PDA

View Full Version : CHICAGO | General Developments


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 [89] 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529

pip
Dec 2, 2009, 11:10 PM
Ok...now I feel stupid... I missed that little detail.

haha fooled me too and I thought the same thing as you. :)

VivaLFuego
Dec 3, 2009, 3:50 AM
Downzoning land adjacent to a transit stop to single family home use seems so goddamn criminal to me that I honestly think we should start putting these bastards in jail

For whatever it's worth, this practice is rampant - but not so much as a planning tool, but rather as a power play. Aldermen do this as soon as there is a hint of development, so that they maintain 'control' over anything that gets built. I'm not sure if it was approved (maybe Shawn knows?) but a month or two ago one of the proposed rezonings was the NE corner of 35th & Halsted to RS-1, which is for large-lot single family houses (think Kenwood, Norwood Park). Same reason - control, moreso than planning. Similarly, Manny Flores recently downzoned a bunch of land around the California Blue Line stop to the lowest possible classification so he could maintain control the rumored mid-rises someone is cooking up there.

Granted, if the downzoning happens and becomes de facto permanent, well, that's the new precedent density for the neighborhood, and further, if the neighborhood ever develops any sort of organized community voice, that voice will agitate for nothing but townhouses and parking lots as acceptable development - which can be enforced via the low zoning, but which can be ignored with appropriate dense urban zoning like the R5 (generally allowing 3 or 4 units per lot depending on lot size) that used to surround the entire south green line. The clowns telling Ald. Daley that the Grossinger site at Division/Wells should be townhouses can be rightfully ignored because of the very high density underlying zoning - but if a previous alderman had pulled this trick and the current zoning only allowed single-families, it would probably be enforced given the relative political power of the neighbors.

spyguy
Dec 3, 2009, 1:37 PM
http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/12-02-2009/Through_the_looking_glass

Through the looking glass
By MICAH MAIDENBERG
12/02/2009 10:00 PM

A commercial glazier with headquarters in South Suburban Alsip will continue its foray into retail glass products in the West Loop.

Trainor Glass bought land at 938 W. Lake this summer, spending $2.5 million for the purchase, according to property records.
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/1875/rendering120209.jpg
---
While it looks OK, it's unfortunate that something larger than a 1 story building isn't being built next to the future Morgan/Lake stop.

I also found this paragraph in another article interesting:

http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/12-02-2009/Rolling_with_the_punches

Rolling with the punches
By MICAH MAIDENBERG
12/02/2009 10:00 PM

For Soo Choi the calculation went something like this: thousands of new South Loop homeowners and renters living in the neighborhood’s freshly minted high-rises and brick townhomes were ready for a coffee shop. There was no such small-scale retail in the Museum Park area. Thus Little Branch Café, the business she co-owns and runs, was born.

...Some residents living above Little Branch didn’t know the café was open, Choi said. She recalled one such person who didn’t realize its existence a year after its debut, something she attributed to heavy car use — a garage to work to garage lifestyle.

Ch.G, Ch.G
Dec 3, 2009, 4:10 PM
^ Cue Mr Downtown's parking apologia in 3... 2...

This city is joke. I'm genuinely worried about its future-- the future of most American cities, really.

emathias
Dec 3, 2009, 5:05 PM
...
While it looks OK, it's unfortunate that something larger than a 1 story building isn't being built next to the future Morgan/Lake stop.
...

I completely agree, and *strongly* feel that the City should not allow single-story buildings to be developed on the same block as "L" stations. It's such as waste of ... everything.

emathias
Dec 3, 2009, 5:20 PM
... It's going to be state of the art with reserved seating. ...

Awesome! I went to a movie in Stockholm with reserve seating, and it was nice to be able to pick your seats and not have to just stand in line for hours.

VivaLFuego
Dec 3, 2009, 6:18 PM
I completely agree, and *strongly* feel that the City should not allow single-story buildings to be developed on the same block as "L" stations. It's such as waste of ... everything.

I'll be the unpredictable contrarian here - a 1 story building employing a couple dozen people (e.g. work commuters) replacing a parking lot is loads better than... well, a parking lot. Street parking in that area is atrocious if you intend to get there anytime after about 7:30 AM, and any reserved parking the retailer is sure to keep for potential customers rather than employees, meaning this 1-story thing will probably generate more transit trips via commuters than a 3-4 story residential building.

Sure, it's not ideal like a 5-story office loft might be (surely uneconomical for the forseeable future given overall commercial space vacancies), but it's not borderline criminal like taxpayer-subsidy of privately-owned off-street parking next to a station where ample parking already exists. At 51st/Green, the employees will all just drive too. This 1-story retail showroom could potentially generate 20 additional systemwide transit trips per day.

ChicagoChicago
Dec 3, 2009, 6:52 PM
I completely agree, and *strongly* feel that the City should not allow single-story buildings to be developed on the same block as "L" stations. It's such as waste of ... everything.Perhaps the city could provide TIF money to allow Trainor Glass and other prospective companies to engineer their buildings for future vertical expansion. I don't really see the advantage of totally refusing this building and it's potential tax revenues solely on the basis that the future development could support buildings greater than a single story.

harryc
Dec 3, 2009, 6:58 PM
Chicago Shawn thank your for the demolition photos -

lawfin
Dec 3, 2009, 7:55 PM
...Some residents living above Little Branch didn’t know the café was open, Choi said. She recalled one such person who didn’t realize its existence a year after its debut, something she attributed to heavy car use — a garage to work to garage lifestyle.

This is one of the stronger anecdotal account of the deleterious effect of pandering to the suburbs-in-the-city crowd.

Of course the argument could be made that without such pandering there might not be a neighborhood

Mr Downtown
Dec 3, 2009, 8:46 PM
^I have my doubt that this "lifestyle" exists (the owner cites one anecdote). It's really hard for me to imagine someone driving his Lexus every day from Museum Park to Madison & Wells.
If there are Museum Park residents who drive to work, chances are good that it's because their jobs are in the suburbs (or at hospitals).
Apologist that I am, I think it's, on the whole, a good thing to have those jobholders living in the central city.

Interestingly, at OMP, it's only the folks arriving solely by auto who would ever see the coffee shop in question. Those walking from the L or bus stop would come in the front door (north entry) and never see it.

ardecila
Dec 3, 2009, 9:24 PM
I'll be the unpredictable contrarian here - a 1 story building employing a couple dozen people (e.g. work commuters) replacing a parking lot is loads better than... well, a parking lot. Street parking in that area is atrocious if you intend to get there anytime after about 7:30 AM, and any reserved parking the retailer is sure to keep for potential customers rather than employees, meaning this 1-story thing will probably generate more transit trips via commuters than a 3-4 story residential building.

Did you read the article?

The firm was unaware that a new Chicago Transit Authority station is planned for nearby, at Morgan and Lake, when they closed on the property, Keranen said. But that news came as an added bonus. “It was like wow and who knew?” she said.

This isn't to say that their employees won't take transit once the station opens, but it seems to me that they planned to have both employees and customers drive. They're basically going for a Merchandise Mart approach with their showroom, but in an area that has far, far less available parking. I wonder if they'll be successful there? It's certainly edgy and industrial-chic, but it presents significant problems for a business trying to open up.

VivaLFuego
Dec 3, 2009, 9:41 PM
Yeah I know what it wasn't planned - that's why I brought up the "challenging" street parking in the area. Upon opening they will quickly find that it doesn't make sense to reserve scant parking for employees once they hear complaints from potential customers about how hard it is to find parking. Employees are happy to experiment with finding the best way to get to work balancing cost, time, and available resources. The reality of non-downtown retail (that isn't part of a bona fide pedestrian district e.g. Clark/Fullerton) is that customers will eventually give up, and retailers thus will do anything to increase parking availability - the biggest benefit of the parking meter lease: now it's uneconomical for employees to take up meters for 8 hours while customers circle in frustration. The employees figured out how to cope. The customers can now find parking, even if all they do is complain about the cost because they lack the synapses to connect dots.

Anyway, end result of plopping more workers and retail customers anywhere in this vicinity is that the nearby transit service will actually be an attractive option for some of their employees by virtue of the difficult parking - difficult parking being the necessary stick to get all but the poorest commuters on transit (hence my pessimism re: 51st/Green, where people will just drive because there is little reason not to).

on the subject of parking:
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7145954
"If customers spend more than $20 in Andersonville, they can mail their receipt from their parking meter or mail us their receipt from the CTA and we'll reimburse it," said Ellen Shepard, Andersonville Chamber of Commerce.

The Andersonville Chamber Of Commerce has learned that parking is the one issue that keeps people from shopping in local neighborhoods.

The money flow here is interesting, since neighborhood Chambers of Commerce receive tens of thousands in operating dollars annually from the City, which of course is now funding a large chunk of it's own operating budget via the lease of the parking meters, whose fees apparently are now paid in part by organizations funded by the city.

the urban politician
Dec 3, 2009, 9:50 PM
If there are Museum Park residents who drive to work, chances are good that it's because their jobs are in the suburbs (or at hospitals).

^ I was thinking the same thing

the urban politician
Dec 3, 2009, 10:04 PM
I hate this piss poor planning as much as the rest of you all, but it seems that no matter what we say or try to do, people will drive and people want to drive. One can make an argument that Chicago survived as a city in the post war boom because it made itself accessible to the car as well as the pedestrian/transit rider without destroying its fabric to nearly the degree that other cities did.

As long as Chicago holds that standard, I think it's doing the right thing--finding that middle ground. The city will keep having to provide parking to sustain its business environment while encouraging development forms that do not shun the pedestrian/transit rider the way it's done in suburbia. There have been horrible examples (strip malls, etc), but in the past few years we've seen a lot of improvement in the layout of developments, even big box stores, and we're seeing a city that at least is trying to rectify past design mistakes.

Transit-wise, I just don't see Chicago being progressive enough to take it to the next level the way a Toronto or Vancouver has, because after all it's an American city that deals with the realities of the American, more importantly midwestern, mentality that surrounds it. Big picture-wise, I think the roughly 200 skyscrapers built in a tiny area in the past decade is good enough evidence that the city is interested in its continued existence as a dense, urban center served by some assortment of buses and trains.

spyguy
Dec 3, 2009, 10:44 PM
^I have my doubt that this "lifestyle" exists (the owner cites one anecdote). It's really hard for me to imagine someone driving his Lexus every day from Museum Park to Madison & Wells.
If there are Museum Park residents who drive to work, chances are good that it's because their jobs are in the suburbs (or at hospitals).
Apologist that I am, I think it's, on the whole, a good thing to have those jobholders living in the central city.

Could be. It might be useful to study the driving habits of people living in Central Station. Still, it raises questions about the quality of the neighborhoods we're building if some residents don't 1)Walk around their building more than once a year 2)Converse with neighbors who do know about these new businesses 3)Look for or can't find this type of information online, through neighborhood/building newsletters, etc.

spyguy
Dec 3, 2009, 11:04 PM
The French Market in MetraMarket has finally opened!
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9870/p10100362.jpg
A cold, grey, slightly snowy day is the perfect time to try an indoor market. Even though I didn't get to spend much time inside, it was pretty cool to see this thing come to fruition. There was a steady stream of customers and curious onlookers, and even a giant mural of the Eiffel Tower in case you forgot where you were. I also noticed several new LED display boards mounted to the ceiling in the concourse level. Should be interesting to see how this all develops in the years to come.

ardecila
Dec 4, 2009, 12:16 AM
I mentioned it before, but I really hope this is associated with later hours for the Randolph concourse. I hate having to walk all the way down to Madison to board trains at night, especially since I'm usually walking down Randolph or Washington.

the urban politician
Dec 4, 2009, 9:34 PM
Bronzeville to get new six-story mixed-use building (http://www.gazettechicago.com/index/2009/12/bronzeville-to-get-new-six-story-mixed-use-building/)
December 4, 2009
Phase 2C of the Oakwood Shores development on south Cottage Grove Drive should break ground sometime early next year. If all goes as planned, the vacant lot at the 3700 block will become a six-story mixed-use building with two floors of commercial space.

“It will be mixed-income family housing, part of the Chicago Housing Authority’s plan for transforming Oakwood Shores,” said Lee Pratter, senior project manager for Community Builders, the project’s residential developer.

“It should be a typical urban community,” said Pratter, with units for singles, family units, and senior dwellings “We’re in the process of building a neighborhood, a new community,” said Joe Williams, chairman of Granite Development.

“We’re trying to do something transformative. This will be a mixed-income community. We have great schools, arts and recreation centers, great parks, churches, dental and medical centers, and retail. We’re also going to have a senior building.”

The commercial portion of Phase 2C will consist of 28,000 square feet on the development’s first two floors; the four stories above that will hold 48 mixed-income apartments consisting of public housing units, affordable units, and market rate units.

For the retail space, “We are looking at a number of different potential users,” Williams said. “Our brokerage firm is scouring the Midwest looking for companies with an interest in being in an urban area. We are considering a number of companies that provide medical services and want to give the entire market an opportunity to be a part of this great neighborhood. With the economy, we are looking at everything very closely. We hope to know something after the first of the year.”

The developers hope to break ground the second quarter of 2010, with occupancy “sometime in 2011,” Williams said. Fourth Ward Alderman Toni Preckwinkle is pleased the development will provide more affordable housing for families and that developers are looking for medical provider tenants.

“When we began the revitalization with Oakwood Shores, we took down a medical facility,” she recalled. “This will restore access to medical care to an area that previously had it.”

“There’s much more to making a neighborhood than just the brick and mortar of building the building,” said Williams.

For more information, call Monica Hernandez, broker for Granite Asset Management, at (312) 873-0226.

wrab
Dec 4, 2009, 10:07 PM
From Kamin's Cityscape blog:


State panel recommends that Reese buildings be included on National Register

Rebuking Mayor Richard M. Daley's demolition of architecturally-significant buildings at the former Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, a state panel voted unanimously Friday to recommend to federal officials that the remaining buildings be named to the National Register of Historic Places....But elevating the Gropius buildings to the National Register will not legally force Daley and city officials to back off from demoltion. National Register status only protects buildings that are being demolished with federal or state money. City funds are paying for the demolition at Reese, which the city purchased this year from private landowners.....

Read full article at: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/12/state-panel-recommends-that-reese-buildings-be-included-on-national-register-.html

ardecila
Dec 5, 2009, 12:51 AM
What's with the two floors of retail? I can only think of a few two-story retail outlets, unless you start looking at the urban-format big box and grocery stores. I guess some cafes have second-floor eating areas...

Is that second story just meant for storage, then?

Chicago Shawn
Dec 5, 2009, 1:34 AM
BW Chicago, thanks for posting that old article on the Firestone Building.

-----------
From the Chicago Journal..
http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/12-02-2009/First_glance_at_land-use_agendas:_rejection,_boats

Boats and slips are on the agenda of this month’s Plan Commission meeting, according to a legal notice. The Chicago Park District is seeking approval from the Plan Commission to build a 2,000-foot-long pier with 240 boat slips and 11,5000 square feet of retail and restaurant space near 600 E. Grand and 703-715 E. North Water St. in the 42nd Ward. Farther south, the park district wants permission to build a marina with 850 boat slips, 335 below-grade parking spaces, two acres of new green space and 15,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and community space near 31st and S. Lake Shore Drive. The Plan Commission is scheduled to convene Dec. 17 at 1 p.m. in city hall.

Chicago Shawn
Dec 5, 2009, 1:49 AM
For whatever it's worth, this practice is rampant - but not so much as a planning tool, but rather as a power play. Aldermen do this as soon as there is a hint of development, so that they maintain 'control' over anything that gets built. I'm not sure if it was approved (maybe Shawn knows?) but a month or two ago one of the proposed rezonings was the NE corner of 35th & Halsted to RS-1, which is for large-lot single family houses (think Kenwood, Norwood Park). Same reason - control, moreso than planning. Similarly, Manny Flores recently downzoned a bunch of land around the California Blue Line stop to the lowest possible classification so he could maintain control the rumored mid-rises someone is cooking up there.

Granted, if the downzoning happens and becomes de facto permanent, well, that's the new precedent density for the neighborhood, and further, if the neighborhood ever develops any sort of organized community voice, that voice will agitate for nothing but townhouses and parking lots as acceptable development - which can be enforced via the low zoning, but which can be ignored with appropriate dense urban zoning like the R5 (generally allowing 3 or 4 units per lot depending on lot size) that used to surround the entire south green line. The clowns telling Ald. Daley that the Grossinger site at Division/Wells should be townhouses can be rightfully ignored because of the very high density underlying zoning - but if a previous alderman had pulled this trick and the current zoning only allowed single-families, it would probably be enforced given the relative political power of the neighbors.

Exactly. Once an area is downzoned, it is very hard to go back the other way. Already, more than half of the pre WWII city is non-conforming due to neighborhood zoning becoming more restrictive over time.

What is even more concerning is that the two-step process in PD approval has been challenged in court and the city is now on the defense with an appeal. If upheld and the city is forced to abide by the ruling, then increasing density will become nearly impossible in the neighborhoods under current the zoning code. 'Two step' is the process of upzoning a property to a new zoning class while approving the PD. The reason this is done is because the PD has to coincide with the underlying zoning of the site, even when the PD process gives you some flexibility.

For example, lets say a developer wants to build a 6 story mixed use building near a L station. The property is zoned B2-1, and the project is large enough to trigger a PD. In order to accommodate the height of the building, a rezoning to B3-5 (or like classification) would occur, and then a PD would overlay the site and become the official zoning ordinance for the property in question.

I don't about 35th and Halsted, but if it was downzoned, I doubt it went all the way down to RS-1. That request is just so ludicrous, I don't know where to begin.

the urban politician
Dec 5, 2009, 4:16 AM
What's with the two floors of retail? I can only think of a few two-story retail outlets, unless you start looking at the urban-format big box and grocery stores. I guess some cafes have second-floor eating areas...

Is that second story just meant for storage, then?

^ Didn't you read the article?

They are seeking medical office space for the second story

denizen467
Dec 5, 2009, 9:15 AM
a 2,000-foot-long pier with 240 boat slips and 11,5000 square feet of retail and restaurant space near 600 E. Grand and 703-715 E. North Water St.
...
a marina with 850 boat slips, 335 below-grade parking spaces, two acres of new green space and 15,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and community space near 31st and S. Lake Shore Drive.
Sweet. I'm not a boat person at all, but activating the south lakefront, expanding boating in the city, and bringing in out-of-towners by boat to Navy Pier / Streeterville is great. Maybe increased usage at Navy Pier will help critical mass for Carroll Transitway extension there?

Are these capital projects essentially self-funded via user fees?

Mr Downtown
Dec 5, 2009, 4:10 PM
^Not just self-funding, but pretty big profitmakers for the Park District and the marina concessionaire.

BVictor1
Dec 5, 2009, 5:17 PM
On Wednesday, November 18, 2009, Roosevelt University completed the sale of bonds paving the way for construction of our new building on Wabash Avenue. We are now ready to begin construction in early February, following demolition of the Herman Crown Center.

You are invited to attend a Town Hall meeting in Chicago or in Schaumburg to learn all about our 32-story tower, which is certain to be the talk of Chicago and beyond. You will see the latest architectural renderings and hear how the building was designed, what it will contain, how it will complement the Auditorium Building, how it will be financed and how long it will take to construct.

Please join your Roosevelt University colleagues
at one of these Town Hall meetings:

Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Chicago Campus
Ganz Hall
12 noon until 1 p.m.

Nowhereman1280
Dec 5, 2009, 5:34 PM
^^^ Excellent news. Good to hear that the city is going ahead with new marinas and piers and that Roosevelt has got funding finalized for their new, and pretty interesting, tower. Again, I don't see why that tower is in this thread though. A 32 story building belongs in the Boom rundown...

the urban politician
Dec 5, 2009, 8:26 PM
^ So Roosevelt University will go from being a rather less-than-well-known University to being a University with the tallest dorm in the world (and a pretty flashy one at that, judging by the renderings)?

I'd call that a bold step--a very Chicago kind of thing to do. That's what they mean by "make no small plans"

wrab
Dec 7, 2009, 3:09 AM
At least we know where the buck stops on this one:


The Chicago Tribune
Clout Street
December 05, 2009

Daley says Michael Reese demolition will continue despite historic sites push
Share

Posted by John Byrne at 1:02 p.m.

Demolition work will continue on architecturally significant buildings at the Michael Reese Hospital campus, Mayor Richard Daley said today, despite a move by the Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Council to have the site named to the National Register of Historic Places.....

Read entire entry at: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/12/daley-says-michael-reese-demolition-will-continue-despite-historic-sites-push.html

ardecila
Dec 7, 2009, 5:52 AM
^^ Was there ever any doubt?

Da Mare's been behind this for several years now, acquiring the site for the Olympic Village, and he has said all along that redevelopment on the site would proceed with or without an Olympics - redevelopment involving the major demolition of most of the site.

On a related note, does anybody know how open the site is? Is it completely closed off, or can you still walk down the public streets through the site? I really want to go get some pictures before everything is gone.

I'm not getting too emotional about this. Clearly, the mayor has decided to strike a compromising position by preserving two buildings that are emblematic of both phases of MRH's development (Main Reese and Singer). These buildings will act as a marker to commemorate the high-quality architecture as well as the medical innovations made at Michael Reese. The record of Gropius' involvement will not be completely obliterated. There have been far worse losses to the world's architectural heritage. In my mind, the sheer fact that Gropius' involvement was not well-documented confirms that these buildings do not represent a unique and consequential development in architecture.

Unlike the crop of surviving ancient buildings, there are a select few buildings of the last century that are "turning points". Since Modernism has been such a diverse movement, it's difficult to pin architectural progress on a select handful of buildings. Clearly, none of the buildings at MRH fall under that category. Historians must therefore confer significance onto the small number of truly influential "turning point" buildings, and then out of the myriad rest, choose buildings that are consistent and well-designed examples, emblematic of their time but not influential in themselves. The preservation of Singer is just this - the conscious preservation of an excellent example of Gropius' collaboration with Loebl Schlossman & Bennett, with the understanding that total preservation of that collaboration in a dense, changing city is unrealistic and impractical.

Daley clearly is making a decision here in favor of a quick, clean-slate redevelopment. Other adaptive-reuse projects in the city have dragged on for years with no hope in sight (eg Old Post Office). By clearing the land, he makes it more appealing to developers who can impose their own patterns onto the site, making redevelopment more likely, and sooner rather than later. I imagine to a strong-willed leader like Daley, the people protesting MRH's demolition must seem like the reactionary crowd that protests any major decision, not out of reason but out of a fear of change. If MRH's significance was well-established for many years like IIT's, then the preservationist arguments would not seem so groundless and almost NIMBYish.

The demolition decision, IMO, must also take into account the value of whatever will be replacing MRH. So far, SOM's master plan for the site seems logical, well-planned, and integrated with the areas to the east in a way that neither apes the historic neighborhoods or the mid-century MRH/Prairie Shores system. If, like at Lakeshore East and in Central Station, projects are handed out to multiple architects, the end result is sure to be a high-quality modern community in the mold of those two above, and a proud step forward in the development of the south lakeshore.

SamInTheLoop
Dec 7, 2009, 2:29 PM
^ I think the main problem is that there isn't a realistic, feasible, near-term plan for what is going to go there - despite anything anyone from the public sector, or private sector for that matter, might represent, the SOM plan is not going to be built - there's no market for it, and there won't be for some time..........so this is another example of a demolition of at least potentially significant structures in which nobody truly knows with any degree of certainty what will go there when....we do not know what the payoff will be for this demolition and if it will outweigh this action....

aic4ever
Dec 7, 2009, 2:48 PM
$8.6 Million seems pretty high for converting an existing building to restaurants.

Nice to meet you BW. What developer are you? :haha:

wrab
Dec 7, 2009, 4:29 PM
.....Daley clearly is making a decision here in favor of a quick, clean-slate redevelopment. Other adaptive-reuse projects in the city have dragged on for years with no hope in sight (eg Old Post Office). By clearing the land, he makes it more appealing to developers who can impose their own patterns onto the site, making redevelopment more likely, and sooner rather than later.....

It's like death by a thousand cuts - a single demolition here and there, maybe a Goldberg up in Streeterville, maybe a small SOM box on the South Side, maybe a mid-century campus. The cuts add up.

I can't quite get the specter of Block 37 out of my head. Proactive city demolition is always a crap shoot.

Via Chicago
Dec 7, 2009, 5:56 PM
By clearing the land, he makes it more appealing to developers who can impose their own patterns onto the site, making redevelopment more likely, and sooner rather than later.


Yea, because Block 37 went so well by using that logic :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is there ISNT a legitimate plan for the site. You are very naive if you think the SOM design is still on the table. Who is going to pay for/develop it? The Olympics plan is obsolete, and there is no developer on board for something outside of that scenario. We're in the midst of one of the worst real-estate downturns ever, and the city is already having incredible difficulty absorbing the glut of condos and office space out there, which will continue for many years due to over-development. It could very well be decades before something goes up on this site. So why the rush to obliterate a heritage that could possibly be creatively re-used down the line? When we found out about the history of the buildings is irrelevant..we know NOW.

VivaLFuego
Dec 7, 2009, 6:24 PM
The irony is that if Balkany et al hadn't raised a huge preservation stink, the property would have been more likely to stand vacant rather than succumb to a fast-track demolition.

"No man, no problem."

That said, without said preservation stink, we may not have even been so lucky as to have Singer saved, so perhaps it was worth it.

It's not like this city has any shortage, past or present, of huge of large desolate patches of nothing that came to exist due to government clear-cutting. Block 37 speaks for itself, but what about:

Still extant government-sponsored desolate urban prairies
1. Cabrini-Green
2. Robert Taylor
3. Medical District
4. Many other CHA sites (smaller than 1 and 2 but still large gaping holes in urban continuity with zero prospect of redevelopment)

Other large land clearances also took decades to develop. Even Clark Street and patches of LaSalle were a prairie until the 1980s after clearance as part of the Sandburg Village project in 1960:
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/5092/197411.jpg
And of course, the stuff that finally did get built along Clark is criminally awful gated townhouse crap and a stripmall style grocery store.

Some of the area around South Commons has never redeveloped. Slum clearance along Madison's "Skid Row" basically resulted in the parking lots around Presidential Towers.

In fact, when was the last large scale government-led clearance of large swaths of land that didn't result in decades of nothingness? UIC-Circle Campus?

As stated, there is no market pressure to redevelop MRH nor is there any such pressure anywhere in sight. This will be a blighted pocket of nothingness for decades, just like all the others before it. But hey, at least Heneghan got their contract, and when the time comes to make the really big deal there won't be anyone in the way.

BVictor1
Dec 7, 2009, 7:07 PM
Yea, because Block 37 went so well by using that logic :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is there ISNT a legitimate plan for the site. You are very naive if you think the SOM design is still on the table. Who is going to pay for/develop it? The Olympics plan is obsolete, and there is no developer on board for something outside of that scenario. We're in the midst of one of the worst real-estate downturns ever, and the city is already having incredible difficulty absorbing the glut of condos and office space out there, which will continue for many years due to over-development. It could very well be decades before something goes up on this site. So why the rush to obliterate a heritage that could possibly be creatively re-used down the line? When we found out about the history of the buildings is irrelevant..we know NOW.

Well, last time I checked they were totally seperate entaties:shrug:

The MR site can be developed section by section. Yeah, Block 37 could have been also, but it wasn't. This site, because of it's massiveness will be.

Personally, I'd like to see the current zoned density doubled.

Yes, there is currently a glut of condos, but seeing as development of the site is probably several years off, there's a chance for things to have recovered somewhat by then. This will also allow for comprehensive site plans to be drawn. Besides, the land is more profitable cleared than not.

Via Chicago
Dec 7, 2009, 8:13 PM
Well, last time I checked they were totally seperate entaties:shrug:


Government should not be involved in real-estate development, period.

And again, the senseless RUSH, as if our lives depended on it, to demolish every last trace of MRH without exploring opportunities to re-use the existing structures is what bothers me the most. Its the complete unwillingness of the mayor (one who purports to be a major supporter of architecture) to explore other options to save these structures, or even reasonably listen to those who support the preservation effort...its that fact which disturbs me more than anything else.

The most interesting urban neighborhoods are those that include both the old and new. Clear cutting was a horrible policy during the urban renewal era, and its a horrible policy today.

Marcu
Dec 7, 2009, 8:17 PM
Government should not be involved in real-estate development, period.

And again, the senseless RUSH, as if our lives depended on it, to demolish every last trace of MRH without exploring opportunities to re-use the existing structures is what bothers me the most.

The most interesting urban neighborhoods are those that include both the old and new. Clear cutting was a horrible policy during the urban renewal era, and its a horrible policy today.

Thank you. Now that the Olympics are not on the table, the city should have limited itself to coordinating redevelopment, rezoning, and/or subsidizing.

ardecila
Dec 7, 2009, 8:21 PM
^^ All of the above happened in a era of big government-led redevelopment. The climate today favors the private sector. Daley would much rather flip this property to a developer with deep pockets than keep it under city ownership and have to deal with the political consequences and construction hassles of the redevelopment using city staff. He sold the parking meters and the Skyway to a private company, after all.

And no, it won't be redeveloped into a massive dense community overnight. Lakeshore East/New Eastside has continued development pretty much continuously through several market cycles over the last 50 years. Central Station is newer, but it has developed much faster than LSE due to its mix of high-rises, mid-rises, and townhomes that fill up the land much more quickly than a high-rise community can.

Block 37 was complicated by too many hands in the pot, with ComEd's spiderweb of power lines under the site and a new subway tunnel that everyone thought was a good idea until it came in hundreds of millions over budget. It's also such a visible project - directly across from City Hall and Daley Plaza - that it became a signature project for the mayor, which meant years' worth of red tape and complications.

Mr Downtown
Dec 7, 2009, 8:22 PM
Well, it's hard to believe that private-market owners would have acted any differently, knowing that the site was more valuable as a tabula rasa. But for Mayor Daley to continue to claim to be "green" while demolishing so much embodied energy is rather ludicrous.

Alderman Fioretti is now ruminating about how the Michael Reese site should be a site for "hotel expansion" related to McCormick Place, an idea that I don't think is even in the same room as reality.

Via Chicago
Dec 7, 2009, 8:26 PM
And no, it won't be redeveloped into a massive dense community overnight. Lakeshore East/New Eastside has continued development pretty much continuously through several market cycles over the last 50 years. Central Station is newer, but it has developed much faster than LSE due to its mix of high-rises, mid-rises, and townhomes that fill up the land much more quickly than a high-rise community can.

Neither of those examples are particularly appealing. Both are essentially subdivisions, cut off from the rest of the urban fabric. Again, is that really the best we can do with MRH?

Via Chicago
Dec 7, 2009, 8:31 PM
Well, it's hard to believe that private-market owners would have acted any differently, knowing that the site was more valuable as a tabula rasa. But for Mayor Daley to continue to claim to be "green" while demolishing so much embodied energy is rather ludicrous.


Yes, its possible a private developer would have done the same. But as I have said repeatedly, its the city's deaf ear...the rush to beat out any sort of preservation ruling that infuriates me. Its disgusting.

Plus, once something is landmarked than you can apply for state and federal funds to help with the preservation.

lawfin
Dec 7, 2009, 8:39 PM
........

It's not like this city has any shortage, past or present, of huge of large desolate patches of nothing that came to exist due to government clear-cutting. Block 37 speaks for itself, but what about:....

In fact, when was the last large scale government-led clearance of large swaths of land that didn't result in decades of nothingness? UIC-Circle Campus?

As stated, there is no market pressure to redevelop MRH nor is there any such pressure anywhere in sight. This will be a blighted pocket of nothingness for decades, just like all the others before it. But hey, at least Heneghan got their contract, and when the time comes to make the really big deal there won't be anyone in the way.
I agree; but then I often agree with Viva

Yea, because Block 37 went so well by using that logic

The fact of the matter is there ISNT a legitimate plan for the site. You are very naive if you think the SOM design is still on the table. Who is going to pay for/develop it? ....... We're in the midst of one of the worst real-estate downturns ever, and the city is already having incredible difficulty absorbing the glut of condos and office space out there, which will continue for many years due to over-development. It could very well be decades before something goes up on this site. So why the rush to obliterate a heritage that could possibly be creatively re-used down the line? When we found out about the history of the buildings is irrelevant..we know NOW.


I agree....that is a rarity

the urban politician
Dec 8, 2009, 10:20 PM
Neither of those examples are particularly appealing. Both are essentially subdivisions, cut off from the rest of the urban fabric. Again, is that really the best we can do with MRH?

Central station is cut off from the urban fabric? That's news to me. And LSE is quite possibly my favorite urban development--ever.

We can only hope that the MRH site becomes a continuation of Cental station style development (perhaps with a mixed use building or two), because a dense clusters of towers it will NOT be

harryc
Dec 9, 2009, 5:41 PM
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sx_RHSQAK3I/AAAAAAABdgA/xZN_z5drJRk/s800/P1620585.JPG

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sx_RH6kz77I/AAAAAAABdgI/XbMQAX8G234/s800/P1620677.JPG
Dec 3

And across the street - A hope for the Beige Precast - cover it in Ivy !
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sx_Q13EGkLI/AAAAAAABdfw/6ZWzW-cKH5o/s800/P1620383.JPG

the urban politician
Dec 9, 2009, 10:01 PM
I'm sorry if this has already been discussed, but does anybody know why there is scaffolding around the building at 660 N Rush? I'm hoping that's not a planned demo

Busy Bee
Dec 10, 2009, 2:04 AM
And across the street - A hope for the Beige Precast - cover it in Ivy !
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sx_Q13EGkLI/AAAAAAABdfw/6ZWzW-cKH5o/s800/P1620383.JPG

What's the likelihood that sun bleaching will eventually have this precast virtually matching the old Indiana limestone? Surely they considered this environmental effect of light fading?

BVictor1
Dec 10, 2009, 2:43 PM
^^ All of the above happened in a era of big government-led redevelopment. The climate today favors the private sector. Daley would much rather flip this property to a developer with deep pockets than keep it under city ownership and have to deal with the political consequences and construction hassles of the redevelopment using city staff. He sold the parking meters and the Skyway to a private company, after all.

And no, it won't be redeveloped into a massive dense community overnight. Lakeshore East/New Eastside has continued development pretty much continuously through several market cycles over the last 50 years. Central Station is newer, but it has developed much faster than LSE due to its mix of high-rises, mid-rises, and townhomes that fill up the land much more quickly than a high-rise community can.

Block 37 was complicated by too many hands in the pot, with ComEd's spiderweb of power lines under the site and a new subway tunnel that everyone thought was a good idea until it came in hundreds of millions over budget. It's also such a visible project - directly across from City Hall and Daley Plaza - that it became a signature project for the mayor, which meant years' worth of red tape and complications.

First of all, the Skyway and meters weren't sold, they were leased to private entities, which is a little different.

It's true that both LSE and Central Station took time to development over several up and down periods. There were plans for LSE/Illinois Ceter dating back to the 1930's and there have been ideas for redeveloping IC land for about 50 years. Redeveloping MR will take time, but the city can probably get more money with the majoity of the property cleared than not. People have suddentl been up in arms because some of the MR buildings had "Gropius" involvement. Has that ever actually been proven? He may have "reviewed" some of the drawings, but It couldn't have been all that seeing as no one made any mention of it in the past or a big deal about it when they were built.

As for Block 37, I wonder how successful it'll become. I walked through there for the first time on Tuesday. I was neither totally blown away nor totally disappointed. We'll have to see what other stores they can least to and how unique they are to that location. If they can ever get a theatre open on the upper levels, hopefully it will allow the mall not to become another Chicago Place. Also I feel that if they can ever get the hotel and rental/condo tower developed, that will help that project. Maybe?!

Loopy
Dec 10, 2009, 3:06 PM
.

spyguy
Dec 11, 2009, 2:06 AM
I'm sorry if this has already been discussed, but does anybody know why there is scaffolding around the building at 660 N Rush? I'm hoping that's not a planned demo

McCormick Double House (http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarkDetail.do?lanID=12152)

BWChicago
Dec 13, 2009, 12:53 AM
Redeveloping MR will take time, but the city can probably get more money with the majoity of the property cleared than not. People have suddentl been up in arms because some of the MR buildings had "Gropius" involvement. Has that ever actually been proven? He may have "reviewed" some of the drawings, but It couldn't have been all that seeing as no one made any mention of it in the past or a big deal about it when they were built.

-If they are placed on the register, MRH would be eligible for tax credits in a rehab project. Not so if it's cleared.

-Yes, it's been proven. Grahm Balkany has done extensive research, you can see some of it at savemrh.com . Gropius was as much architect of these as any of his buildings. And it's not entirely new, just the extent. AIA Guide, for example, always mentioned his involvement with the plan.

DIESELPOLO
Dec 15, 2009, 1:08 AM
Hi everyone,

I follow Chicago development regularly and just wanted to know if there has been much progress on the CREATE initiative to alleviate freight traffic congestion and modernize the system. I mean, I've definitely read plenty of reports online, but maybe some of you fellow forumers could give me some insight. As a potential UIC graduate student (wish me luck!), it's a program of particular interest. Not nearly as glamorous as a TOD, but important just the same.

PS- and why does everyone hate the Elysian so much?! Wonky proportions aside, it's not horrible, no? Admittedly it brings into question architectural integrity, but I'd venture to say that it's far from an architectural abomination

emathias
Dec 15, 2009, 1:15 AM
Hi everyone,

I follow Chicago development regularly and just wanted to know if there has been much progress on the CREATE initiative ...

Please ask your CREATE question over on the Chicago Transit (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=101657) section since it's really more of a transportation subject.

tintinex
Dec 15, 2009, 10:50 PM
I have tickets to attend the opening party of the movie theaters at Roosevelt Collection in the South Loop. It's this Thursday night. I will take pics and post them here. The Movie theaters should be open this weekend to the public

ChicagoChicago
Dec 15, 2009, 10:58 PM
I have tickets to attend the opening party of the movie theaters at Roosevelt Collection in the South Loop. It's this Thursday night. I will take pics and post them here. The Movie theaters should be open this weekend to the public

Just don't take any video. I'd hate to see you get arrested.

tintinex
Dec 15, 2009, 11:12 PM
Just don't take any video. I'd hate to see you get arrested.

I won't take any video, especially of the pre-screening of Avatar :)

denizen467
Dec 16, 2009, 6:22 AM
Interesting angle on urban development that we haven't discussed very much here - booting govts off of prime real estate when it's not essential to them.

------

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/water.reclamation.district.2.1372342.html

Dec 15, 2009 10:23 pm US/Central
Government Agency Sits Downtown, Pays No Taxes
Building That Houses Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Headquarters On North Michigan Avenue Could Bring In More Than $5 Million A Year

Reporting Jay Levine

CHICAGO (CBS) Why does a government agency, whose primary task is performed far from the bright lights of the Magnificent Mile, need its headquarters right on it? As CBS 2 Chief Correspondent Jay Levine reports, its headquarters which cost over a million dollars a year to maintain, and take countless millions more off the tax rolls.

It's the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, which operates one of the largest waste water treatment plants in the world in southwest suburban Stickney, with a billion dollar plus budget and 2,000 employees.

Six hundred of them in the squat, grey-stone five-story headquarters surrounded by sleek Gold Coast high-rises of North Michigan Avenue and in the seven floors it owns in a newer building across the street. Neither on the county tax rolls.

A government agency paying no taxes, sitting on a posh site like this?

"It's a head-scratcher they've maintained this location for this kind of use," said corporate real estate expert Allen Rogoway. "It's a county use, and the highest and best use for a location just off Michigan Avenue would seem to be commercial or residential."

Like the Ritz Carlton Apartment tower going up right next door, which the county assessor says will have a market value of $242 million; estimated annual tax revenues: over $5 million. The District headquarters brings in nothing.

"You're right, it's valuable real estate," said Water Reclamation District Commissioner Debra Shore. "It might make sense to put it back on the tax rolls."

Debra Shore has been a commissioner for just three years. The building has been here for more than 50, since 1955.

Protected by a private police force, with generous indoor parking and even a city-designated loading zone. Your tax dollars pay for that, too. CBS 2 didn't see much loading going on in the government cars parked there.

Sources say when the developers next door tried to buy the building back when real estate values were soaring, they were turned down flat.
Allen Rogoway is not only a commercial real estate expert, he's also a taxpayer.

"As a citizen of the city, I would ask the same questions and wonder why they weren't in another location," Rogoway said.

One commissioner has proposed moving everyone out to Stickney, where the District has plenty of space. Commissioner Shore wants to be near other government agencies.

"I think it makes sense for us to be in the central core somewhere, but it doesn't have to be a block off of Michigan Avenue," Shore said.

The problem is now is clearly NOT the time to sell real estate. But passing up a chance when they could've gotten top dollar not only cost them, it cost us; by keeping one of the most valuable pieces of property in Chicago off the tax rolls.

CBS 2 Political Producer Ed Marshall contributed to this report.

emathias
Dec 16, 2009, 6:56 AM
Interesting angle on urban development that we haven't discussed very much here - booting govts off of prime real estate when it's not essential to them.

------...

Maybe they could lease space in the CTA building.

I'm a little amused at the timing of the article - I kinda think the fact that the Ritz builders are having a helluva time with the Reclaimation people has a lot to do with the timing of the piece. Or maybe I'm just cynical. I do agree that prime spots should only rarely be monopolized by government agencies. Government should be centrally located, to be sure, but there should be reasonable and evaluations of costs.

VivaLFuego
Dec 16, 2009, 4:11 PM
Once that leap is made, one would naturally say the same thing about every parcel owned by any tax-exempt organization in a valuable place, not just government. Why should we the taxpayers subsidize church parking, used once per week (possibly more if they get to use it for tax-free valet parking), on a prime site?

In fact, given that this piece focuses only on MWRD and ignores not only every other piece of gov't-owned prime real estate, but all of the tax-exempt religious, hospital, and educational uses, would seem to be very strong support of emathias' cynicism regarding the motivation and timing. It's indeed an intersting legal and philosophical question to ponder, but it's on a much grander scale than MWRD.

Marcu
Dec 16, 2009, 4:32 PM
Once that leap is made, one would naturally say the same thing about every parcel owned by any tax-exempt organization in a valuable place, not just government. Why should we the taxpayers subsidize church parking, used once per week (possibly more if they get to use it for tax-free valet parking), on a prime site?

In fact, given that this piece focuses only on MWRD and ignores not only every other piece of gov't-owned prime real estate, but all of the tax-exempt religious, hospital, and educational uses, would seem to be very strong support of emathias' cynicism regarding the motivation and timing. It's indeed an intersting legal and philosophical question to ponder, but it's on a much grander scale than MWRD.

These issues are discussed regularly in the DC market, where the city has no property tax base to speak of. Government buildings (coupled with asinine zoning laws) end up displacing private development to outside the city limits, eg Alexandria, Arlington, or Bathesda and DC loses the tax revenue. In Chicago, however, I can't help but think that government owned buildings don't have much of an affect. A condo tower not built on one particular parcel of the Mag Mile simply means that the same condo building will be built somewhere near by, within the municipality of Chicago, with no net loss in tax revenue.

aic4ever
Dec 16, 2009, 4:49 PM
Once that leap is made, one would naturally say the same thing about every parcel owned by any tax-exempt organization in a valuable place, not just government. Why should we the taxpayers subsidize church parking, used once per week (possibly more if they get to use it for tax-free valet parking), on a prime site?

In fact, given that this piece focuses only on MWRD and ignores not only every other piece of gov't-owned prime real estate, but all of the tax-exempt religious, hospital, and educational uses, would seem to be very strong support of emathias' cynicism regarding the motivation and timing. It's indeed an intersting legal and philosophical question to ponder, but it's on a much grander scale than MWRD.

MWRD isn't going anywhere. They do whatever they want, up to and including writing their own rules of business (http://organizedexploitation.blogspot.com/2009/07/imperial-district-redefining-material.html). For the most part they keep their heads down and their mouths shut, but at the end of the day, compared across the board with DGS, PBC, CPS, CTA, CHA or anybody else, MWRD may as well be God Himself.

the urban politician
Dec 16, 2009, 7:47 PM
Once that leap is made, one would naturally say the same thing about every parcel owned by any tax-exempt organization in a valuable place, not just government. Why should we the taxpayers subsidize church parking, used once per week (possibly more if they get to use it for tax-free valet parking), on a prime site?

In fact, given that this piece focuses only on MWRD and ignores not only every other piece of gov't-owned prime real estate, but all of the tax-exempt religious, hospital, and educational uses, would seem to be very strong support of emathias' cynicism regarding the motivation and timing. It's indeed an intersting legal and philosophical question to ponder, but it's on a much grander scale than MWRD.

We could take the slippery slope with this article and also extend it to underutilized lots in the city served by expensive city infrastructure downzoned at the behest of Aldermen due to community pressure.

Point being, I agree with you that this problem is much bigger than just the MWRD and it's a bit frustrating that the author of this article didn't take it to the next step and draw that same conclusion.

J_M_Tungsten
Dec 16, 2009, 8:47 PM
12/16
CVS on Roosevelt and Racine is coming along nicely.
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/c1581406.jpg

BVictor1
Dec 16, 2009, 11:48 PM
^^Wow.

Another box on a corner with a surface parking lot.

Yay!!!

J_M_Tungsten
Dec 17, 2009, 12:03 AM
What more could they do? This area is starving for any kind of retail, and it will never be much of an upper class area, so I think it is great for what it is, definitely better than a fenced in empty corner lot.

the urban politician
Dec 17, 2009, 12:46 AM
^^Wow.

Another box on a corner with a surface parking lot.

Yay!!!

It holds the corner, and if you've seen the site plan it's not too bad.

Given the fact that CVS and Walgreens are inevitable in the city, I'd say it's an improvement over what they were building before.

Loopy
Dec 17, 2009, 1:06 AM
.

denizen467
Dec 17, 2009, 5:25 AM
Don't be no tease now.

Is this site unrelated to Chestnut/Michigan?

Loopy
Dec 17, 2009, 5:39 AM
.

ardecila
Dec 17, 2009, 8:02 AM
Fourth Presbyterian? Tear down that old dirty Gothic pile! :boogy:

Loopy
Dec 17, 2009, 1:17 PM
.

sentinel
Dec 17, 2009, 3:18 PM
edit: removed

Loopy
Dec 17, 2009, 3:28 PM
.

VivaLFuego
Dec 17, 2009, 4:01 PM
Fourth Presbyterian? Tear down that old dirty Gothic pile! :boogy:

:notacrook:

I won't be satisfied until that low-density, tax-free blight is demolished and replaced by an unadulterated Lucien Lagrange turd blossom comprised of the purest ugly ever seen. If they really have to save any of that crap for some reason, maybe just slap some gargoyles on the parking garage or something.

Mr Downtown
Dec 17, 2009, 4:15 PM
As others may also remember . . .

Chicago Tribune
June 5, 1986

Chicago's top planning official Wednesday recommended against designating the Fourth Presbyterian Church of Chicago, 876 N. Michigan Ave., an official city landmark. In an opinion presented to the Chicago Commission on Historical and Architectural Landmarks, City Planning Commissioner Elizabeth Hollander said the gothic edifice did not fit in with the developing commercial character of North Michigan Avenue, according to a commission spokesman. The proposed designation of the church had been under study in the city's planning department since 1982. Commission members will now have to decide whether to accept the department's opinion. The complex of buildings that make up the church have been on the National Register of Historic Places since 1975.

the urban politician
Dec 17, 2009, 4:36 PM
Fourth Presbyterian? Tear down that old dirty Gothic pile! :boogy:

^ Are you being serious? Fourth Pres is a beauty. Are you guys mad?

What am I missing here? What is this rendered structure supposed to be replacing anyhow (if it's parking lots, then I can understand..)

Loopy
Dec 17, 2009, 4:40 PM
.

emathias
Dec 17, 2009, 5:20 PM
^ Are you being serious? Fourth Pres is a beauty. Are you guys mad?

What am I missing here? What is this rendered structure supposed to be replacing anyhow (if it's parking lots, then I can understand..)

From http://www.fourthchurch.org/P2C.html#background:

"On Tuesday, December 1, 2009, those committees made a very exciting progress report to the Session and Trustees and presented basic concepts for a new four-story, 80,000-square-foot building on the west side of our property where the parking lot, Counseling Center, and Westminster House are now located."

spyguy
Dec 17, 2009, 6:01 PM
I think it is a very nice design too. But, no, I don't know the architect. It's just something that I came across. It took me a few minutes to figure out what it was.

Gensler, I believe.

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/6285/4thpres1.jpg
http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/9804/4thpres2.jpg
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6331/4thpres3.jpg

sentinel
Dec 17, 2009, 6:57 PM
Thanks spyguy - this really is a nice project - hope the church stays with a design like this and not some VE'd alternative..

aic4ever
Dec 17, 2009, 8:05 PM
Thanks spyguy - this really is a nice project - hope the church stays with a design like this and not some VE'd alternative..

VE gets such a bad name. There are all kinds of things to do with a design like that to bring about that finished product at a lesser price.

Value Engineering should not be mistaken for Cost Engineering.

Value Engineering provides the desired end result by providing better systems or materials. Cost Engineering is what changes the building.

The latter is largely the result of a culture of laziness in the industry in general.

sentinel
Dec 17, 2009, 11:37 PM
VE gets such a bad name. There are all kinds of things to do with a design like that to bring about that finished product at a lesser price.

Value Engineering should not be mistaken for Cost Engineering.

Value Engineering provides the desired end result by providing better systems or materials. Cost Engineering is what changes the building.

The latter is largely the result of a culture of laziness in the industry in general.

Not to sound uncivilized but frankly, you're splitting hairs. those textbook definitions are fine, but in the real world there's no different because Value engineering can run the gamut from finish changes because of excessive bids for construction to drastic scope changes where potentially whole programmatic requirements need to be re-thought because of budgetary shortfalls or any number of other, un-foreseen circumstances (your 'Cost Engineering') - it's all the same aic, something which I'm currently dealing unfortunately. My client is expecting sealed bids within a week and already they're concerned about potentially big differences between their capital/budget allocations for this specific renovation and what bid contractors are estimating for construction. My point is that my client knows that there will inevitably be extensive value-engineering (a necessary evil of almost all projects) and it IS a big deal because it will drastically alter the design, timeframe and possibly even the scope of work that they initially hoped for. VE gets a bad name because regardless of how common it can be, it is potentially a bad thing and can compromise the integrity of a design that a lot of people such as yours truly work very, very hard to achieve.

Which is why your last statement is somewhat unwarranted and hurtful - VE has nothing to do with 'culture of laziness in the industry', if your referring to architectural/design professionals and has everything to do with $$$$$. Our job is to make sure that when Value engineering does occur, that the finished product doesn't look like shit, which is what my initial point re. the 4th Presbyterian church was about.

ardecila
Dec 18, 2009, 12:13 AM
^ Are you being serious? Fourth Pres is a beauty. Are you guys mad?

What am I missing here? What is this rendered structure supposed to be replacing anyhow (if it's parking lots, then I can understand..)

I guess the "pelvic thrust" smiley wasn't enough to convey my sarcasm...

Since, of course, 4th Pres were the ones who came up with the tower plan, they actually come off rather positively in my book as sensible and rational urban property owners.

the urban politician
Dec 18, 2009, 12:28 AM
Since, of course, 4th Pres were the ones who came up with the tower plan, they actually come off rather positively in my book as sensible and rational urban property owners.

^ That's how I've felt about them

the urban politician
Dec 18, 2009, 4:41 AM
Has anyone passed by the u/c Apple store at North and Clybourn? I'm just curious how it's coming along these days

aic4ever
Dec 18, 2009, 3:17 PM
Not to sound uncivilized but frankly, you're splitting hairs. those textbook definitions are fine, but in the real world there's no different because Value engineering can run the gamut from finish changes because of excessive bids for construction to drastic scope changes where potentially whole programmatic requirements need to be re-thought because of budgetary shortfalls or any number of other, un-foreseen circumstances (your 'Cost Engineering') - it's all the same aic, something which I'm currently dealing unfortunately. My client is expecting sealed bids within a week and already they're concerned about potentially big differences between their capital/budget allocations for this specific renovation and what bid contractors are estimating for construction. My point is that my client knows that there will inevitably be extensive value-engineering (a necessary evil of almost all projects) and it IS a big deal because it will drastically alter the design, timeframe and possibly even the scope of work that they initially hoped for. VE gets a bad name because regardless of how common it can be, it is potentially a bad thing and can compromise the integrity of a design that a lot of people such as yours truly work very, very hard to achieve.

Which is why your last statement is somewhat unwarranted and hurtful - VE has nothing to do with 'culture of laziness in the industry', if your referring to architectural/design professionals and has everything to do with $$$$$. Our job is to make sure that when Value engineering does occur, that the finished product doesn't look like shit, which is what my initial point re. the 4th Presbyterian church was about.

I'm splitting hairs on purpose, because there IS a difference. Substituting something like Stone-Lite Panels or an Arris-Clip Cladding system for full thickness stone cladding, or buying your curtain-wall through a Chinese or Canadian or Brazilian vendor, rather than through Vistawall or Kawneer, for instance, are VALUE engineering. You obtain the exact same finished product, both to the touch and to the eye, for a much lower price, both in labor and materials. This is re-engineering to provide VALUE. Same product, lower price.

It is COMPLETELY different to say, "You know, why don't we lop a floor off the building to save money?" Here you've saved money by reducing the scope of the work, reducing the VALUE of the building itself. This is COST engineering, and this is what's lazy. Far too often I see contractors, developers, architects and clients (we are all guilty of it) go for the easy solution, the COST engineering solution, before ever thinking about how they can achieve the end result with more innovative solutions.

Arguing with me about splitting hairs only serves to prove my point.

In your current situation, perhaps your client doesn't have the money for what was designed. This is often the case. But it doesn't mean you can't find a solution that reaches your design without redesigning.

EDIT: Also, just to clarify more strongly, I wasn't attacking architects or designers. I was talking about the industry of building from top to bottom, at all levels.

aic4ever
Dec 18, 2009, 3:18 PM
Has anyone passed by the u/c Apple store at North and Clybourn? I'm just curious how it's coming along these days

I drove by it about a week ago. Steel's up, exterior studs and a little bit of sheathing going on. Would imagine MEP roughs are going as well.

Steely Dan
Dec 18, 2009, 3:26 PM
in my experiences in the construction world, "value engineering" or more simply "VE" is used as a catch all term for any and all changes to a project that will save the client money. "cost engineering" is a term i've never heard used. in the real world, it's all just refered to as "VE", whether you're replacing a complicated and expensive HVAC system with a cheaper alternative with the exact same performance standards or if you're gonna remove the precast cladding from a job and just use split face CMU instead, it's all referred to as "VE".

aic4ever
Dec 18, 2009, 4:11 PM
in my experiences in the construction world, "value engineering" or more simply "VE" is used as a catch all term for any and all changes to a project that will save the client money. "cost engineering" is a term i've never heard used. in the real world, it's all just refered to as "VE", whether you're replacing a complicated and expensive HVAC system with a cheaper alternative with the exact same performance standards or if you're gonna remove the precast cladding from a job and just use split face CMU instead, it's all referred to as "VE".

I'm aware. It's something we are very careful about explaining to our clients where I work because we are attempting to change minds about the term. It's a great service to be able to provide the design desired at the cost desired, rather than changing the building.

spyguy
Dec 19, 2009, 12:00 AM
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockName=Zoning+and+Land+Use+Planning%2fHeadlines&deptMainCategoryOID=&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Zoning+and+Land+Use+Planning&topChannelName=Dept&contentOID=537066295&Failed_Reason=Invalid+timestamp,+engine+has+been+restarted&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do&context=dept

Plan Commission adopts "Transit Friendly Development Guide"
Study will help coordinate growth around CTA train stations

A "Transit Friendly Development Guide (http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockName=Zoning+and+Land+Use+Planning%2fPlans+%26+Publications%2fI+Want+To&deptMainCategoryOID=-536903230&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Zoning+and+Land+Use+Planning&topChannelName=Dept&contentOID=537066275&Failed_Reason=Invalid+timestamp,+engine+has+been+restarted&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do&context=dept)" approved by the Chicago Plan Commission on Thursday, Dec. 17, categorizes the Chicago Transit Authority's 144 rail stations by type to help coordinate future real estate investment around each one.

The guide designates each station with one of seven typologies that are common across the rail system. The designations are intended to shape the public's expectations about potential development while identifying the nearby zoning and infrastructure assets that maximize each station as a community anchor, said Patti Scudiero, commissioner of the Department of Zoning and Land Use Planning (DZLP), which drafted the plan with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), the Department of Transportation and private consultants.

"The typology designations reflect specific characteristics involving area land uses, densities, nearby employment and other neighborhood traits. Each one will help the city to evaluate and coordinate future infill projects, especially those that promote the use of public transit," Scudiero said.

The seven typologies identified across the system include:

• Downtown Core – High-density, central business district areas

• Major Activity Center – Areas with a wide range of densities and activities

• Local Activity Center – Areas within identifiable neighborhoods

• Dense Urban Neighborhood – Multi-family residential areas with supportive retail

• Urban Neighborhood – Mixed-density residential areas with supportive retail

• Service Employment District – Areas dominated by large employers and institutions

• Manufacturing Employment District – Characterized by large, low-density buildings

Considered the first typology study of its type in the country, the guide establishes potential development scenarios by using highly developed station areas along the system as models for growth. The Rockwell Station in Ravenswood, for example, demonstrates what less-developed stations that share an "Urban Neighborhood" designation could aspire to, Scudiero said.

"This guide is a unique resource for all stakeholders interested in development around CTA's 144 rail stations," added CTA President Richard L. Rodriguez. "Appropriate transit-friendly development provides an opportunity to reinforce or enhance neighborhood character, as well as promote transit use."

In drafting the proposed guide over the last two years, planners conducted bi-monthly technical workshops with public officials and local interest groups, held open houses on the North and South sides of Chicago, and convened one city-wide stakeholders meeting.
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/1411/ctamaplow1.jpg

pip
Dec 19, 2009, 1:26 AM
Oh wow. Great idea

the urban politician
Dec 19, 2009, 1:34 AM
Certainly a great idea and kudos to the planners behind it, but where to we go from here? In the end we can only make recommendations, but as long as misinformed community groups and the Aldermen they walk with leashes can control zoning, any pending recommendations will remain.....recommendations. There needs to be some sort of political backing for this or else it remains nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

ChicagoChicago
Dec 19, 2009, 4:06 AM
Would a brown line stop at North/Clybourn be a good investment? On my commutes to and from work, I've often wondered why there is a ridiculous "S" curve right there at North and Halsted. It would be feasible to lose the Border's Bookstore and Verizon store that are currently occupying the property, but obviously only if there is a potential for more rides because of it. Has the CTA thought about a brown line stop here?

Mr Downtown
Dec 19, 2009, 5:23 AM
^What riders would be attracted to a Brown Line station who are not served by the existing Red Line station?

denizen467
Dec 19, 2009, 5:58 AM
^ People with not enough time to reverse course to catch the Brown at Fullerton (or make course corrections once arriving in the Loop). Admittedly not a compelling constituency.

Has there ever been talk of straightening that S curve, a la Harrison? Even if CTA confined itself to nicking just a couple parking lots (and not dealing with the buildings), the Brown could probably gain a good 10mph (random guess) in its North Ave crossing. Not that that's a smart investment, but if the time came for a rebuilding, seems like it would be worth considering for the rebuild.

For comparison, was the Harrison done for safety or speed reasons? Or removal of roadway pylons? And does/did the city own the land behind University Center?

ardecila
Dec 19, 2009, 6:17 AM
^ People with not enough time to reverse course to catch the Brown at Fullerton (or make course corrections once arriving in the Loop). Admittedly not a compelling constituency.

Has there ever been talk of straightening that S curve, a la Harrison? Even if CTA confined itself to nicking just a couple parking lots (and not dealing with the buildings), the Brown could probably gain a good 10mph (random guess) in its North Ave crossing. Not that that's a smart investment, but if the time came for a rebuilding, seems like it would be worth considering for the rebuild.

For comparison, was the Harrison done for safety or speed reasons? Or removal of roadway pylons? And does/did the city own the land behind University Center?

This is really starting to be a transit-centered (ie off-topic) discussion but Phase 2 of the Circle Line plans called for a superstation at North/Clybourn that involved a new Brown/Purple station on the elevated tracks. I don't think there's enough room for a station without re-aligning the tracks, so that's a necessary step. It'd be better to use land to the east rather than take down the retail businesses to the west.

The land under the Harrison Curve was acquired by the city in 2001, and is now leased to the parking operator. The straightening was done for reasons of speed AND safety. Allowing trains to travel 35mph instead of 10mph shortens trip times by a minute or so, and reduces the likelihood that a motorman will take the train through the curve at a dangerous speed.

ChicagoChicago
Dec 19, 2009, 3:06 PM
My apologies. I thought I was in the transit thread. Can somebody move this discussion to that thread?

denizen467
Dec 19, 2009, 6:23 PM
^ Thanks ardecila.
See you in the transit thread if there is any more to say on this.

george
Dec 19, 2009, 8:44 PM
12-19

Apple store at North and Clybourn

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8785/applestore1.jpg

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4829/applestore2.jpg

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/9784/applestore3.jpg

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1329/applestore4.jpg