criteria.

ARUP is a global firm with expertise in the design, engineering and construction disciplines. Among its projects are engineering the “Water Cube” aquatics center for the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, the world's largest highly sustainable public space.

The ARUP team features nine sub-consultants, including:

• Chicago-based Ross Barney Architects, which has worked on several Chicago projects including Wacker Drive and the Chicago Riverwalk

• Brooklyn-based Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, which worked on New York City’s High Line, similar in concept to the Bloomingdale Trail

• Chicago-based Burns & McDonnell engineers, which has worked on many large Chicago infrastructure projects.

"We are looking forward to working with ARUP to turn part of Chicago's industrial heritage into a green oasis,” said Beth White, Chicago Area Director, The Trust for Public Land. “We applaud the city for its commitment to this visionary project and we are proud to be a partner in such an inclusive planning process that also calls for the highest standards for design and innovation."

The project entails extensive civic and community involvement from the Trust for Public Land, the Friends of the Bloomingdale Trail and other entities. As part of the design process, Trust for Public Land will host a future public design charrette process in conjunction with CDOT.

The Bloomingdale Trail will run from Ashland to Ridgeway using the elevated rail embankment along Bloomingdale Avenue (1800 North). The project was recommended in the Logan Square Open Space Plan produced by the Dept. of Planning and Development (today known as the Dept. of Zoning and Planning). p>

Chicago has approximately $3 million in federal and local funding for project design. CDOT is still working to identify construction funding for the project.

[Boyee]

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

1. McGaw Hall is being removed so that students don't have to walk 3 blocks to class and so that East Campus can be solely for the Music School.
2. It is a shame that SAC was stripped of it's context, but the university needed more classroom space, so this was unavoidable.
3. They are remodeling O'Connell Hall to remove the science equipment and provide more standard classrooms to house other departments the Link, which is the lobby that connects Levan, O'Connell and SAC is not what they are planning on altering.
4. It will be good that the Theatre School is getting a cutting edge new building on Racine and Fullerton and the ugly old St. Vincent School buliding will be torn down to build residences for the Vincentian priests, thus allowing the former Vincentian residence to be used for student housing.

Also the buildings are build traditional because the Lincoln Park Community Area is historic and the 2 neighborhoods the Lincoln Park Campus lies in - the Sheffield Neighborhood and Wrightwood Neighbors are extremely specific about what they will allow the university to build. Building innovative designs would ruin the historic and architextural context of Lincoln Park.

[Boyee]

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

McGaw feels like you are in a high school on the inside.

[Boyee]

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


DePaul is in a historic area whose inhabitants demand the building fit in with the neighborhood, Loyola is in Rogers Park, which is not and is getting to be a rougher neighborhood by the day. So much so that Loyola is working on Loyola Station a project to try and improve the area.

[Nowhereman1280]

DePaul is in a historic area whose inhabitants demand the building fit in with the neighborhood, Loyola is in Rogers Park, which is not and is getting to be a rougher neighborhood by the day. So much so that Loyola is working on Loyola Station a project to try and improve the area.

Man you need to take a trip to Rogers Park... RP is at least as historic, if not more so than Lincoln Park. Its one of the few areas along Chicago's lakefront where lowrise residential neighborhoods with big single family homes have not been torn down to construct huge 70's buildings. And since when is RP getting "rougher by the day"? Yeah crime has gone up a little since a year or so ago, but it has gone up across the city. RP today is far better than it was 5 years ago and light years ahead of where it was 20 years ago. Lincoln Park is in the same place as it was 20 years ago, a bunch of yuppies who refuse to accept any kind of progressive thought or design.

[VivaLFuego]

Building innovative designs would ruin the historic and architextural context of Lincoln Park.

:rolleyes:

So would building Antunovich/Coffey neo-faux-retro schlock. High quality modernism sits with high quality Victorian much better than low quality crap does.

[wrabbit]

^ Amen to that.

Is DePaul really citing the historic charters as justification? That would be a cop out. Some very good contemporary buildings - like the house at Webster & Dayton in the Armitage/Halsted district - have gone up in recent years. And there are plenty of hungry, young, talented firms in town now to get the work done on time & within budget.

This is an institution of higher learning - why hide that light when it comes time to build its most public of faces? And who the heck is sitting on that board?

[VivaLFuego]

It's like the "Prairie District Townehome" crap in Central Station. By virtue of being cheap, poorly-detailed facsimiles of actual Victorian architecture, they not only fail to truly blend contextually with the adjacent historic homes, they actively degrade the visual and architectural quality of the neighborhood. DePaul building crap will have the same effect.

That's not to say that contextualism is inherently bad, by any means, nor does it mean that all new buildings in historic areas should look as through dropped in from outer space - it is possible to "do it right" by one of two means: (1) pay attention to details that will make the new structures blend seamlessly with the fabric of the existing neighborhood, i.e. paying for the right materials and craftsmanship, or (2) engage in true post-modernism, with clear references and homage to the form, massing, and style of Victorian workers' cottages, while also conveying a clear sense of modernity.

There are some very nice examples of both methods on the UI-Urbana/Champaign campus. I'll try to think of some Chicago examples, too.

I just have little confidence in Antunovich or Coffey being able to pull off either method.

[Marcu]

It's like the "Prairie District Townehome" crap in Central Station. By virtue of being cheap, poorly-detailed facsimiles of actual Victorian architecture, they not only fail to truly blend contextually with the adjacent historic homes, they actively degrade the visual and architectural quality of the neighborhood. DePaul building crap will have the same effect.

That's not to say that contextualism is inherently bad, by any means, nor does it mean that all new buildings in historic areas should look as through dropped in from outer space - it is possible to "do it right" by one of two means: (1) pay attention to details that will make the new structures blend seamlessly with the fabric of the existing neighborhood, i.e. paying for the right materials and craftsmanship, or (2) engage in true post-modernism, with clear references and homage to the form, massing, and style of Victorian workers' cottages, while also conveying a clear sense of modernity.

There are some very nice examples of both methods on the UI-Urbana/Champaign campus. I'll try to think of some Chicago examples, too.

I just have little confidence in Antunovich or Coffey being able to pull off either method.

Yes, but you are assuming that in DePaul's case, contextualism is something other than a pretext for building cheap, cut rate buildings and simply spending less money than they would on a quality modern or truly contextual building. It's quite easy to conceal cut rate construction as an hommage to history and context. Just look at all the "mission style" strip in the Southwest.

[lawfin]

..... And since when is RP getting "rougher by the day"? Yeah crime has gone up a little since a year or so ago, but it has gone up across the city. RP today is far better than it was 5 years ago and light years ahead of where it was 20 years ago. Lincoln Park is in the same place as it was 20 years ago, a bunch of yuppies who refuse to accept any kind of progressive thought or design.


As to crime going up a little in RP and CHicago....no...http://www.chicagopolice.org/MailingList/PressAttachment/prjune09crimestats.pdf

As to RP being better tha 15-20 years ago...most definitely....Tough only through 2007:
http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdc20090521.php

As to Lincoln Park being in the same place it was 20 years ago....I can only attest that it is not. SUre Lincoln Park 20 years ago had it share of yuppies and rich folk; but it also had a fair share a poorer hispanic families who had not yet been gentrified out completely.......many ended up in Humbolt park over the years.
This was particularly the case especially as you went further west in LP.

But I certainly agree that RP is not getting rougher by the day....though I must admit my neighbors and I were just discussing a seeming uptick in thuggery in certain pockets....especially around Pottawatomie Park, Paschen Park, and over the ashland and Howard over the past few months. I wonder if some people have been ousted from the ghetto due to the housing crisis....ie landlord went into foreclosure...

[spyguy]

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/090611/quad.shtml

Summer project aimed at making Main Quadrangles more pedestrian-friendly
By William Harms

The heart of campus will be friendlier to pedestrians and more accessible to everyone next fall, after a three-month project on the University’s Main Quadrangles.

Beginning shortly after the end of the Spring Quarter, workers will replace the current stone paths with more even walkways whose pavers capture the historic feel of the quads while improving access for people with disabilities. While construction is under way, users of the Main Quadrangles will have to use alternative routes to some buildings and passageways.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7246/quad2l.jpg
A project that begins this summer will replace quadrangle streets and sidewalks with pedestrian-friendly walkways. The work will be done by September.

[Nowhereman1280]

As to crime going up a little in RP and CHicago....no...http://www.chicagopolice.org/MailingList/PressAttachment/prjune09crimestats.pdf

As to RP being better tha 15-20 years ago...most definitely....Tough only through 2007:
http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdc20090521.php

As to Lincoln Park being in the same place it was 20 years ago....I can only attest that it is not. SUre Lincoln Park 20 years ago had it share of yuppies and rich folk; but it also had a fair share a poorer hispanic families who had not yet been gentrified out completely.......many ended up in Humbolt park over the years.
This was particularly the case especially as you went further west in LP.

But I certainly agree that RP is not getting rougher by the day....though I must admit my neighbors and I were just discussing a seeming uptick in thuggery in certain pockets....especially around Pottawatomie Park, Paschen Park, and over the ashland and Howard over the past few months. I wonder if some people have been ousted from the ghetto due to the housing crisis....ie landlord went into foreclosure...

I know LP is even more yuppie today, but large swaths of it were still dominated by yuppies 15-20 years ago.

I guess I must be just thinking of pockets like you are. Judging from what my friends who are native to the neighborhood tell me, there has a been a notable uptick in gang activity (especially along ashland as you pointed out, "the Kings are getting stupid" apparently (whatever that means)). And punk behavior in the local areas I hang out in (Along North Shore and in the area just east of Clark near Morse) has gone up noticeably. There have been a lot more tagging incidents, car break ins, and muggings. The tagging has been a lot dumber with the graffiti artists breaking unspoken rules and tagging vehicles and building windows.

But I can agree Rogers Park hasn't gotten much worse if at all with a few exceptions.

[lawfin]

I know LP is even more yuppie today, but large swaths of it were still dominated by yuppies 15-20 years ago.

I guess I must be just thinking of pockets like you are. Judging from what my friends who are native to the neighborhood tell me, there has a been a notable uptick in gang activity (especially along ashland as you pointed out, "the Kings are getting stupid" apparently (whatever that means)). And punk behavior in the local areas I hang out in (Along North Shore and in the area just east of Clark near Morse) has gone up noticeably. There have been a lot more tagging incidents, car break ins, and muggings. The tagging has been a lot dumber with the graffiti artists breaking unspoken rules and tagging vehicles and building windows.

But I can agree Rogers Park hasn't gotten much worse if at all with a few exceptions.

Taggers should die. I know if I catch them and a few of my neighbors have shovels ready to bury them down at the beach!

My father was on an anti-graffiti neighborhood task force back in the early mid-eighties. He caught a guy once who I went to HS with. Punk that guy was.

[ChicagoChicago]

Taggers should die. I know if I catch them and a few of my neighbors have shovels ready to bury them down at the beach!

My father was on an anti-graffiti neighborhood task force back in the early mid-eighties. He caught a guy once who I went to HS with. Punk that guy was.

Tagging has picked up in LP and Lakeview as well. And I agree, taggers should die.

[Nowhereman1280]

They are just simply one of the lowest life forms in the universe. I mean graffiti can pass as art, but tagging is just for bored morons...

[wrabbit]

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/090611/quad.shtml
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7246/quad2l.jpg




Very interesting - so the U of C plans on replacing all of the real pedestrians with paper cutouts of ghost pedestrians instead.

[sammyg]

Tagging has picked up in LP and Lakeview as well. And I agree, taggers should die.

Has tagging picked up or does the city have less money for graffiti-removal?

[lawfin]

Has tagging picked up or does the city have less money for graffiti-removal?

I am not sure but it is a good question as the city generally has been pretty aggressive at removing it in the past....unlike in the late 70's and 80's

[spyguy]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/07/chicagos-great-architectural-bookshop-facing-the-end-of-its-own-long-story-.html

Chicago's great architectural bookshop facing the end of its own long story
By Blair Kamin

For the sheer wealth of its collection, few architecture bookstores in the world can match the Prairie Avenue Bookshop. Architects and architecture lovers can browse thousands of titles at the store, which set up shop on Chicago's Prairie Avenue in 1974 and has been at 418 S. Wabash Ave. since 1995. Unfortunately for the proprietors, Wilbert and Marilyn Hasbrouck, not all of the browsers have been buyers.

[aic4ever]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/07/chicagos-great-architectural-bookshop-facing-the-end-of-its-own-long-story-.html

Chicago's great architectural bookshop facing the end of its own long story
By Blair Kamin

For the sheer wealth of its collection, few architecture bookstores in the world can match the Prairie Avenue Bookshop. Architects and architecture lovers can browse thousands of titles at the store, which set up shop on Chicago's Prairie Avenue in 1974 and has been at 418 S. Wabash Ave. since 1995. Unfortunately for the proprietors, Wilbert and Marilyn Hasbrouck, not all of the browsers have been buyers.

Maybe it's just been my personal experience with them, but to be perfectly honest it couldn't be happening to more deserving people. I've never set foot in that place without having them hover over me, shooing me away from their more prized books, and generally wanting to get rid of me. I've been in there on several occasions over the past ten years and it's been the same story every time. Consequently, I've never spent a dime in their store.

Hopefully somebody buys them out that wants to actually run a good bookstore instead of some kind of exclusive club that happens to deal in books. As for them, good riddance.

[Nowhereman1280]

Has tagging picked up or does the city have less money for graffiti-removal?

From what I've seen in Rogers Park and Edgewater, its a pickup in frequency because when I see new tags, they are usually gone within a week, its just that I see fresh ones much more frequently now. As I said before, they have also been breaking the honor code of graffiti artists and tagging surfaces like cars, windows, and other personal property that indicates they are new entrants to the trade, i.e. bored youth.

[Via Chicago]

Maybe it's just been my personal experience with them, but to be perfectly honest it couldn't be happening to more deserving people. I've never set foot in that place without having them hover over me, shooing me away from their more prized books, and generally wanting to get rid of me. I've been in there on several occasions over the past ten years and it's been the same story every time. Consequently, I've never spent a dime in their store.

Hopefully somebody buys them out that wants to actually run a good bookstore instead of some kind of exclusive club that happens to deal in books. As for them, good riddance.

I only went in once, but my experience was completely different. I was there for about an hour simply browsing, and I dont think anyone bothered me the entire time I was there. At the same time, I always felt like if I needed guidance, that they were incredibly knowledgeable and could point me in the right direction.

I have a suspicion price (everything is full sticker) and a changing market for ALL books is what ultimately led to their demise. Personally, I will be sorry to see them go. If nothing else, the shop is truly beautiful and really livens up that bit of Wabash. These are the types of places that make living in a big city worth it.

[the urban politician]

I was on Devon Ave today and noticed that construction is up to the second floor on the project on the NE corner of Devon and Rockwell. I had thought the community was still fighting that project.

Either way, it was a delight to see that the building is under way

[lawfin]

I was on Devon Ave today and noticed that construction is up to the second floor on the project on the NE corner of Devon and Rockwell. I had thought the community was still fighting that project.

Either way, it was a delight to see that the building is under way
I do not remember is that a 5 or 6 story development? I cannnot recall.

On a side note...word is the old car dealership just south of granville is going to be turned into a craptastic 24 hour walgreens....the one just north of granville will be closed. My parents live over there and I have been trying to convince them that it would be better for the neighborhood if all those car lots were redeveloped into a more dense say 5 story or so residential....retail on 1st floor...I mean it would make sense from a TOD standpoint seemingly. The western / peterson stops are both about 15 minutes or so from rail transit via bus. That strip between Peterson and Granville could add so much to the nieghborhood all the while promoting transit use if done properly.....

my guess is bernie "soporific" Stone will have autocentric craptastula built....frustrating....

[VivaLFuego]

There is either a facadectomy or demolition underway mid-block on the north side of Hubbard between Clark and LaSalle... couldn't tell from the bus.

[emathias]

There is either a facadectomy or demolition underway mid-block on the north side of Hubbard between Clark and LaSalle... couldn't tell from the bus.

The two mid-block older buildings next to that weird new one don't seem to be of any particular interest. As long as anything that replaces them keeps the streetscape scale and is visually interesting I wouldn't have a problem with it. Even though I'm not a particularly big fan of that weird new building on that block, I do like seeing new construction that at least tries to do something interesting at a scale that fits with the vintage buildings in the area.

[jc5680]

There is either a facadectomy or demolition underway mid-block on the north side of Hubbard between Clark and LaSalle... couldn't tell from the bus.

I am pretty sure it is a facadectomy, they have been gutting it for what seems like over a year now. At one point there was a back-hoe inside of the building digging down a level or two. Just in the past few weeks though, they set up the scaffolding and such on the sidewalk.

The exterior has been left pretty intact, but everything else inside had been stripped down to its bare minimum.

No clue what is going there though.

[jc5680]

Maybe my assumptions are off, walked by on lunch and the whole face of the building is gone…

I have to believe though, given all the work put in already, that the plan is to keep the facade. Otherwise just knocking the whole thing down would have been a simpler/quicker option at this point.

[ChicagoChicago]

From what I've seen in Rogers Park and Edgewater, its a pickup in frequency because when I see new tags, they are usually gone within a week, its just that I see fresh ones much more frequently now. As I said before, they have also been breaking the honor code of graffiti artists and tagging surfaces like cars, windows, and other personal property that indicates they are new entrants to the trade, i.e. bored youth.

I'd say that this is the case in Lakeview and LP as well. We had a serial tagger about a year and a half ago. He tagged over 100 buildings in Lakeview until he was caught.

These new taggers are mostly along the L lines, and hit places that the city doesn't clean all that frequently. Just google "Noteef Chicago" and see how many tags this new d-bag has produced.

[StormFire]

They are talking about tearing down the Western Ave. overpass at Belmont:

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/western.avenue.overpass.2.1104320.html

[jstush04]

^

"Schulter told the Tribune that the structure was built in 1967 to provide easy access to the Riverview amusement park, which closed in the fall of that year. But several other sources say the overpass was built in 1960, around the same time as similar structures on Ashland Avenue over Archer Avenue, and on Western Avenue over Pershing Road. "

that's pretty funny. my mom used to go to riverview all the time when she was a kid

edit: the thing that's funny is the date, not that my mom used to go there. that's completely serious

[J_M_Tungsten]

Is there not a city record that shows when this thing was actually built??? How is there a 7 YEAR discrepancy over this? Maybe the Sears tower was actually built in 1966, I mean who keeps track of these things!?

[jstush04]

Is there not a city record that shows when this thing was actually built??? How is there a 7 YEAR discrepancy over this? Maybe the Sears tower was actually built in 1966, I mean who keeps track of these things!?

one of the other wards' alderman must have the record of it :haha:

[Nowhereman1280]

I really hope that thing bites the dust, one of the few structures in this city I wholly despise. And that note about the theater using the space under there for parking is no longer true. The city decided it would be cool to start ticketing anyone who parks under there a while ago and I know that at least the theater has stopped recommending people park there.

[whyhuhwhy]

Very dissapointing news. I drive on Belmont and Western many times a week and that overpass is one of the few breaths of fresh air in an otherwise very horrible traffic situation on both avenues. Especially given that Belmont, Clybourn and Western all intersect there. It was built for a reason. Hopefully they don't tear it down. It's already part and parcel with that intersection and in a bus you will already sit for a long time behind a line of traffic on Belmont. Can't imagine if they add freaking Western Avenue to the mix. Otherwise the whole Belmont/Roscoe/Addison on Western is going to look (and move) just like the Montrose/Lincoln/Lawrence fiasco further north. Of course some people on this forum like to keep cars sitting around burning fuel as if no one driving has ever heard of or tried transit, but I'm not one of them. I doubt this idea will fly given that Western Avenue is not exactly a beautiful pedestrian friendly paradise to begin with and is more of a thoroughfare designed to move people and goods.

[VivaLFuego]

Tough call. One could make an honest effort at a cost-benefit analysis here, model the added delay at the intersection during peak periods, assign dollar values both to travel time and to the extent to which property values and QOL are suppressed by thing, and compare those costs/benefits to the present value of either demolition or repairing/maintaining the thing in perpetuity at a reasonable discount rate, and determine whether it's worth keeping. Overpasses are rather obvious visual blight (with pricier underpasses much preferred in this regard), but since the thing is already there and integrated into traffic and development patterns it's hardly a no-brainer to tear it down without some analysis behind it.

Of course, planning decisions are rarely made based on planning rationale, so the fate of the overpass is really anyone's guess being subject to whoever the highest ranking person with an opinion on it is.

[ardecila]

I've heard this argument a lot lately regarding structures of this vintage.

First of all, do these structures really have a such a short lifespan? Is total replacement necessary?

The rationale for demolition is that the benefit of the structure is not worth the cost of rebuilding it. But does it need to be rebuilt completely? I don't understand why cheaper fixes are off the table - a resurfacing here, a column replacement there. The parking problem can be solved by installing some bollards or, hell, some jersey barriers.

I also don't understand what they will do with the land from the overpass. Just more turn lanes, or maybe the police HQ and courthouse will get an extra row of parking? I suppose they could do a landscaped island, but there's little chance of that considering the traffic volume this intersection would have if built at-grade. Likely, what replaces the overpass will be a huge at-grade intersection that is every pedestrian's nightmare.

[emathias]

I think they have the space, so they should just install a traffic circle. It's a five-way intersection, so it qualifies as the sort of intersection for which circles are appropriate. Properly designed it would be nearly as efficient for Western traffic, and probably more efficient for traffic coming from the other streets - certainly no less efficient than a regular intersection would be.

[Mr Downtown]

I think the volume of through traffic on Western would preclude a roundabout. They work better for intersections with lots of turning movements, not so well with high volumes on a through route.

[ChicagoChicago]

I think the volume of through traffic on Western would preclude a roundabout. They work better for intersections with lots of turning movements, not so well with high volumes on a through route.

True. Flyovers work well for high volumes of Through-traffic. Oh wait...

[whyhuhwhy]

True. Flyovers work well for high volumes of Through-traffic. Oh wait...

Oh wait what. Flyovers are the best for high volume through traffic no doubt about it.

[Busy Bee]

In a perfect world...

[ChicagoChicago]

Oh wait what. Flyovers are the best for high volume through traffic no doubt about it.

Oh wait, there's already a flyover there, and the alderman wants it torn down because he thinks it's ugly.

[left of center]

i actually like that overpass, and think it serves a very important purpose. i understand why youd want to get rid of something thats ugly, but if its viable and needed, then you gotta deal with it. why waste money tearing it down and creating a traffic nightmare? this alderman is just looking for votes at the expense of the city's budget and commuters on Western, IMHO

[VivaLFuego]

why waste money tearing it down and creating a traffic nightmare? this alderman is just looking for votes at the expense of the city's budget and commuters on Western, IMHO

The point is that some argue that it wastes more money to not tear it down and continue to maintain and repair it. Either way, its existence will cost money, either to demolish and be done with forever, or to maintain in perpetuity. The question is one of costs and benefits, since there is surely a traffic benefit of some sort provided by the overpass that could be weighed against the costs of maintenance and perceived blight.

I don't find it too offensive, given that the west side of Western is already strip mall hell and it's not like east of the viaduct has been kept from development...there are few to no vacant parcels nearby. Frankly, the city would be better off if more of the 5-way and 6-way intersections that are in desolate non-pedestrian areas key point, such as the Ashland/Elston/Armitage/Cortland disaster and of course Damen/Elston/Fullerton, had overpasses and underpasses.

[whyhuhwhy]

Oh wait, there's already a flyover there, and the alderman wants it torn down because he thinks it's ugly.

Sorry I misunderstood you.

I'm all for aesthetics BTW. But there is nothing aesthetic about ANY stretch of Western Avenue. The alderman is off his rockers IMO and must not drive through that intersection ever.

[whyhuhwhy]

The point is that some argue that it wastes more money to not tear it down and continue to maintain and repair it. Either way, its existence will cost money, either to demolish and be done with forever, or to maintain in perpetuity. The question is one of costs and benefits, since there is surely a traffic benefit of some sort provided by the overpass that could be weighed against the costs of maintenance and perceived blight.

I don't find it too offensive, given that the west side of Western is already strip mall hell and it's not like east of the viaduct has been kept from development...there are few to no vacant parcels nearby. Frankly, the city would be better off if more of the 5-way and 6-way intersections that are in desolate non-pedestrian areas key point, such as the Ashland/Elston/Armitage/Cortland disaster and of course Damen/Elston/Fullerton, had overpasses and underpasses.


What's going on with Damen/Elston/Fullerton BTW? I think that ranks #1 as the worst intersection in the entire metro area. Ashland/Elston/Armitage/Cortland works surprisingly well for how much traffic runs through it. They certainly have a LOT of space there to create a traffic circle if they ever wanted to. Are traffic circles all that better by the way for high volumes? What's the research?

[ardecila]

What's going on with Damen/Elston/Fullerton BTW? I think that ranks #1 as the worst intersection in the entire metro area. Ashland/Elston/Armitage/Cortland works surprisingly well for how much traffic runs through it. They certainly have a LOT of space there to create a traffic circle if they ever wanted to. Are traffic circles all that better by the way for high volumes? What's the research?

Damen/Elston/Fullerton will be reconfigured, turning one intersection into three by building an Elston bypass around the area. The area isn't very built up, so this is an acceptable solution that saves a bunch of money for the city.

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/DEFrendering_4_15_small.jpg

As for Ashland/Elston - I think the cheapest solution would again be an Elston bypass, using an alignment along Mendell Street and a new rail underpass under the UP-N line. The old alignment of Elston would become a dedicated Armitage-Cortland connector.

[ardecila]

Construction is now underway on the Apple Store at North/Clybourn. There's a giant pit with formwork in it, yet they are installing precast panels...?

If the shape of the foundation is any indication of the building's site massing, I don't like it.

[the urban politician]

If the shape of the foundation is any indication of the building's site massing, I don't like it.

^ Please clarify?

[the urban politician]

Here is the article about the designs from the winner of the contest to design the Apple store there. It's not clear whether Apple will actually use this design, but nevertheless:

Contest Winner: Sweeping Wall, Slice of Glass
June 24th, 2009

The future Halsted Street (Chicago) Apple store would have a tall, sweeping wall of stainless steel, backed by a slice of glass allowing a view to the inside, and bordered by water fountains, a parking lot and landscaping–but only if design contest winner Chen Shi Jun of Shaoxin (China) was in charge of the final architectural design. Chen’s design beat out 11 other amazing entries in the contest, and will receive a $100 Apple gift card. His design melded the materials, branding and other features of current stores, took them to another level, and then added in street-level features to make the store an inviting place outside. Chen’s detailed renderings show a two-level store that takes full use of the odd-shaped space on Chicago’s north side, but also a design that finds room for curves, glass and other features that avoid creating a blocky, monolithic presence. Apple’s brand is carried by the familiar back-lit logo on the second level of the Halsted-Clybourn Avenue corner, and by a tall tower with a rotating sign at Halsted-West North Avenue. The storefront along Halsted features a tall expanse of glass, while the Clybourn side accommodates 19 parking spaces. Slicing through the middle of the store is an eight-foot panel of glass, allowing customers some visibility of the sky, and passersby a peek into the store’s interior.

Chen is in the design industry, specializing in commercial and exterior work, including malls and shopping centers. He lives in Hangzhou, about 110 miles southwest of Shanghai on the west coast of China.

Other entries in the store design contest show admirable imagination, including roof-top gardens, Apple-shaped building elements, and glass designs that resembled the Fifth Avenue (NYC) cube. Some of the designs were remarkably detailed, even including Genius Bar stools and other interior features.

Congratulations to Chen, and thanks to everyone who entered the contest, and whose designs provide insights into how Apple’s own architecture could evolve to reveal new perspectives.

View the full album of entries to see what other designers created, and to see more of Chen’s renderings.

Source: www.ifoapplestore.com/.../

http://www.ifoapplestore.com/photos/halsted_design_winner_1.jpg

http://www.ifoapplestore.com/photos/halsted_design_winner_2.jpg

http://www.ifoapplestore.com/photos/halsted_design_winner_3.jpg

http://www.ifoapplestore.com/photos/halsted_design_winner_4.jpg

[Busy Bee]

So is that whats getting built?

[brian_b]

The curves seem to pay homage to the Red Line station house. The portion fronting Halsted seems fine, but the rear parking area doesn't look like it would work well at all in real life.

[killaviews]

^^^ No, that is just from a contest that website did.

[MrLakepoint]

:previous:

I think that it is completely stupid that they didnt make some extra underground parking, just above the red-line or under halsted street. A 12 car parking lot is a total joke for that area.

[ardecila]

Bohlin Cywinski Jackson is designing the Apple Store. They are responsible for all of Apple's flagship stores, and possibly the whole chain.

The foundations show a similar lot massing to the design competition entry, but much more boxy and squared-off. Similar to the competition entry, it has a chamfered corner at Halsted/Clybourn, and (presumably) parking between it and the CTA station.

Here's an rough illustration (from memory - there's no good place to photograph it except perhaps the Brown Line).

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/9568/applestore201.jpg

I guess it's probably not a bad outcome. We want something that fills up the lot, but that's really not practical here. So they push the store to the outer edges of the lot, and reserve the inside of the block for parking - this is already a motor court because of the bus turnaround. I really don't think parking is a huge deal here. Many of the stores in the area offer parking because they sell heavy or bulky items, but most people walk away from the Apple Store with small items, so it's a perfect fit to be located next to a transit station.

Early in the process, it was reported that Apple may try to leave its mark on the North/Clybourn station. I really hope so - this station is one of the saddest-looking in the entire CTA system. At a bare minimum, it needs a good repainting and the removal of a bunch of clutter in the lobby.

[Busy Bee]

Call me crazy, but shouldn't that plot of land have a high density mixed use development on it—not a stand alone retail store. Apple or not, and I'm a fan, but theres a freaking subway next door!

[lawfin]

:previous:

I think that it is completely stupid that they didnt make some extra underground parking, just above the red-line or under halsted street. A 12 car parking lot is a total joke for that area.

Your right there should be no parking since the store is literally about 27 steps from the door of a subway

[lawfin]

Call me crazy, but shouldn't that plot of land have a high density mixed use development on it—not a stand alone retail store. Apple or not, and I'm a fan, but theres a freaking subway next door!

I agree a flatiron style building in the 10-15 story range would be nice....an addition to SONO....or whatever that is called now

[the urban politician]

Call me crazy, but shouldn't that plot of land have a high density mixed use development on it—not a stand alone retail store. Apple or not, and I'm a fan, but theres a freaking subway next door!

^ Normally I would agree with you, but from all my experiences observing the foot traffic at Apple stores, I would actually gather that an Apple store generates even more trips than, say, a 6 or 7 story condo/apt building with ground level nail salons/dental offices ever would.

I think the Apple Store will draw a heck of a lot of transit/pedestrian traffic. I could be wrong, but that's my prediction.

[the urban politician]

Does anybody know if construction has started yet on that multilevel retail center just north of the NW corner of Roosevelt and Canal? I remember seeing renderings of that project a few years ago and it would be nice to see something that properly addresses the street get built there to undo some of the aesthetic damage previous retail development has done in the area.

[Busy Bee]

I think a GREAT project would have been an Apple Store in the base of a 10-15 story flatiron style building. Then we'd have something.

[VivaLFuego]

Many of the stores in the area offer parking because they sell heavy or bulky items, but most people walk away from the Apple Store with small items, so it's a perfect fit to be located next to a transit station.


As long as the 'parking' is just for hazard-lights loading/unloading of bulky items rather than, you know, parking.

[the urban politician]

As long as the 'parking' is just for hazard-lights loading/unloading of bulky items rather than, you know, parking.

^ Considering the small size of the lot and the large volume of traffic that visits an Apple store, I can't imagine a lot of such size serving any other purpose than rapid 15 minute loading, unloading etc, with the exception perhaps of a few spots devoted to handicapped and employee parking

[the urban politician]

I think a GREAT project would have been an Apple Store in the base of a 10-15 story flatiron style building. Then we'd have something.

^ That project (with the exception of the Apple Store) is already planned nearby. But the economy has the ultimate say

[ardecila]

^ That project (with the exception of the Apple Store) is already planned nearby. But the economy has the ultimate say

Not anymore. A recent rendering showed that the residential component had been downsized, and there will now be only one mid-rise at the back of the lot.

I'm hoping that the corner building will still include the foundations for a tower, though.

[pip]

I couldn't figure out a better place to put this question.

Whenever there is an event who are City Events Staff? Like who do they work for, etc?

[Busy Bee]

^Probably a company one of Strogers family members run on the side. ;)

[Mr Downtown]

Can you be more specific? The ones who plan the major city festivals are from the Mayor's Office of Special Events. I know some of those folks, and they work really hard, and long hours (especially during the summer).

Other staffers, including ones you might see wearing shirts saying Events Staff, are probably Streets & San laborers or contract workers doing cleanup. But a lot of neighborhood street festivals receive no city services at all. So if you were at Fiesta del Sol or Northalsted Market Days over the weekend, guys you saw wearing such shirts were private contract workers hired by the chamber of commerce or the event management company. Some of the neighborhood fests are little more than fronts for a couple of shady companies that make lots of money off the beer booths.

[pip]

Can you be more specific? The ones who plan the major city festivals are from the Mayor's Office of Special Events. I know some of those folks, and they work really hard, and long hours (especially during the summer).

Other staffers, including ones you might see wearing shirts saying Events Staff, are probably Streets & San laborers or contract workers doing cleanup. But a lot of neighborhood street festivals receive no city services at all. So if you were at Fiesta del Sol or Northalsted Market Days over the weekend, guys you saw wearing such shirts were private contract workers hired by the chamber of commerce or the event management company. Some of the neighborhood fests are little more than fronts for a couple of shady companies that make lots of money off the beer booths.

I would love to know who the private contractor for that event was. Event Staff shirts and clean up or de-setting up is my specific area of question. I didn't know it could be narrowed down like that and to narrow it down more the Roscoe/Halsted on Roscoe intersection, I know my question is now to detailed.

Thanks for your information.

edit and the company that was hired to take down the booths and stages.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Sorry to change topics all, but I have a couple a questions and I'm sure you guys can help me find the answers.

First off, what is with the vacant lot just south of Roosevelt and just west of Clark? That seems like a massive lot on river front property to just let sit there, who owns that land?

Second, I have been noticing a lot of activity going on around the homes on 15th and Blue Island and 15th and Ashland. I'm pretty sure that is CHA property and all the homes have been boarded up and landscaping has been cut down all within the last 2 days. It is now fenced off and looks like a construction zone, looking like its ready to be demolished?

Any info would be great thanks.

[jcchii]

clark and roosevelt goes back with connections to corrupt developer/businessman/political fundraiser/Blago henchman Tony Rezko. He has been bought out by his wealthy partner in the Middle East.

At one time there was a development planned for it, but who knows in the current economy

[jcchii]

this rundown is close to factual, best I can tell...the update being that Rezko is all the way out of the property now

http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/rezko-auchi-62-acres-and-35-million.html

[VivaLFuego]

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/2009/07/status-update-930-north-rush.html
came across this snippet:
Someone from the club is telling people that in 2011 the brownstones between 930 and the brand new Walgreen's may be demolished. To make way for what, we haven't heard.

Ugh. I can only assume yet more 1-story retail shit. Apparently, even small and constrained sites aren't enough to protect buildings from being replaced with crapola.

Despite the name "Chicago Architecture Blog" the blogger is surprisingly uninterested in architectural implications (e.g. demolition of historic structures) and more closely details trends and events in retail real estate. Interesting read and good info in a lot of posts.

[spyguy]

^We've talked about this development a little on SSC. Lonie Walker (on the Underground Wonder Bar's website) says that their lease has been extended through May, however, their plans to relocate to Division Street haven't worked out. Hopefully they'll find a new place nearby.

As for the development, yeah you're pretty much right.
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/2379/29842894.jpg
There was another rendering with more floors on top but I assume those have been lopped off by now. I believe the building next door (east) will remain and probably turn into luxury retail space.

[left of center]

Damen/Elston/Fullerton will be reconfigured, turning one intersection into three by building an Elston bypass around the area. The area isn't very built up, so this is an acceptable solution that saves a bunch of money for the city.

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/DEFrendering_4_15_small.jpg

As for Ashland/Elston - I think the cheapest solution would again be an Elston bypass, using an alignment along Mendell Street and a new rail underpass under the UP-N line. The old alignment of Elston would become a dedicated Armitage-Cortland connector.

while it may ease up the traffic congestion, i dont like the precedent it sets for eliminating 6 way intersections in the city. i would almost prefer a flyover. definitely wouldnt mind a tunnel, but that isnt very cost effective.

[denizen467]

^ Hardly any "precedent" there. It is a very unique situation requiring payment for tons of land -- and on top of that, land that is both unused/underutilized as well as held by only a few owners. The Vienna site has remained vacant for years just for this purpose. You can expect future 6-way resolutions to be by flyover or underpass.

ardecila - what are the businesses being kicked out for this (whirlyball and something to its south?)? Also, is it by eminent domain?