CHICAGO | General Developments

[Andrew|W]

I think that the landmark ruling requiring that the new sign use the existing scaffolding messed this one up. Motorola's letters are so much wider in proportion to Santa Fe's, making the sign half the size, and pretty insignificant in the skyline (although maybe that was what the Commission had in mind). Plus it floats so high off the building, it doesn't feel grounded to anything, like disembodied text against a cluttered backhground of rooftop penthouses.

Definitely a step down in my opinion, and it has nothing to do with what the sign actually says.

[lakeviewer]

Walgreens-3646N Broadway Ave

Does anyone have more details or renderings? Total roof tear off, sounds like a big project? Spyguy....maybe?

3646 N BROADWAY

Description: TOTAL ROOF TEAR OFF.
Total Records:One item found.
Name
Completed Date
Status

FINAL DATA REVIEW
2012-07-10
APPROVED
http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/bui...mber=100448611

http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/bui...mber=100447308

[the urban politician]

Sounds like they are replacing the roof.

Not all that exciting

[lakeviewer]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Sounds like they are replacing the roof.

Not all that exciting

Well there is the vacant full floor space above that was the former Oriental Medicine College, so if they were to expand it could be exciting. Also, sounds like they are doing a complete renovation from the other permit listed.

[Standpoor]

A little late to the topic but I would urge caution on the Michigan Ave signs ordinance, not that anyone on the city council cares what I think. The federal judiciary is protecting commercial speech more now then since world war II, trying to limit who can participate in a type of speech is concerning. Why should large malls be allowed to use signs but not smaller boutiques, such a law could impinge smaller outlets free speech rights. With the current state of constitutional law in flux, I feel that it is better for the city to do nothing and try and keep itself out of the papers. If not there could be a lawsuit and Michigan Ave could be opened up to a huge number of new flashing signs.

[Mr Downtown]

There's nothing novel at all about having sign restrictions based on the size of the building. Nearly every modern zoning ordinance does it exactly that way.

"Time, manner, and place" regulation of speech has never been a problem—and certainly not for commercial speech. The only distinctions that present First Amendment problems are those that distinguish based on the content of the speech.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Andrew|W

Plus it floats so high off the building, it doesn't feel grounded to anything, like disembodied text against a cluttered backhground of rooftop penthouses.

I actually like that it's disembodied. It's visually decoupled from the building, which preserves the integrity of the Burnham design better than some kind of more-integrated signage scheme.

The small size of the logotype is also appropriate. If we have to do skyline signage, this is not a bad way to do it.

[Hayward]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I actually like that it's disembodied. It's visually decoupled from the building, which preserves the integrity of the Burnham design better than some kind of more-integrated signage scheme.

The small size of the logotype is also appropriate. If we have to do skyline signage, this is not a bad way to do it.

Exactly. This is the classic rule of thumb when it comes to modern additions or sign attachments to historic buildings. No way "grounding" the sign would ever be allowed

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It's visually decoupled from the building, which preserves the integrity of the Burnham design

Ahem. The Dinkelberg design, you mean.

[Andrew|W]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Exactly. This is the classic rule of thumb when it comes to modern additions or sign attachments to historic buildings. No way "grounding" the sign would ever be allowed

I guess my disappointment is that we lost a visual landmark, and it was replaced by something that basically fades into the background. Now I know it's better to have that than to have an ugly sign that detracts from the building its on, but is it too much to ask for something that at least tries to live up to the popular landmark status of the Santa Fe sign?

All I am asking for is that the sign be appropriately proportioned and placed so that it can exist in harmony with the classic building below. It would still have to pass landmark approval of course, so it's not like they would allow it to become a monstrosity.

As someone with a historic preservation background, I've always thought that the "make the new stuff disappear" approach is a cop out response that has no faith in contemporary architecture. It is a rooftop sign after all; its not like it can do any permanent damage.

[Andrew|W]

In other news: The plaid cladding is starting on the lower north end of the Burberry Facade. This morning they were installing the first pieces of aluminum channels/reveals that will create the plaid.

[Hayward]

Originally Posted by Andrew|W

I guess my disappointment is that we lost a visual landmark, and it was replaced by something that basically fades into the background. Now I know it's better to have that than to have an ugly sign that detracts from the building its on, but is it too much to ask for something that at least tries to live up to the popular landmark status of the Santa Fe sign?

All I am asking for is that the sign be appropriately proportioned and placed so that it can exist in harmony with the classic building below. It would still have to pass landmark approval of course, so it's not like they would allow it to become a monstrosity.

As someone with a historic preservation background, I've always thought that the "make the new stuff disappear" approach is a cop out response that has no faith in contemporary architecture. It is a rooftop sign after all; its not like it can do any permanent damage.

I think we are used to the red signage which is why this disappears. Motorola text is always monochrome except for their logo which takes on the color of the company division. So our options were black or grey which would disappear more or the white which would stand out somewhat.

[denizen467]

I had given up all hope on this. There are other desolate stretches of Elston that I think are more ugly and in need of redevelopment, but maybe this will help get the Webster Street bridge redone sooner and/or wider.

Treasure Island, I'm afraid, may be on the receiving end of the recent Mariano's push; they're like 4 blocks from this spot. Again, Ashland and the Webster Street bridge could act as a barrier that keep Lincoln Park shoppers in their own neighborhood; it will be interesting to see.


http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.co...s-fresh-market

Bucktown slated to get Mariano's Fresh Market
By: Ryan Ori July 13, 2012

After a few false starts, a Mariano's Fresh Market is finally coming to Bucktown.

Roundy's Supermarkets Inc. plans to open a 75,000-square-foot Mariano's on the former Hayes Mechanical Inc. site, a four-acre property bordered by Ashland, Webster and Elston avenues. The Milwaukee-based supermarket chain has signed a 20-year lease there with options to extend, Cook County records show.

...

Construction will be completed in 2014 ...

Chicago-based Bond Cos. initially talked with Roundy's and had an option to buy the site for $15 million, says company President Robert Bond. He had planned a 300 apartments and 200,000 square feet of retail there, but walked away from the deal in 2006 when he ran out of time to pre-lease the retail space. ...

“Mariano's is making a bet that it's a different market than the New City site,” Mr. Bond says. “They're expecting to pull from two different markets. They do a lot of market studies and know what to expect as far as cannibalization.” ...

[ardecila]

He was probably right to drop the apartments. It's not the greatest location for residential.

What's the issue with the Webster bridge? I know the Ashland bridge is deteriorating, but it just needs a preservation workover, not a reconstruction.

[ChiHi]

Residents at McClurg Court apartments in Streeterville were notified yesterday that construction on the retail facade of the building will begin in the coming weeks. This will certainly be an improvement on one of the ugliest blocks in the neighborhood. Here are the renderings from SOAR's website.


http://soarchicago.org/home/2012/2/2...offerings.html

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ChiHi

Residents at McClurg Court apartments in Streeterville were notified yesterday that construction on the retail facade of the building will begin in the coming weeks. This will certainly be an improvement on one of the ugliest blocks in the neighborhood. Here are the renderings from SOAR's website.


http://soarchicago.org/home/2012/2/2...offerings.html

YES!



Okay, I realize that is a bit overboard, but I badly want to see more street level retail in Streeterville, and I've been eager to see this development get started for a long time.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila

What's the issue with the Webster bridge?

As far as condition goes, I think the bridge's condition may be fine, it's just the pavement approaches that are in pretty bad condition. But my main problem is the bridge structure's width - it cannot reliably handle two lanes in each direction (kind of only with medium sized sedans in good weather with proactive drivers). Webster is growing in usage as a sub-artery across the river corridor, both because North and Fullerton are congested east-west routes and because redevelopment along Elston will continue to draw more traffic. So, failing to have a Webster left turn lane coming off the bridge, adjacent to a major new supermarket and intersecting the major artery that is Ashland, will contribute to clogged streets along both those streets and possibly all the way to Clybourn, and could hamper the longer term potential of the river corridor's redevelopment. The bridge cannot be widened without being replaced, so I guess that is what I end up advocating at the end of the day (particularly having noticed the City's efforts in replacing Goose Island bridges with wider ones). North Ave is no longer an operable bridge, so losing the operable bridge at Webster should not be a practical issue (only, unfortunately, a historic and aesthetic one). Apologies for the long post about a somewhat parochial matter.

On a note more related to the actual Mariano's development, the Crain's article does a bit of journalism bobble in describing the land parcel in question. One must assume that the parcel extends from Ashland only as far west as the UP North tracks, and not all the way to Elston, because the UP North is using earthen embankment there, so unless there's a gap under the tracks for an underpass to allow connection of a parking lot to the store, presumably the entire development will be east of the tracks (leaving the large undeveloped parcel west of the tracks, opposite Best Buy and Kohl's, available for some future project). This may imply a multilevel Mariano's structure with parking above or below the store. In fact, since Ashland is on an incline as it approaches the river crossing, it's likely that parking would be put at ground level(s) with the selling space elevated enough to possibly have some nice views of the skyline (particularly good for their cafe eating area) - not to mention a facade that interestingly hugs the UP North tracks at eye level. Either way, this is a somewhat complicated (expensive) site to work with, so I guess Mariano's deserves props for that alone. (It makes one wonder why they didn't nab one of the riverfront parcels just east of there, for nicer views and possibly less site constrictions.)

[ardecila]

Seems like a much better course of action on Webster is to switch to 3 lanes + bike lanes. The center lane would allow turning cars to stack up, possibly all the way to Dominick St if the unmetered parking east of the river is removed. Speeds may not improve but safety/collision rates will decrease.

You're right that the Mariano's will require an interesting design solution - I'm expecting something like the South Loop Target.

[Hayward]

I don't think the bridge width on Webster matters at this point since the street is narrow between Ashland and Clyborn.

It could support turn lanes if necessary. In fact people treat it like a four lane road when they shouldn't.

The only folks at a disadvantage are all the cyclists that use that route and must share a lane in this case.

The Ashland bridge can support 5 lanes, and probably a longer turn lane.

Really the problem has to do with deteriorating decks, unclear lane markings, and old traffic signals.

I tend to think it's a mistake to replace these particular type of bascule bridges in Chicago. They are incredibly overbuilt, and I'm convinced they'll outlive the city's new river crossings. Speaking of which, the North Ave cable stay bridge appears to be in need of some TLC.

[ardecila]

Oh yeah, I was implying that the current bridge would be reconfigured. No need to replace, and you can probably even get a bike lane out of it by removing a traffic lane. Drivers would still move frustratingly slowly (this is an insatiable lust for speed) but would not feel cramped or threatened by ambiguous lane width. Those that choose to bike will move faster, hopefully on concrete infill.

I assume this intersection would get redone if/when Ashland is rebuilt for BRT.