[wrabbit]

Huh - South Loop glass with North Side brick.

Not at all what I expected. Better than I'd feared. But still pretty standard for a Chitown development.

[J_M_Tungsten]

I noticed I haven't seen any pics of this one yet so for all those wondering where this is at, here you go.

The Roosevelt Collection

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_4466.jpg

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_4469.jpg

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_4467.jpg

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_4468.jpg

I agree Wrabbit, nothing too special here.

[the urban politician]

Roosevelt Collection is weak architecturally, but it's a unique sort of development. As the area around it fills in over the next several years/decades it may acquire a bit of a charm. Of course, the Berlin Wall of Dearborn Park remains an obstacle.

[simcityaustin]

Wasn't the Roosevelt Collection supposed to have a 20-30 story building as well? Is that financed or planned to be added later, or what?

[Mr Downtown]

^Not financed. Maybe later. The retail project will open a year late, and the condos had to be converted to rentals.

[Busy Bee]

^Let us hope that when the tower is built it doesn't look like the original renders.

[killaviews]

I don't really get why the retail portion will not open until fall 2010, unless they have no tenants and waiting for the economy to get better. It looks like it is ready. Or maybe they want to wait for tenants to fill up the rental units.

[VivaLFuego]

The Roosevelt corridor (Wabash to Clinton, thereabouts) is a textbook example of how density doesn't equate to walkability. The density of jobs/housing/retail necessitates some level of pedestrian activity regardless of the inhospitable environment, but it's certainly not an attractive option if a car is available. I'll openly admit, if the parking is either free or substantially subsidized via validation, I'm much more likely to drive to Roosevelt Collection, Southgate Mall, etc. than I am to hop the Red Line down there - in sharp contrast to the ease with which I would hop the L to head up towards Lakeview for shopping. It's not apples-to-apples in terms of the exact retail establishments in each location, but I think the overall point remains since there are some 'urban' big box and mid box uses in Lincoln Park and Lakeview (Home Depot, Best Buy, Guitar Center, Binny's, etc.) that don't actively discourage crosstown access via transit.

The closest parallel might be the North/Clybourn/Sheffield area, but even that doesn't feel quite so discouraging to a pedestrian for some reason. Maybe it's more like the Fullerton/Elston/Damen/Clybourn stripmallorama area, which is also dreadfully unattractive to reach by means other than car but at least isn't located in the Central Area.

[ardecila]

What would realistically make it more walkable? Obviously, a huge renovation of Dearborn Park isn't feasible. But there are already rails separating pedestrians from cars, a series of sculptures to add visual interest, and decently sized sidewalks. On the bridge, there are bike lanes separating peds from auto traffic.

Target even added sidewalk width on their own property. I'm not sure about Roosevelt Collection. Also, the Clark bypass removes traffic from Upper Clark, giving pedestrians an easier crossing to the Target and further (although it kills pedestrian activity on Clark, eliminating the east sidewalk and narrowing the west one).

[BorisMolotov]

There's really not much that can be done about Roosevelt, as its a major entryway into the heart of downtown, and a lot of people use it to drive in on.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Personally I think Roosevelt is very pedestrian and bike friendly. I never have an issue when trying to get to and from the lake.

[Mr Downtown]

Roosevelt as a traditional pedestrian retail street is a complete nonstarter, as I've tried to point out to planning staff for the last decade. For one thing, it's too wide. No 120-foot-wide street, except maybe the Champs-Elysées, has retail fronting on it. Second, there are infrequent (almost no) cross streets. A pedestrian retail environment requires crossing points at least every 300 feet or so, and they are imperative when the street is so wide. The Mag Mile has them every 260 feet or so. Then there are the deadening interruptions of Dearborn Park, the railroads, and the river. I tried to persuade Target to put shallow "liner stores" fronting on Roosevelt, but they responded that "they didn't want to be a landlord," so that chance was lost. The "widened sidewalk" they built is actually a fire code issue, done so the store's emergency exits could be "at grade."

[VivaLFuego]

There's not a great deal to be done at this point. Wide sidewalks as an offset to the wide street (which itself encourages high vehicle speeds in conjunction with the lack of intersections, as MrD points out). The Dearborn Park (Phases I & II) frontage are lemons but those alone could be dealt with if development along the Roosevelt viaduct is ok and development to the east (i.e. the Jewel and gas station at Wabash) were less schlocky. That said, DP Phase II's insular crapulence basically necessitates that Riverside Park, should it ever be developed, be overwhelmingly residential in nature aside from retail frontage along Roosevelt, given that there will be zero eastward continuity or connectivity. The RI tracks are a challenge, but not insurmountable - but adding connectivity over/under the RI ROW is pointless given the Berlin Wall that is the western border of DP.

Between Clinton/Desplaines, Roosevelt is actually reasonably pleasant and 'walkable', at least to the maximum extent it ever could be. I still don't have a sense as to how RC will interface with it's surroundings on the north end, but this will also be crucial to the walkability of the area. Even if it's a nice connection, I'm still likely to drive to it if parking is cheap or free.

I think the area is definitely salvageable in the long run, but few developments have improved the situation. The Target is by and large very good. The Joffco Square or whatever (with the Best Buy) to the west isn't bad either. Time will tell on RC, but I have to say at the moment it doesn't feel inviting. Maybe once the built space is fully activated with residents and retail that perception will change.

[aic4ever]

I don't really get why the retail portion will not open until fall 2010, unless they have no tenants and waiting for the economy to get better. It looks like it is ready. Or maybe they want to wait for tenants to fill up the rental units.

Retail tenants are really just not signing many leases right now. Not as bad as it was six months ago, but they are still very slow to get into it, as retail projections are poor. The nonsense of it is, that this is the time for them to get their best rates. So you'll continue to see stuff in better retail sectors, a-la Zara on Michigan Ave., along with Lululemon and others in the Oak St. vicinity. Going to be tough to convince retailers to jump into Roosevelt Collection, though, in my opinion, until the developers can show some decent level of occupancy in there in general. Target works well there, as does the Whole Foods complex at Canal because of a good amount of easily accessible parking. I'm not sure what RC has in terms of non-resident parking. No matter how you look at it, hoofing it up the hill that is that bridge is a bitch.

[VivaLFuego]

along with Lululemon and others in the Oak St. vicinity.

Anyone else seen this travesty lately at Oak/Walton? Walton is graced with a huge blank wall along the entirety of the new building's half-block-long frontage. It's atrocious. At least nearly continuous glass frontage on a one-story building would have mitigated the destruction of that block's former charm. Why not just go all out and make it a drive-thru title loan shop.

[aic4ever]

Anyone else seen this travesty lately at Oak/Walton? Walton is graced with a huge blank wall along the entirety of the new building's half-block-long frontage. It's atrocious. At least nearly continuous glass frontage on a one-story building would have mitigated the destruction of that block's former charm. Why not just go all out and make it a drive-thru title loan shop.

Calm yourself and your dead block doomspeak. There will be planters both in the sidewalk and attached to the building. The latter will feature an interesting trellis system called Green Screen (http://www.greenscreen.com/home.html), which will allow for plantings to grow up the brick wall without the nastiness of destroying the brick over time. This will not be nearly so onerously boring as you suppose when it is finished at the end of the month.

EDIT:
That said, it puzzled me from the day it came in the door why they wouldn't allocate more storefront along Walton, which would have seemed to make the most sense. It may have had to do with wanting to consider Rush the actual "street front" for the store, as that may have generated higher rates. Purely conjecture on my part, though.

[killaviews]

According the last Chicago Crains article about the site John Varvatos would have built a store twice the size on the site. That would have been a better and cooler use of the space.

aic4ever, any info on why we got another Lululemon and not the John Varvatos?

[aic4ever]

According the last Chicago Crains article about the site John Varvatos would have built a store twice the size on the site. That would have been a better and cooler use of the space.

aic4ever, any info on why we got another Lululemon and not the John Varvatos?

..

[Chicago3rd]

^Yeah - LSD currently cuts off almost all of Streeterville, and most of the Gold Coast, from the lakefront. The Streeterville stretch especially is pretty brutal, with just a few feet of concrete separating the road, the pedestrian/bike paths, and the water.

They need to get rid of the Rich people's stop light Chicago Avenue. The countless money wasted by wasting all our time there is unbelievable. Grand Ave is a great exit to use. If it is because of "emergency traffic" for Northwestern then make the light permanently green and only allow emergency vehicles to change the light red during an emergency.

The city has spent millions already trying to slow traffic down on the Oak Street Curve. Anyone professing to be from Chicago knows this is a historical fact just as the curves do have accidents. Plus that area of the lake shore really needs to be widened for recreational purposes.

[brian_b]

Plus that area of the lake shore really needs to be widened for recreational purposes.

If they do that then the breakwall will need to be modified, which means the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers will have to be involved, not to mention all the environmental studies to determine if it will impact lake erosion.

It's not hard to see why it's been a bad corner for a very long time.

[VivaLFuego]

Notice is up for a zoning request to establish a parking lot at the SE corner of Randolph & Desplaines. The site is currently a private parking lot, so I'm assuming this is just to make it a public lot.

For once I'm agnostic on it. Whatever. There are some very nice buildings farther east on the block that ideally will some day see landmarking or other protection, so I'm fine if development takes it's time on this site to get it right. It's not like this represents a developer throwing in the towel and going for surface parking instead (a la 560 Fairbanks).

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-thu-burns-mba-0827-aug27,0,6398584.column

Loyola University Chicago's business school's growth is a wake-up call for Northwestern and University of Chicago
August 27, 2009
Greg Burns

The construction site awaits at State and Pearson Streets in one of Chicago's toniest neighborhoods. The plans have been drawn, the rendering posted on the university Web site and roughly $11 million raised so far.

A little more capital, a few major donors and Loyola University Chicago's Graduate School of Business will be breaking ground on a new building that more than doubles its size.
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/8509/4888626626194942.jpg

[denizen467]

^ Are there more images - does anyone have the link to the school's page that Tribune says has renderings?

Also, curious if there are any very well known billionaire alums out there (who might donate big and therefore get their names on the building)?

[ardecila]

http://www.luc.edu/values/campus/vt_watertower.swf

Zoom in and click on the building marked "Mail Room/Copy Center". The thumbnails show the new building.

[the urban politician]

^ Nothing special.

Of course, I'm assuming it's just replacing a vacant lot? If so, it's a huge improvement

[aic4ever]

^ Nothing special.

Of course, I'm assuming it's just replacing a vacant lot? If so, it's a huge improvement

I question your taste. Looks like a very exciting building to me in terms of its interior spaces, along with what it's doing for the block.

[the urban politician]

I question your taste. Looks like a very exciting building to me in terms of its interior spaces, along with what it's doing for the block.

^ Question my taste all you want, but it looks like this thing will replace an historic 5 story building: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=state+and+pearson+chicago&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.368578,75.322266&ie=UTF8&ll=41.898204,-87.628219&spn=0.008353,0.018389&z=16&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=41.897524,-87.628216&panoid=_AIoY6F4Tlox7tdTUVi5jA&cbp=12,50,,0,5

With parking lots abounding everywhere in River North, I'm not really sure what you think this building will "do for the block" that the existing building on the site doesn't already accomplish. Come to think of it, it appears that this building basically just replaces the footprint of the existing building on the site and doesn't even occupy the spaces of the other, shorter buildings next door.

Thumbs down on another lost historic building in River North, only to be replaced by something barely any taller.

[wrabbit]

^ You are one block too far South- the intersection is State & Chestnut. Streetview here:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.897795,-87.628224&spn=0,359.997422&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.897877,-87.628227&panoid=yD-PQU4V28pArtaoHXf66g&cbp=12,78.68,,0,13.43

[Nowhereman1280]

Also, curious if there are any very well known billionaire alums out there (who might donate big and therefore get their names on the building)?

There are no billionaire alums from LUC. There are, however, many multimillionaires who will probably donate. For example, the CEO and founder of Morningstar is a Loyola Alum and the CFO of Wal-Mart is as well, these guys have got cash and may have donated already.

^ Nothing special.

Of course, I'm assuming it's just replacing a vacant lot? If so, it's a huge improvement

Its not a vacant lot. Its got two decent historic buildings on it (nothing too spectacular) that will be lost. There is one absolutely hideous and abandoned 70's era building. Then about half the lot is vacant. This will probably be developed in conjunction with an adjacent residential highrise on the vacant (northern) half that Loyola hopes to use to offset the costs of the classrooms and hopefully provide a parking garage.

I question your taste. Looks like a very exciting building to me in terms of its interior spaces, along with what it's doing for the block.

If its anything like the IC, it should be a very interesting building. TUP, check out the Loyola Information Commons to get an idea of what this building will be like (but on a much larger scale).

[VivaLFuego]

So this would replace the surface lot, bookstore, and Sally Beauty Supply? If so, great. I hope it means the building on the NE corner of State/Pearson is surviving, but that one has been in the crosshairs for a while (along with all but one of the buildings along the north side of Pearson there too, right?) so I imagine it's not long for this world regardless.

Also, the nice building on the NW corner of State/Chicago will likely eventually be toast - I've heard that tenants have been notified that this is the last year they can expect to have their leases renewed.

EDIT: Nowhereman, can you clarify the exact site footprint for this building? Are the beautiful Victorian rowhomes at 10 E. Pearson and 16 E. Pearson coming down? The 5-story mixed use corner building with the dive bar and barbershop in the first floor?

[the urban politician]

^ You are one block too far South- the intersection is State & Chestnut. Streetview here:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.898338,-87.628238&spn=0,359.997422&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.89825,-87.628239&panoid=A1v07jzI1Pk7i7ldQYUkkQ&cbp=12,63.13,,0,5

^ The article Spyguy posted says State and Pearson, and if you look at the thumbnail renderings from Ardecila, check out the context--the new building appears to be replacing the 5 level historic building that I was talking about above. Take a second look.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure about what I'm seeing.

[schwerve]

^ The article Spyguy posted says State and Pearson, and if you look at the thumbnail renderings from Ardecila, check out the context--the new building appears to be replacing the 5 level historic building that I was talking about above. Take a second look.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure about what I'm seeing.

from what I can tell the building isn't replacing the 5 story building but the 1 story building to the north of it.

[sammyg]

The word "historic" gets thrown around a lot. What's notable about this building, other than the fact that it was built sometime from the 1890s-1930s? There are lots of old buildings in Humboldt Park, but nobody complains if one of those is torn down.

[wrabbit]

^ The article Spyguy posted says State and Pearson, and if you look at the thumbnail renderings from Ardecila, check out the context--the new building appears to be replacing the 5 level historic building that I was talking about above. Take a second look.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure about what I'm seeing.

I'm going by the map on Loyola's own website, which Ardecila links to above and which pinpoints the precise location: http://www.luc.edu/values/campus/vt_watertower.swf This would be "No. 6" on the map, which places it almost directly across from Chestnut to the West, or half way between Chestnut & Pearson to the East (Chestnut moves half a block to the North at State as you are travelling East).

Again, the street view per Loyola's map: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.897795,-87.628224&spn=0,359.997422&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.897877,-87.628227&panoid=yD-PQU4V28pArtaoHXf66g&cbp=12,78.68,,0,13.43
The historic five-story building that you mention (the one with Mike's on the ground floor) above does not appear to be part of this development.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Wrabbit that is incorrect. The southwest corner of the block is all coming down, see below.


EDIT: Nowhereman, can you clarify the exact site footprint for this building? Are the beautiful Victorian rowhomes at 10 E. Pearson and 16 E. Pearson coming down? The 5-story mixed use corner building with the dive bar and barbershop in the first floor?

Let me clear this up for you guys. As far as I've seen, the plan is for the entire western half of the block bounded by Wabash, Pearson, State, and Chestnut to be redeveloped. The new school of business building will take up the Southwest corner of that block mandating the tear down of the corner building/dive bar (good riddance that building is a complete shithole), the two victorian three flats to the east of there (unfortunate, but kinda necessary), and the the current nasty ass building that the beauty store occupies.

The northwest corner of the block is slated for a tallish residential building to be built by a private developer (offsetting Loyola's costs) that would also contain a few amenities for Loyola students. Some things the school wants in the tower include a decent amount of parking (seeing as how Loyola currently has only one small parking lot for faculty who commute to park in, something that is very important for a business and law school since rich lawyers and businessmen don't want to waste their time with public transit, don't yell at me guys, its true) and maybe some classrooms or student space in the bottom.

[wrabbit]

I'll have to defer to your insider's knowledge, because all I have to go by is the Loyola map. That map does show (placeholder?) shading on the far SE corner of the block (where Mike's is).

[Busy Bee]

Anyone want to make a prediction on what the auction selling price will be for the Old Post Office?

[the urban politician]

^^^ Wrabbit that is incorrect. The southwest corner of the block is all coming down, see below.



Let me clear this up for you guys. As far as I've seen, the plan is for the entire western half of the block bounded by Wabash, Pearson, State, and Chestnut to be redeveloped. The new school of business building will take up the Southwest corner of that block mandating the tear down of the corner building/dive bar (good riddance that building is a complete shithole), the two victorian three flats to the east of there (unfortunate, but kinda necessary), and the the current nasty ass building that the beauty store occupies.

The northwest corner of the block is slated for a tallish residential building to be built by a private developer (offsetting Loyola's costs) that would also contain a few amenities for Loyola students. Some things the school wants in the tower include a decent amount of parking (seeing as how Loyola currently has only one small parking lot for faculty who commute to park in, something that is very important for a business and law school since rich lawyers and businessmen don't want to waste their time with public transit, don't yell at me guys, its true) and maybe some classrooms or student space in the bottom.

^ So getting back to my point, very little will be added to the cityscape when all is said and done and Loyola's project is completed

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ No, this building will be over twice as tall as anything thats currently there and half of the existing buildings that are there are vacant and/or one story. Also, 1/4 the block is parking lot, that whole lot will be built on by the highrise portion.

I'll have to defer to your insider's knowledge, because all I have to go by is the Loyola map. That map does show (placeholder?) shading on the far SE corner of the block (where Mike's is).

That map is at least 5 years old and number six is the currently vacant bookstore building which will also be torn down. The placeholder on the map is the corner building with the bar.

[wrabbit]

Anyone want to make a prediction on what the auction selling price will be for the Old Post Office?

11.5 Mil, based on nothing whatsoever.

[Mojava]

$40 Million...

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=35283


(Crain’s) — A bidder agreed at an auction Thursday to pay $40 million for the Old Main Post Office.

The identity of the winning bidder could not immediately be determined. The auction took about a half hour, with bidding starting at $300,000, the suggested opening offer.

[VivaLFuego]

^ So getting back to my point, very little will be added to the cityscape when all is said and done and Loyola's project is completed

Sounds like, particularly since students will be driving into an attached parking garage rather than deigning to park in an existing public garage or lot in the area or even take a taxi, which might place them into dangerous contact with the street level... right Nowhereman?

[aic4ever]

Reconciling the address, 100 Loyola Way, and the university's map, along with the renderings and then Google maps, it looks like this building will occupy the east side of State, between Pearson and Chestnut, which when drilling down to street view, looks like it will find the Mike's Bar & Grill building remaining, and see Sally's, and the existing university bookstore being replaced by the new building. This is affirmed by clicking on item five, the University Bookstore, on the Loyola map, which indicates this bookstore will become part of 100 Loyola Way, and become a Barnes & Noble within the new building.

The rendering appears to indicate a building that is about 10 stories, and one that does not impact any of the existing buildings TUP brings up, and which manages to be architecturally striking along the whole block, and in an area that doesn't particularly demand it.

[Patel]

Anyone want to make a prediction on what the auction selling price will be for the Old Post Office?

40 million.

[Patel]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roeder/1738591,chicago-old-post-office-sold-082709.article#

$40 million bid for Old Main Post Office


August 27, 2009

BY DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com

Old Chicago Main Post Office sold for $40 million in a public auction today.

The old massive building that spans the Eisenhower Expressway was sold in a spirited auction that drew more than 120 onlookers. The identity of the winning bidder could not immediately be learned. The winner went behind closed doors to complete contract signing after the 45-minute auction.

» Click to enlarge image The Old Main Post Office was sold for $40 million in a public auction Thursday. The building covers about 2.7 million square feet.
(Richard A. Chapman/Sun-Times)



The bidding drew interest from several Chicago developers but it appeared that out-of towners were the ones who escalated the price.


In the end, the bidding was almost exclusively between two parties who are believed to be from elsewhere.

The building at 433 W. Van Buren covers about 2.7 million square feet and used to be the largest postal processing center in the world. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places but is not a Chicago landmark.

The post office was built in stages from 1921 to 1932 under a design by Graham, Anderson, Probst & White, the firm that succeeded the one founded by Daniel Burnham. Other Chicago buildings the Graham firm designed included the Civic Opera Building, the Merchandise Mart, the Wrigley Building and Union Station.

The building has been empty since 1996, when the U.S. Postal Service moved to modern space nearby. It retained ownership of the property and for years cooperated on a redevelopment plan with Walton Street Capital, headed by prominent investor Neil Bluhm.

But those plans collapsed in the worst real estate market in decades and the postal service opted to auction the property to ease its own cash crunch. A government report has said the agency pays more than $2 million a year to keep the building heated and secure.

Auctioneer Rick Levin, president of Rick Levin & Associates Inc., suggested an opening bid of $300,000. The auction was held at Hotel InterContinental Chicago O¹Hare in Rosemont.

Immediately after the auction was announced in June, there were questions about whether the building merited a positive bid at all. Renovation costs would be huge and the building, with an interior space almost as large as what¹s in Willis Tower, would become taxable under private ownership.

In addition, the postal service¹s earlier deal with Walton Street carried negative value. The sale price was $10, but the postal service agreed to kick in a $9 million subsidy toward renovations.

A big challenge with the building is its dark, two-block-long floors that stretch over the expressway. Walton Street had proposed removing some of the old mail sorting space and turning the rest of it into a hotel. Other sections would have been retrofitted for offices or condominiums.

The budget for the work was believed to be more than $300 million.

[Patel]

Sorry Mojava I missed your post.


$40 Million...

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=35283


(Crain’s) — A bidder agreed at an auction Thursday to pay $40 million for the Old Main Post Office.

The identity of the winning bidder could not immediately be determined. The auction took about a half hour, with bidding starting at $300,000, the suggested opening offer.http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=35283

Old Main Post Office fetches $40 million
By: Eddie Baeb Aug. 27, 2009

(Crain’s) — A bidder agreed at an auction Thursday to pay $40 million for the Old Main Post Office.



winning bid came from a man and woman who did not speak to reporters. A U.S. Postal Service spokesman identified them only as principals with International Property Developers North America Inc. The spokesman would describe the company only as a global development firm and would not say where it is based.

He said the winning bidders were foreign. They signed a contract and paid $250,000 in earnest money, the spokesman said.

He read a statement from the winners in which they said they plan to “re-energize the property as a focal point and destination for the entire city and its visitors for the next century.”

...

“To paraphrase Daniel Burnham, let me assure you, that we shall make no small plans.”

The auction took about a half hour, with bidding starting at $300,000, the suggested opening offer.

The bidding narrowed to two prospective buyers at about $15 million.

The winners are to close on the purchase by Sept. 30.

...

[VivaLFuego]

Reconciling the address, 100 Loyola Way, and the university's map, along with the renderings and then Google maps, it looks like this building will occupy the east side of State, between Pearson and Chestnut, which when drilling down to street view, looks like it will find the Mike's Bar & Grill building remaining, and see Sally's, and the existing university bookstore being replaced by the new building. This is affirmed by clicking on item five, the University Bookstore, on the Loyola map, which indicates this bookstore will become part of 100 Loyola Way, and become a Barnes & Noble within the new building.

The rendering appears to indicate a building that is about 10 stories, and one that does not impact any of the existing buildings TUP brings up, and which manages to be architecturally striking along the whole block, and in an area that doesn't particularly demand it.

If it is as you suggest, then this will be a great development, since it would leave the buildings with "character" (the corner one admittedly gritty but still a positive for the streetscape imo) and eliminate the parking lot, crap book store, and crap beauty store. This would be ideal and awesome. However, Nowhereman seems to be implying the opposite - the parking lot and northern portion of site are being held for an eventual mixed use tower, while the corner building with Mike's and the adjacent Victorian rowhomes along Pearson would be replaced by the B-school.

I agree with you that architecturally, this seems like a nice building with interesting interior spaces. I will be much more positive if it's construction doesn't mandate demolition of ever more of the endangered historic stock of the area.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Wow, I just looked at their new plans and it appears that you guys are right. I think they may have shuffled up the layout and rotated the building 90degrees so it now faces state street like you suggest. Originally they had it facing Pearson and I assumed it still was, but I guess those row homes are being saved now. One of the two is on the national historic places register or whatever its called.

Sounds like, particularly since students will be driving into an attached parking garage rather than deigning to park in an existing public garage or lot in the area or even take a taxi, which might place them into dangerous contact with the street level... right Nowhereman?

Well the original intent of attaining parking is so that they have enough space for all of the faculty members to park without forcing them to walk several blocks or to pay for parking at the other garages. My understanding is that there would still be no space availible for students in the garage. Besides, outside of the MBA program (which I'm sure you could understand them wanting to avoid an extra 5-10 min walk when they are balancing a full time job, classes, and maybe a family) no one at Loyola really drives to school, almost everyone uses the Shuttle, 147, or lives within walking distance. I know maybe half a dozen kids who regularly drive here.

[spyguy]

^^^ Wow, I just looked at their new plans and it appears that you guys are right. I think they may have shuffled up the layout and rotated the building 90degrees so it now faces state street like you suggest. Originally they had it facing Pearson and I assumed it still was, but I guess those row homes are being saved now. One of the two is on the national historic places register or whatever its called.

Here's a larger version of one of those renderings:
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3114/newgradschool.jpg
It still looks like it's on State and Pearson, so maybe it's old. On the other hand, one of the interior shots shows a view to the south from the atrium.

Nowhereman: was the "Clare on steriods" for this site or the lots next to Lawson YMCA (is that project even moving forward at that scale)? And are there any plans to do something with Maguire Hall in the future?

BTW here are some other projects for the Lake Shore campus from Loyola's website:
New Intercollegiate Athletic Facility
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5286/athletics28edit29.jpg
New Academic Center for Lake Shore Campus
Funds are needed to complete the Lake Shore Campus's original architectural plans with a state-of-the-art facility for mathematics and political science in the footprint of Damen Hall.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6823/damenreplacement28ed.jpg

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ The "Clare on Steroids" tower was supposed to go behind the new business school along Chestnut, but if they modified the plans, it may have been dropped. Thats the original rendering for sure, but are we sure thats not the corner of Chestnut and State? I remember hearing that the glass atrium was designed to face south and gather as much of the winter sun as possible and to self heat and cool much like the Information Commons does.

Updates on the other projects:

That intercolligate sports complex is actually just breaking ground right now. They have the site fenced off and there are a few pieces of miscellaneous equipment there right now. I think it looks pretty good, but I couldn't disagree more with its placement, Gentile Center already cuts the campus in half, this will be attached and further separate the campus.

McGuire Hall will be renovated and all the offices moved to the upper floors of the new building and then all of McGuire will be renovated into the classrooms for the undergraduate school of business while the entire graduate school of business and undergraduate library will reside in the new building. 25 E. Pearson is going to become the exclusive law school building containing brand new sets of mock courtrooms, the law library, and law classrooms. 25 E is already in the process of these renovations and a beautiful new courtroom just was opened on the top floor. They are also in the process of modifying and replacing the elevators in the building as well.

That last building is the replacement of Damen Hall which is going to be demolished very soon seeing as how the renovation and restoration of Mundelein (Skyscraper Building) is nearing completion (only two floors left to go). That Mundelein building is absolutely huge now that they have finishing renovating it with 15 floors and between 7 and 4 classrooms a floor for 8 or so of those floors plus dozens of offices and practice rooms in the skinnier higher floors. Expect Damen to come down within a year and for construction of that new building to begin immediately after.

[spyguy]

Thats the original rendering for sure, but are we sure thats not the corner of Chestnut and State?

I think it's Pearson and State based on the perspective. You can see SCB's Wolf bands on Baumhart Hall and that small lowrise building on Pearson next to the currently standing rowhomes.

[brian_b]

Notice is up for a zoning request to establish a parking lot at the SE corner of Randolph & Desplaines. The site is currently a private parking lot, so I'm assuming this is just to make it a public lot.

For once I'm agnostic on it. Whatever. There are some very nice buildings farther east on the block that ideally will some day see landmarking or other protection, so I'm fine if development takes it's time on this site to get it right. It's not like this represents a developer throwing in the towel and going for surface parking instead (a la 560 Fairbanks).

I'm pretty sure that this lot was owned by Catholic Charities who have not used it much at all since the demolition of the buildings they owned across the street (made way for R+D659). This lot is pretty small but would be great for use by the valets at Blackbird, Meji, and Avec. They currently use up a lot of the metered spaces in the neighborhood.

[brian_b]

There are no billionaire alums from LUC. There are, however, many multimillionaires who will probably donate. For example, the CEO and founder of Morningstar is a Loyola Alum and the CFO of Wal-Mart is as well, these guys have got cash and may have donated already.


Joe Mansueto is on the board of the Booth School, so I doubt he's giving any money to a competitor.

http://www.chicagobooth.edu/about/leadership/council.aspx

[aspiringArchitect]

I don't post in here very often but I just saw this on Yahoo and thought it was important...

Chicago's vacant post office auctioned for $40 million
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090828/lf_nm_life/us_chicago_postoffice
Thu Aug 27, 10:34 pm ET
CHICAGO (Reuters) – Chicago's old main post office, which dates from the 1920s and has been vacant for more than a decade, was sold at auction on Thursday for $40 million.

The minimum bid was just $300,000 and bidders had to have a certified check for $250,000 to express good faith.

The U.S. Postal Service identified the new owner as International Property Developers North America Inc, which did not specify its plans.

In a statement read by a postal service spokesman, the company said it would "re-energize the property as a focal point and destination for the entire city and its visitors for the next century."

"To paraphrase Daniel Burnham, let me assure you that we shall make no small plans," it said.

The building of 2.5 million square feet (232,000 square meters), which straddles an expressway and sits above railroad tracks, was deemed a must-sell because the postal service did not want to keep paying the $2 million annual cost of up keep, auctioneer Rick Levin & Associates said.

The postal service moved its main office across the street from the old facility in 1997.

The old nine-story building, flanked by two towers, was once the U.S. Postal Service's largest facility. Its soaring marble-floored lobby was featured in a scene in "The Dark Knight," the latest entry in the Batman movie franchise.

Among past failed proposals for the structure, which sits adjacent to the Chicago River and near the downtown Loop, were converting it into condominiums, a hotel, an auto dealership, an indoor parking facility, a casino and water park.

(Reporting by Andrew Stern; Editing by John O'Callaghan)

[Hayward]

I came into this thread hoping to see people's response to this. Surprisingly the majority of discussion of the old Chicago post office is to be found on a Detroit website. I think it's funny it's been posted here like 4 times without any response. Not criticizing, just ironic, that's all.

Hmmm, maybe I should be more interested in the Loyola development since I should be able to see the construction site from my apartment.

[the urban politician]

^ I imagine people aren't saying much because so far no plans have been announced. The old post office went from public to private hands in the middle of the worst recession in recent history. Whoopty doo, I guess...

[VivaLFuego]

The only thing that comes to mind for the old PO... is a totally immense casino with hotel, resort, indoor parking, the works.

[ardecila]

^ I imagine people aren't saying much because so far no plans have been announced. The old post office went from public to private hands in the middle of the worst recession in recent history. Whoopty doo, I guess...

Yeah, all we can do is speculate on the plans, but even that's already been done to death - just ask John Ronan. :haha:

[Busy Bee]

if the biggest hurdle is what to do with 2.7 million sf, an idea I've been thinking about lately is cutting through the floor plates to create a large interior atrium and having a pretty sweet indoor amusement park/entertainment complex—maybe even an indoor ski slope, how bad ass would that be?. Yeah, it would be tourist hell, but it beats using such an iconic building as condos or a parking garage.

[Mr Downtown]

^Are you thinking that would be as successful as Old Chicago in Bolingbrook (1975–1981)? Or Llove in Dallas (1975–1978)?

[emathias]

if the biggest hurdle is what to do with 2.7 million sf, an idea I've been thinking about lately is cutting through the floor plates to create a large interior atrium and having a pretty sweet indoor amusement park/entertainment complex—maybe even an indoor ski slope, how bad ass would that be?. Yeah, it would be tourist hell, but it beats using such an iconic building as condos or a parking garage.

Too bad it can't be turned into a big film production center. Sound stages, film processing, CGI data centers, etc.

[intrepidDesign]

if the biggest hurdle is what to do with 2.7 million sf, an idea I've been thinking about lately is cutting through the floor plates to create a large interior atrium and having a pretty sweet indoor amusement park/entertainment complex—maybe even an indoor ski slope, how bad ass would that be?. Yeah, it would be tourist hell, but it beats using such an iconic building as condos or a parking garage.

I think that's a fantastic idea! I think they have indoor surfing complexes now too, which would be good for Chicago considering Lake Michigan doesnt have the biggest waves.

[wrabbit]

Emathias, the idea of an enormous studio/production center/soundstage is a great idea.

Has anyone actually been inside since the PO vacated? What is the state of the interior, and how large are the interior spaces? Any cool murals?

Perhaps portions of it could be used to augment the WP stadium should Chicago get the 2016 games.

[Via Chicago]

Emathias, the idea of an enormous studio/production center/soundstage is a great idea.


Ideas are nice and all, but personally, I dont know of any pent up demand in Chicago for production space. That world pretty much exists only in LA, and just because you build it dosent mean they will come. Someone can correct me if my perceptions are wrong, though

[emathias]

Ideas are nice and all, but personally, I dont know of any pent up demand in Chicago for production space. That world pretty much exists only in LA, and just because you build it dosent mean they will come.

There's no pent-up demand, because production space isn't particularly geographically sensitve. Even films set and with location work here do a lot of production in either New York, LA or Toronto because those cities have the facilities to support larger productions, so they get the larger gigs.

However, it is in the interest of any city, including Chicago, to attract additional film industry. Whereas a place like St. Louis probably could build out a large production center and still not attract additional film work simply due to size a lack of interest/reputation, Chicago is in a position where it could attract additional film work if it had bigger facilities. It would be a boon to local talent, help keep some talent from relocating to the Coasts, and raise the international profile of Chicago if it can more easily be used as a base for filming. We have cost advantages over LA and New York, but those are partly offset by the costs associated with having to use New York or LA for the larger film processing and production.

Supporting the film industry here with a large production center will initially just help the local film industry, but it will also help local technology industry if more CGI can be done here, and in the mid to long term be a big boost to international tourism and reputation by increasing the visibility of Chicago in entertainment. That's a big part of the reason Canada and Toronto lend such heavy support to film there, and I have to say that I think it's working very well for them. If Toronto didn't have a film industry, don't tell me it would still have the same level of awareness it currently enjoys.

[wrabbit]

^ True, Chicago does have a lot of local talent from its vibrant theater scene - hadn't even thought of that part.

[ardecila]

^Are you thinking that would be as successful as Old Chicago in Bolingbrook (1975–1981)? Or Llove in Dallas (1975–1978)?

What about the Nickelodeon thing at Mall of America? There's obviously a critical mass of attractions that such a park needs, as well as surrounding draws like retail and restaurant space. But there's no reason the idea should be rejected altogether. Stratosphere Tower in Vegas is a model, although it's a bit of a stretch due to Vegas' unique tourist business. Apparently there are several in Asian cities as well - the one in Yokohama comes to mind.

Indoor waterparks also do fantastically well here in Chicago. There's been a mini-building boom of them in outer suburbs, but there aren't any within the city, unless you count the Park District's enclosed pools. One in the post office would enjoy transit access, which people might actually take advantage of due to the convenience factor. It might give Blue Line trains a chlorine smell, though... :haha: Maybe the waterpark would buy a gigantic version of a hand dryer to air-dry wet waterpark visitors...

[J_M_Tungsten]

This thing really is massive!! Lots of potential. What do you guys think about something similar to a soldier field like project,? Keep the historical outer walls but build a building within the building. integrate the old floor plan with the new. Something similar to the last 2 photos, obviously with a better designed building, just tryin to show my idea. Feel free to comment, positive or negative, its just an interesting thought I had, I'm sure it would be a nightmare to plan something like this though (foundation wise, to support the new tower). This building to me, and I think alot of other people, is the gateway into Chicago, something interesing should be done with this property.

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_4590.jpg

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_4591.jpg

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_4610.jpg

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/100_4611.jpg

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/old_post_office.jpg

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/2-1.jpg

[ethereal_reality]

^^^Interesting post about the old post office J_M_Tungsten.

I agree, it does seem to be a 'gateway' when you come in on the Eisenhower.
It's even a bit exciting, approaching this massive building and driving under it.
A towering addition would be very cool.

That said, the lower floors in the exisiting building would be a tough sell.
Who wants to live directly over an 8 lane expressway?
I guess, a significant portion of the existing building would be parking.

Let's just hope they preserve the grand 1932 lobby.


below: The old Chicago Post Office looking north.
The expressway isn't the only thing that runs beneath the building.

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/3189/towardspostofficechicag.jpg
unknown

[aspiringArchitect]

I say, besides giving it a nice clean up, keep the exterior as it is. I think it looks great the way it is now. It doesn't need a another big flashy glass tower.

For the inside that is, I say do something different. I like the idea of making it either an indoor amuseument park, waterpark, or indoor ski hill (that would be REALLY cooL!). It looks like it would be the perfect space, other than the fact that an expressway goes directly underneath it; would the ground floor be able to support something as big as a roller coaster or wave pool? If something like this could be built however, it would certainly attract the tourists (and locals alike), and maybe even spur some more development in that area.

Of course we are all speculating on what will happen, but the developer did say that "we shall make no small plans" so perhaps they will go with something other than the same old same old.

[BWChicago]

The lobby, exterior, and executive offices are protected by a deed covenant from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Some preservation groups in Chicago were concerned that it might go too far, and limit the potential for successful re-use. Any future work must conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.

[VivaLFuego]

I still think the developer is planning a 4000+ position casino. Given the city and state budget deficits, it would be nearly impossible for either to reject such a 'generous' offer for an infusion of hundreds of millions of annual tax revenues without a tax rate increase. I don't think this mayor or Gov. Quinn and their respective legislatures have the fortitude to turn down the mega millions then turn around and lay off thousands of public employees while raising taxes.

The twist is that previously, the city casino was to be city-owned, but these investors might think they can pull a deal together before the city can, and make an offer that can't be refused.

There is no market demand for hotel, office, or residential in that location at this time. The forum brainstorming is on the right track in that whatever goes there will have to be so massive as to stimulate it's own demand. But an amusement park won't cut it - there's a reason such parks are exclusively located in the boonies, because the revenue per square foot of assorted amusement rides simply can't support urban land values.

But a casino... in an underserved market... where the nearest quasi-competition is Hammond, IN, and where the nearest true competition (big city gambling vacation destination) is probably Detroit or Atlantic City... where every arm of local government is desperate for tax revenue but politically unable to raise taxes... where a building is available at a major transportaiton nexus, with floorplates large enough for all the gaming to be on one level (strongly desired by casinos) while having ample room for carving out a parking garage, including hotel/resort functions on site...

This is all speculation on my part, but I'm having trouble comprehending any other economically viable use for such an albatross structure in an intriguing-but-undesirable location in the current economic climate. This project will need to generate serious revenue to be viable, and how many possible uses generate serious revenue on a per square foot basis?

[denizen467]

^ The more detailed and thought-through your comments are, the more depressing they are. My reaction is I don't think I need the gateway to the southwest Loop to be turned into a giant block of gaudiness (even just a single giant neon "Harrah's" or "Wynn" would do it). Unless it's executed with improbable restraint and elegance, I probably would actually prefer the darn thing be demolished rather than have it become a giant casino. Personally I view the social and cultural ramifications here outweigh the fiscal ones (but to avoid turning this into a political discussion beyond the scope of the forum I should probably just frame my displeasure as a concern for aesthetics).

[Chicago3rd]

I still think the developer is planning a 4000+ position casino. Given the city and state budget deficits, it would be nearly impossible for either to reject such a 'generous' offer for an infusion of hundreds of millions of annual tax revenues without a tax rate increase. I don't think this mayor or Gov. Quinn and their respective legislatures have the fortitude to turn down the mega millions then turn around and lay off thousands of public employees while raising taxes.

The twist is that previously, the city casino was to be city-owned, but these investors might think they can pull a deal together before the city can, and make an offer that can't be refused.

There is no market demand for hotel, office, or residential in that location at this time. The forum brainstorming is on the right track in that whatever goes there will have to be so massive as to stimulate it's own demand. But an amusement park won't cut it - there's a reason such parks are exclusively located in the boonies, because the revenue per square foot of assorted amusement rides simply can't support urban land values.

But a casino... in an underserved market... where the nearest quasi-competition is Hammond, IN, and where the nearest true competition (big city gambling vacation destination) is probably Detroit or Atlantic City... where every arm of local government is desperate for tax revenue but politically unable to raise taxes... where a building is available at a major transportaiton nexus, with floorplates large enough for all the gaming to be on one level (strongly desired by casinos) while having ample room for carving out a parking garage, including hotel/resort functions on site...

This is all speculation on my part, but I'm having trouble comprehending any other economically viable use for such an albatross structure in an intriguing-but-undesirable location in the current economic climate. This project will need to generate serious revenue to be viable, and how many possible uses generate serious revenue on a per square foot basis?

Agree pretty much with your insight. This has been in the cards for quiet some time and rumor has been for years that this is where Daley wants it. Also, I am thinking it might not be as gaudy as some other casinos in the area, that Daley would be pushing for something closer to Monte Carlo, of course on the cheaper side of it.

It could fit a casino, hotel and entertainment in it. It is easy to get to by car and train.

[ardecila]

^ The more detailed and thought-through your comments are, the more depressing they are. My reaction is I don't think I need the gateway to the southwest Loop to be turned into a giant block of gaudiness (even just a single giant neon "Harrah's" or "Wynn" would do it). Unless it's executed with improbable restraint and elegance...

The MGM Grand in Detroit is actually a model of good taste (at least compared to most casinos). I was very surprised when I saw the photos... it's kind of a modern twist on traditional interior design, almost like the interiors at Trump Tower here in Chicago.

I have no doubt that something classy can be done, and undoubtedly the city will push for it.

[Busy Bee]

You can make a casino as classy as you want—it doesn't mean the people will be.

[nomarandlee]

This thing really is massive!! Lots of potential. What do you guys think about something similar to a soldier field like project,? Keep the historical outer walls but build a building within the building. integrate the old floor plan with the new. Something similar to the last 2 photos, obviously with a better designed building, just trying to show my idea. Feel free to comment, positive or negative, its just an interesting thought I had, I'm sure it would be a nightmare to plan something like this though (foundation wise, to support the new tower). This building to me, and I think alot of other people, is the gateway into Chicago, something interesting should be done with this property.
]

I think you are right that it would be a nightmare from a foundation/engineering perspective. Really whatever what wants done should find the space to do it in OLO if it requires and will be hard pressed to find enough sensible uses to take up 2.5 mill sq. feet. If there are any limitations then perhaps the parcels near it to the west (Holiday Inn) and NW (Union Station parking lot) could also be bought and integrated as part of an even larger complex.

I think it more likely there will actually be a reduction of space though similar to what the last official renders for redevelopment
suggested which included ripping out most of the middle. The later addition to the middle on the east end of the building is not much to write home about anyway.

What I wonder about is what will be made of the annex building that sits SE of the building along the river. I hope it finds a way to be utilized to though it also looks like it had an addition on its north end which looks kind of dilapidated. It and the whole complex oversee what could be a great potential riverfront space.

Another aspect I hope the developers consider is to make a pedestrian tunnel connection from Union or a future HSR station strait into the building. Letting people walk strait from the train into the OPO without stepping out in the cold in January and February (potentially with luggage if there is a hotel in the complex) for out of towers would be welcomed.

I also see the most pragmatic use as a casino as well. Have a destination Vegas type casino with 100sq.ft. of gaming, some clubs, specialized theatres, special attractions etc. Having such a complex has to be mindful at trying to attract visitors without cannibalizing other city venues and in particular Navy Pier.

Lastly, I made mention of it in SSC but I think the Green Pix idea that was mentioned in the Sun-Times a few weeks ago is a compelling idea on some of the building. Article last week in suntimes about what to do with OPO. </P>

http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/weiss/1729725,CST-EDT-hedy23.article

What to do with Old Post Office? Go green

August 23, 2009

BY HEDY WEISS

...........And he talked about a groundbreaking project called GreenPix
that already exists in Beijing and could be adapted to the western and eastern facades of the building. (Using sustainable and digital media technology,

GreenPix is a huge color LED display for a building's curtain wall that operates
as a self-sufficient organic system, "harvesting solar energy by day and using
it to illuminate the screen after dark.") A program of changing installations could attract media artists from around the globe and become the city's latest attraction..............

I don't put a lot of stock in her geen industries suggestion but the
sugguestion about the Green Pix facade intrigued me. I know that some are against the floodlighting of downtown or anywhere in the city but I think it perhaps has potential here...........

http://blog.girvin.com/?p=1111

A company GreenPix has created an astounding combination of sustainable technology and digital media virtuosity, dubbed the Zero Energy Media Wall. The system features the world’s largest (so they claim) color LED display, powered completely by photovoltaic cells which are integrated into the glass curtain. During the day, the wall â€" located on the Xicui entertainment complex in Beijing harvests solar energy, then expends the charge at night in a display of undulating colors.

This huge LED screen displays mesmerizing patterns of light and video to
passersby. But the really amazing thing about the enormous wall of light is that it’s completely self-sustaining. That is, the light panels themselves harness the energy of the sun during the day to power a colorful light show at night

photos from the above blog

http://blog.girvin.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/light_02.jpeg

http://blog.girvin.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/light_04.jpeg

J_tjLUUW4So&amp;feature=related

GreenPix - Dynamic Architecture

[BWChicago]

I think it more likely there will actually be a reduction of space though similar to what the last official renders for redevelopment
suggested which included ripping out most of the middle. The later addition to the middle on the east end of the building is not much to write home about anyway.

That's not an addition. That's the original post office. The rest of it is an addition. Ripping out the middle is no longer an option because of the deed restrictions. Nor is altering the facade with the GreenPix. Light wells (vertical shafts) might be an option to break up the space without altering the protected parts.

http://memory.loc.gov/ndlpcoop/ichicdn/n0752/n075207.jpg

[arlekin_m]

^Something like that would look incredibly cool if the PO is to be used as a casino from now on.
(Referring to GreenPix)

[ethereal_reality]

^^^BWChicago, thanks for the clarification.
I'm sure most people have no idea this section came first.

Good find.

[Mr Downtown]

Ripping out the middle is no longer an option because of the deed restrictions.

Can you elaborate on these "deed restrictions?" Were these something negotiated just in the last few months, after Walton Street gave up? Their plan, you may remember, called for removing much of the western façade.

Ordinarily, façade easements are contributed to an organization such as Landmarks Illinois in order to get tax credits, which GSA/USPS would have had no use for. So I don't think any of those are in place.

I have heard that IHPA declined to approve a residential plan a few years back that included basket balconies hung on the exterior. But none of the previous discussions with Walton Street included any mention of "deed restrictions." With the property no longer in federal hands, the Secretary of the Interior's standards have no particular authority, unless you know something I don't.

[BWChicago]

Can you elaborate on these "deed restrictions?" Were these something negotiated just in the last few months, after Walton Street gave up? Their plan, you may remember, called for removing much of the western façade.

Ordinarily, façade easements are contributed to an organization such as Landmarks Illinois in order to get tax credits, which GSA/USPS would have had no use for. So I don't think any of those are in place.

I have heard that IHPA declined to approve a residential plan a few years back that included basket balconies hung on the exterior. But none of the previous discussions with Walton Street included any mention of "deed restrictions." With the property no longer in federal hands, the Secretary of the Interior's standards have no particular authority, unless you know something I don't.


Apparently, that wasn't an issue then since the building wasn't actually *sold* to Walton. It seems that this came in through Section 106 review - there was something about post office restrictions on sales, or the fact that it was an auction, or something, that meant that it had to go through 106, and the outcome was that they put a covenant on the deed itself - the deed is the legal mechanism, not the SHPO. The SHPO administers the covenant. http://www.preservationnation.org/magazine/2009/todays-news/up-for-auction-1932-chicago.html There was some concern that this wasn't being well-publicized in the auction materials, so it's hard to know if the buyer did due diligence and found out about the restrictions.

[Mr Downtown]

^That is wonderful news! Thanks! I have to say, though, that I'm dying to read the actual "covenant." I'm not quite sure what it means for the SHPO to "administer" a covenant.

[ardecila]

http://memory.loc.gov/ndlpcoop/ichicdn/n0752/n075207.jpg

Wow... I'll never look at this building the same way. Oddly enough, my respect for the building has diminished now that I know it's such a chimera.

It's interesting to note that this building does not have a tunnel for Congress Parkway. I wonder if the construction of the tunnel required structural changes?

[denizen467]

^ Aw c'mon, it means the later structure is smaller only by a sliver... shouldn't your respect for it be greater because they retained the original and fused it with the addition so well? Even if it were a real chimera like the Marshall Field's or Carson Pirie Scott flagships, there is still something amazing about a mini-city like that developing over time on a single block.

Great question about the Eisenhower. As for the 1930s addition, Wikipedia says it provisioned for the eventual highway, although no real source is given for that statement.

Actually the photos on the last page and this discussion raise another question that isn't adequately being addressed in all the recent press coverage: Exactly what buildings were included in the auction? Just the structures within the big "rectangle"? Or were the smaller parcels along the river included? The very old red building along Harrison appears to actually be in use by USPS at present. I vaguely remember something written about the various parcels a couple years ago at the time of the Walton proposal, but I think the local press has been derelict about reporting many specifics this time around.

[aic4ever]

Apparently, that wasn't an issue then since the building wasn't actually *sold* to Walton. It seems that this came in through Section 106 review - there was something about post office restrictions on sales, or the fact that it was an auction, or something, that meant that it had to go through 106, and the outcome was that they put a covenant on the deed itself - the deed is the legal mechanism, not the SHPO. The SHPO administers the covenant. http://www.preservationnation.org/magazine/2009/todays-news/up-for-auction-1932-chicago.html There was some concern that this wasn't being well-publicized in the auction materials, so it's hard to know if the buyer did due diligence and found out about the restrictions.

For $40 million I really doubt the buyer cares about what Landmarks' restrictions are. That's $14.81 per square foot for 2.7 million square feet. Even if you figure they go cheap and do a normal gut/rehab for $150 to $200 per square foot, their total outlays up front including purchase are $164.81 to $214.81, for a range of $445 million to $580 million. Even if, like I said, they go super cheap and make it all blank office space and sell it at $15 per square foot per year, they're looking at $40.5 million per year in revenue. That's about a ten to fifteen year payback looking at moderate construction costs and extremely cheap end use. And this is to say nothing of the fact that they likely don't spend anywhere near $150/sf themselves. Like most developers, they will pass off interior buildouts to the tenants.

Hell, even if they can't make the building work, they could just tear it down for probably another $10 million or so. You'd have to know they'd be able to move the bare land for a hell of a lot more than $50 million in that spot.

No matter how you look at it, they got a steal here, Landmarks or no Landmarks.

[VivaLFuego]

For $40 million I really doubt the buyer cares about what Landmarks' restrictions are. That's $14.81 per square foot for 2.7 million square feet. Even if you figure they go cheap and do a normal gut/rehab for $150 to $200 per square foot, their total outlays up front including purchase are $164.81 to $214.81, for a range of $445 million to $580 million. Even if, like I said, they go super cheap and make it all blank office space and sell it at $15 per square foot per year, they're looking at $40.5 million per year in revenue. That's about a ten to fifteen year payback looking at moderate construction costs and extremely cheap end use. And this is to say nothing of the fact that they likely don't spend anywhere near $150/sf themselves. Like most developers, they will pass off interior buildouts to the tenants.

Except isn't absorption for office space in that area basically zero? It could be decades before that much new office space in this location is absorbed. This is one of those almost-great-but-actually-pretty-lousy locations, which is why any project will have to be much more creative than mere office space. This project will absolutely need to stimulate it's own demand.

Hell, even if they can't make the building work, they could just tear it down for probably another $10 million or so. You'd have to know they'd be able to move the bare land for a hell of a lot more than $50 million in that spot.

No matter how you look at it, they got a steal here, Landmarks or no Landmarks.
Wouldn't the deed restrictions preclude tearing the thing down?

[FlashingLights]

aic4ever should take a look at the current chicago area planning

Office space won't enter that region near the post office for awhile. All new office space has been near the train stations in the west loop or near Wacker on the west edge of the loop, there has been little or no office space created in the southern section of the actual loop or along michigan avenue on the eastern edge of the loop. In the 80's some office expansion happened on north Michigan avenue, but even recently that region has been dead to office space. Some office space expanded into river north across the river recently, but again this is right near the edge across Wacker and the not far from the train stations in the west loop.

When listing reasons for locating to an office space the #1 voted reason was central location to transportation(Metra) and #2 was location to other offices and clients. I don't see office clients moving quickly to the former post office location. I think your making real estate sound to easy overall, that is not how it works.

[the urban politician]

I just stayed the night at the Holiday Inn next to the old post office.

Wow what a white elephant that thing is.

But why would it be such a bad location for some office space? It's a fairly short walk from both Union Station and a Blue Line station, not to mention great expressway access

[orulz]

When listing reasons for locating to an office space the #1 voted reason was central location to transportation(Metra) and #2 was location to other offices and clients. I don't see office clients moving quickly to the former post office location.
Forgive me for my ignorance perhaps due to not being a local, but how much closer to Metra do you need to be? This place is 1 block from Union Station, and 4 blocks each from Ogilvie and Lasalle. As for proximity to offices, this is maybe a few blocks from the densest parts of the West Loop, and I realize that a couple of blocks do make a difference, but so much so that it would be completely unmarketable?

However, from reading the suggestions and possibilities on this thread, I agree that a casino sounds like it's probably the most likely. I'm the biggest fan of casinos, so I'm ambivalent about it on the whole. But the truth is, it would be a great fit for the building: location, transportation, huge floor plates, etc. If a casino is to be built in Chicago, this is where it should go.

At least in Vegas the casinos all have a bunch of amenities on site not directly related to gambling (shows, shopping, entertainment, etc.) I wonder if this one would do the same. There's lots of activities already there in Chicago so it might be tough to compete, but casinos tend to try to keep people inside, and that's not really the most tourist friendly part of downtown anyway, so maybe they would have to.

[J_M_Tungsten]

If you want entertainment and a casino, go to Vegas. They do it right.This is Chicago, Illinois, we don't need a cheesy attempt at a Vegas style casino. All the casinos I have ever been to outside of Las Vegas are not in the greatest parts of town (Elgin, Aurora, etc..), and in no way have they caused a "boom" of business around them. Unless were trying to lead Chicago into a Gotham City style "decay" (Ironically, Chicago was Gotham city in Batman!), I would hope someone out there with half a brain would decide against this idea, but most people don't care about the property and building and just see the dollar signs, so we will see.

PS- orulz this is not targeted at you, this is just what I wanted to say.

[ardecila]

The casinos aren't the cause of the blight in Elgin and Aurora. The blight existed before the casinos were built. The casinos, despite their best efforts, do stimulate some amount of outside economic activity (people eating in local restaurants, stopping for gas, etc). Plus, they provide funding both to the state and to the local municipalities, which can lead to all sorts of benefits for the municipalities... Elgin has used casino money to subsidize new townhouse development and an ambitious riverwalk project, as well as downtown streetscaping and road improvements. A city, theoretically, could also put the money towards school improvements, additional police, or community programs.

Now, a casino in the Post Office would be a special case. Unlike the casinos in Vegas, Detroit, Atlantic City, Biloxi, Reno, or any other gambling destination, the Post Office site would have extensive transportation connections to the surrounding city and its amenities: Navy Pier, Millennium Park, the Mag Mile, River North clubs, museums, and stadiums.

The casino could respond to this in several ways. 1), they could sever the casino from any means of access besides an interior parking garage entrance. 2), they could simply give and only offer a pure gambling/bar experience, or 3) they could attempt to offer a combination of entertainment and dining options that is competitive with the best Chicago has to offer.

Here in New Orleans, Harrah's Casino has tried approach #3. They have built a large casino with multiple pedestrian entrances, easily accessible by streetcar or on foot, with parking garages connected by underground tunnels and plenty of restaurants and retailers that are on the garages' ground floors. There is also a connected hotel tower. Harrah's encourages casino guests to eat at their restaurants and stay at their hotel through price breaks.

[J_M_Tungsten]

The casinos aren't the cause of the blight in Elgin and Aurora. The blight existed before the casinos were built. The casinos, despite their best efforts, do stimulate some amount of outside economic activity (people eating in local restaurants, stopping for gas, etc). Plus, they provide funding both to the state and to the local municipalities, which can lead to all sorts of benefits for the municipalities... Elgin has used casino money to subsidize new townhouse development and an ambitious riverwalk project, as well as downtown streetscaping and road improvements. A city, theoretically, could also put the money towards school improvements, additional police, or community programs.

Now, a casino in the Post Office would be a special case. Unlike the casinos in Vegas, Detroit, Atlantic City, Biloxi, Reno, or any other gambling destination, the Post Office site would have extensive transportation connections to the surrounding city and its amenities: Navy Pier, Millennium Park, the Mag Mile, River North clubs, museums, and stadiums.

The casino could respond to this in several ways. 1), they could sever the casino from any means of access besides an interior parking garage entrance. 2), they could simply give and only offer a pure gambling/bar experience, or 3) they could attempt to offer a combination of entertainment and dining options that is competitive with the best Chicago has to offer.

Here in New Orleans, Harrah's Casino has tried approach #3. They have built a large casino with multiple pedestrian entrances, easily accessible by streetcar or on foot, with parking garages connected by underground tunnels and plenty of restaurants and retailers that are on the garages' ground floors. There is also a connected hotel tower. Harrah's encourages casino guests to eat at their restaurants and stay at their hotel through price breaks.

I know the casinos in Elgin and Aurora aren't the cause of their problems, but they are definitely not helping increase property value or any other draw to live in that area. When looking for a place in the burbs, I doubt highly that proximity to a casino is high on peoples list (unless your a compulsive gambler). I'm happy the the local Denny's can benefit from the people staggering out in anger after losing their weekly pay check, but I feel local business can, and would, rather go to a new condo development. I understand that would be a lot of condos for 2.7 million square feet, but I think an entertainment complex is the wrong way to go with this project, and would be a failure in the long run.

[FlashingLights]

For $40 million I really doubt the buyer cares about what Landmarks' restrictions are. That's $14.81 per square foot for 2.7 million square feet. Even if you figure they go cheap and do a normal gut/rehab for $150 to $200 per square foot, their total outlays up front including purchase are $164.81 to $214.81, for a range of $445 million to $580 million. Even if, like I said, they go super cheap and make it all blank office space and sell it at $15 per square foot per year, they're looking at $40.5 million per year in revenue. That's about a ten to fifteen year payback looking at moderate construction costs and extremely cheap end use. And this is to say nothing of the fact that they likely don't spend anywhere near $150/sf themselves. Like most developers, they will pass off interior buildouts to the tenants.

Hell, even if they can't make the building work, they could just tear it down for probably another $10 million or so. You'd have to know they'd be able to move the bare land for a hell of a lot more than $50 million in that spot.

No matter how you look at it, they got a steal here, Landmarks or no Landmarks.

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/CAPchapter2a.pdf


"OFFICE GROWTH IS STRONGEST IN THE CENTRAL LOOP AND WEST LOOP
Since the majority of downtown workers use CTA rail and bus lines, which are concentrated in the Central Loop, many infill locations in that area will remain prime office sites. The majority of the projected office growth will occur in the Central Loop.

Although substantial office development occurred in most downtown sub-markets during the study period, the growth rate was strongest in the West Loop, defined as the area west of Franklin Street including the strong Wacker Drive market. Substantial infill development occurred between Wells
Street and the Chicago River and a number of buildings were constructed west of Canal Street, an area
previously considered marginal. Given the importance of the West Loop rail stations to commuters, and
the increasing scarcity of available sites in the traditional core, continued westward expansion seems
likely.

Relatively little office construction occurred in the East Loop – indeed, the most notable development was the conversion of some Class C buildings to residential and educational use. Office construction north of the river is limited and is expected to account for less than 15 percent of new demand. No, speculative office construction at all occurred south of Congress Parkway, although two dedicated bank processing facilities were built on South Canal Street.


If you look at the office expansion map almost all of it is further north of congress in the west loop or between Franklin and the Chicago river. I just don't see the building in the area being prime office space. Maybe if it was more modern infrastructure. Once you hit congress or near congress it's just an invisible barrier to the south.


Proximity to mass transit was the chief consideration according to 73% of respondents. According
to the survey, 72% of employees take CTA or Metra to the workplace, while 23% drive and 6% walk.
Other important factors were proximity to clients (46%) and state-of-the-art technology infrastructure
(43%).

[emathias]

If the Clinton Subway were to be built, the value of this property would go up. It will also go up if there is any real high-speed rail built into Union Station.

As for south-of-Congress development, I think the Clinton Street subway would help for areas west of the River, and even though it's not proposed, I think running the Orange Line to the Loop along the Rock Island Line, to enter the Loop at VanBuren/Lake would help the South Loop along the River a lot, by creating a line where infil stations can easily be added, unlike the present routing. And by eliminating the need for four tracks at 15th or 16th street, you could add a stop there for the Green Line. It would be double-win from that perspective. Then through-route the Orange Lines to Kimball and you've got a lot more access from the North Side to the South Loop, enabling better access overall.

[aic4ever]

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/CAPchapter2a.pdf



If you look at the office expansion map almost all of it is further north of congress in the west loop or between Franklin and the Chicago river. I just don't see the building in the area being prime office space. Maybe if it was more modern infrastructure. Once you hit congress or near congress it's just an invisible barrier to the south.

This is why I ran the numbers on the low end. $15/sf/yr for office is pretty cheap, and most other uses generate higher revenues than does office space. I did not intend to speculate they could possibly fill 2.7 million square feet with just office space. I'm not insane. Whatever they do will have to be highly mixed. In any case, I would speculate they will average much higher than that across the entire square footage.

[aic4ever]

Except isn't absorption for office space in that area basically zero? It could be decades before that much new office space in this location is absorbed. This is one of those almost-great-but-actually-pretty-lousy locations, which is why any project will have to be much more creative than mere office space. This project will absolutely need to stimulate it's own demand.


Wouldn't the deed restrictions preclude tearing the thing down?

See prior response to Flashinglights. It was just a broad spectrum cash flow exercise.

Also, as far as the deed restrictions, in our other work, it has generally seemed to prove easier to tear down a Landmarked building than it is to renovate it. For instance the planned development process with the Esquire, which was very close to moving forward and hit issues not related to Landmarks, versus the incredibly time consuming Landmark permitting process with the Three Arts Club that eventually gave concerned neighbors enough time to rally the troops and kill the deal even after NDA had long since approved it. While the tear down is one giant hurdle to jump, it is only one hurdle, rather than the many involved in a rehab. Also, considering only parts of the building are landmarked; facade, lobby and executive offices, it seems it would be even easier to do since the whole building is not landmarked.

[brian_b]

Unless were trying to lead Chicago into a Gotham City style "decay" (Ironically, Chicago was Gotham city in Batman!)

The lobby of the post office was used in the opening scene of the latest Batman movie ;)

[VivaLFuego]

Also, as far as the deed restrictions, in our other work, it has generally seemed to prove easier to tear down a Landmarked building than it is to renovate it. For instance the planned development process with the Esquire, which was very close to moving forward and hit issues not related to Landmarks, versus the incredibly time consuming Landmark permitting process with the Three Arts Club that eventually gave concerned neighbors enough time to rally the troops and kill the deal even after NDA had long since approved it. While the tear down is one giant hurdle to jump, it is only one hurdle, rather than the many involved in a rehab. Also, considering only parts of the building are landmarked; facade, lobby and executive offices, it seems it would be even easier to do since the whole building is not landmarked.

Interesting to hear the insider perspective on this. Ideally the bolded passage would give decision-makers and activists some pause about the need for reconsidering the current procedures in place, since it seems most do-gooder activist types who slow down development would actually prefer the reverse be true - even a less-than-ideal renovation being preferable to demolition.

aic4ever, do you have any thoughts on the amendments to the Planned Development process that Reilly just pushed through that would (allegedly) make it easier to rehab old buildings (landmarked or not) through the PD process?

[J_M_Tungsten]

The lobby of the post office was used in the opening scene of the latest Batman movie ;)

Yep, an amazing intro scene for a movie!!!