CHICAGO | General Developments

[honte]

Originally Posted by Abner

Holy crap, the owner can let a landmark get to that condition? The Schoenhofen powerhouse looks great, but that poor administration building looks like it's ready to collapse. Probably nothing some maintenance (like maybe putting glass in the windows and heating the thing) couldn't fix, but the building is just a shell now. I certainly hope the scaffolding is up in preparation for some restorative work. Thanks for the info, I'm relieved and surprised that it's landmarked.

My pleasure.

It's been in a sorry state for quite a long while now. I called on it back about 1998 and the owners wanted, to my recollection, over $1M for it even then.

There is nothing in Chicago that prevents the owner of a landmark from letting it decay - at least, nothing more than a normal structure. Sometimes various parties step in, but many times, there is nothing possible to prevent this. Preservationists call it "demolition by neglect." The best hope is to put on some pressure and hope that a buyer with some funds comes to the rescue. The City also helps with TIF money and other incentives sometimes.

Most of our landmarks are in good shape (it's a kind of black eye if your landmarks are falling apart, which unfortunately leads to some very worthy structures being passed over). There are a few, however, that really need some help. Since you appear to be on the South Side, check out the Raber House if you are ever around 55th / State. That thing needs some TLC before it literally rots away.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

The "Forever free" people are begging the question of why the AIC shouldn't be demolished, Lollapalooza disbanded, Harris Dance Theatre demo'd, etc for consistencies sake, since those are obviously an impediment to Grant Park being forever free open and clear. The proposal needs to be attacked on different grounds than these.

This is wrong. If you knew your Chicago history you would know that the AIC building was built before (1893 world's fair) the Montgomery Ward Ruling. Therefore it has been grandfathered in. If you bring issue with the expansions, the arguement is that the existing structure is just being modified, therefore its not a new obstruction. In fact the AIC is specifically mentioned in the Montgomery Ward ruling which is probably where they get the license to expand.

Lollapalooza and Taste, just as the Bandshell, are temporary, therefore they are not deemed as an obstruction since festivals and the likes are a recreational use, much like playing a game of baseball, not a land use, like the AIC.

They pass off Pritzker Pavillion as a sculpture that happens to perform as a bandshell, thus sneaks in with the likes of Buckingham Fountain, the bean, and the agora. Harris Theater is underneath the Bandshell, therefore its no more of an obstruction than the parking garage. Not to mention that Pritzker and Harris are built above the railroad tracks which were also included as an exception to the ruling, so technically neither of these structures is in the original legal borders of the park.

Now compare these all of which fall under specific legal exceptions of the MW ruling, with a gigantic 3 story deep glass pit. How can you even argue that they are in the same league?

Pritzker Park is the best location, I would rather have a parking ramp there than what is there right now...

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ Well done.

[Jibba]

Speaking of Grant Park...

Bridge from Art Institute


The whole shebang

[Taft]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

...all of which fall under specific legal exceptions of the MW ruling...

Bravo on enumerating the legal reasons why existing structures are allowed in Grant park.

I hope you realize, however, that legality is really a minor point in the discussion for most people here. There are plenty of laws and precedents that people on these boards disagree with, not because of legal reasons, but because of ethical, aesthetic, and civic-oriented reasons. For example:

1) Off street parking requirements.
2) The process through which buildings get approved (aldermanic prerogative).
3) The landmarking process.
4) TIFs
5) etc.

There are laws and legal precedents establishing each of these. However, most objections to these items are made on more subjective grounds: do these practices make sense? are they fair? do they benefit the city?

Similarly, when people refer to "forever free and clear," most could give two hoots about the obscure legal wrangling which was the context of the original quote. They are focused on what that phrase means to them, how they interpret it and whether, subjectively, it seems "right."

Thus, to me, "forever free and clear" means just that: the park remains a park, with no exceptions. I care not that there is legal justification for the expansion of the AIC or the building of the Pritzker pavillion. To me, they are violations even more egregious than any plan forwarded for Daley-Bi plaza.

Why should it matter to me that a judge and a civic leader from the turn of the last century thought these structures were A-OK? They are massive structures which violate the spirit of "forever free and clear," IMO, and have done much more damage to the future of the park than a tennis court-sized glass pit could ever do.

Let's be clear that I (and I suspect others) are talking about the spirit of the law and our interpretations of it. Let's also try to accurately assess the realized benefit or detriment that existing structures in Grant park have on the park from a aesthetic and land-use perspective. Forget the legal reasons, they move no soul.

Taft

[pilsenarch]

Exactly

[ethereal_reality]

Jibba...thanks for posting the update on the Art Institute addition.

[Nowhereman1280]

Taft, I agree about the numerous other arguments that come into play in a discussion such as this, however, I think that some things are blatantly in disregard not only to the law, but to a Supreme Court ruling. I would say that a 3 story deep by few hundred feet wide, hole is in utter disregard to the ruling. One can always make the sculpture arguement on something like Pritzker, but one cannot make this arguement for something like a giant pit.

Don't get me wrong, I love the design, I just think its the wrong place and flat out illegal to build it there.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

This is wrong. If you knew your Chicago history you would know that the AIC building was built before (1893 world's fair) the Montgomery Ward Ruling. Therefore it has been grandfathered in. If you bring issue with the expansions, the arguement is that the existing structure is just being modified, therefore its not a new obstruction. In fact the AIC is specifically mentioned in the Montgomery Ward ruling which is probably where they get the license to expand.

Ok, it's grandfathered in, but it's still violating "forever free, open, and clear so if we wanted a Grant Park that's forever free, open, and clear we should demolish it.

Lollapalooza and Taste, just as the Bandshell, are temporary, therefore they are not deemed as an obstruction since festivals and the likes are a recreational use, much like playing a game of baseball, not a land use, like the AIC.

OK. So what if the Children's Museum had some free days, so it wouldn't be a permanent obstruction?

They pass off Pritzker Pavillion as a sculpture that happens to perform as a bandshell, thus sneaks in with the likes of Buckingham Fountain, the bean, and the agora. Harris Theater is underneath the Bandshell, therefore its no more of an obstruction than the parking garage. Not to mention that Pritzker and Harris are built above the railroad tracks which were also included as an exception to the ruling, so technically neither of these structures is in the original legal borders of the park.

I was under the impression the ruling governed all the way to Michigan Avenue. And how is an underground museum any different than an underground theater or underground parking deck with entrance ramps etc?

[/quote]
Pritzker Park is the best location[/QUOTE]

I agree. I'm just playing devil's advocate because I don't think the CCM opponents are making the right arguments against placing it Grant Park. Hiding behind a legal ruling begs the question of why the ruling is in place, if it's the right ruling, etc. which I think are important questions. IMO, the CCM Grant Park location can be consistently attacked on the following grounds that involve actual reasoning and subject for debate, rather than just shutting down such discussion with a haphazardly applied legal ruling:

1. It blurs the distinction between public space and private entity, particularly insofar as it is entitled to various forms of public subsidy in its proposed move.

2. The CCM is not of cultural significance, unlike AIC or the Pritzker Pavilion, to warrant a Grant Park location.

3. The current site (Daley Bi) can and should be put to better use ______.

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

This is wrong. If you knew your Chicago history you would know that the AIC building was built before (1893 world's fair) the Montgomery Ward Ruling. Therefore it has been grandfathered in. If you bring issue with the expansions, the arguement is that the existing structure is just being modified, therefore its not a new obstruction. In fact the AIC is specifically mentioned in the Montgomery Ward ruling which is probably where they get the license to expand.

Lollapalooza and Taste, just as the Bandshell, are temporary, therefore they are not deemed as an obstruction since festivals and the likes are a recreational use, much like playing a game of baseball, not a land use, like the AIC.

They pass off Pritzker Pavillion as a sculpture that happens to perform as a bandshell, thus sneaks in with the likes of Buckingham Fountain, the bean, and the agora. Harris Theater is underneath the Bandshell, therefore its no more of an obstruction than the parking garage. Not to mention that Pritzker and Harris are built above the railroad tracks which were also included as an exception to the ruling, so technically neither of these structures is in the original legal borders of the park.

Now compare these all of which fall under specific legal exceptions of the MW ruling, with a gigantic 3 story deep glass pit. How can you even argue that they are in the same league?

Pritzker Park is the best location, I would rather have a parking ramp there than what is there right now...

this post just shows the absolute stupidity of the "forever free and clear" argument. basically you can turn it into what ever you see fit, redraw the lines of grant park where you want, define a building how you want, apply it for your own purposes. I mean, somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but if pritzker and harris are okay because they technically aren't in the original borders of the park how is daley bi? monroe street garage and the plaza were constructed in the 60's right? there are plenty of reasons to argue against placing CCM in the park, "forever free and clear" isn't one of them.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

This is exactly what I've been trying to get at, glad others are seeing it too...

There's also a subtext here of Mayoral power v. Aldermanic power, and I think the interests of most people on this board would be better served if the Mayor established more power and the Aldermen were weakened....

speak for yourself. Daley is already a borderline dictator as far as im concerned, and last I checked we live in a Democracy where the decision making process should be left to many, not a few. The last thing we need to do is give that nutjob more power...

[Mojava]

What specifically goes on, if anything, in this section of the park. Everytime I'm over there it is dead.

[aic4ever]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

speak for yourself. Daley is already a borderline dictator as far as im concerned, and last I checked we live in a Democracy where the decision making process should be left to many, not a few. The last thing we need to do is give that nutjob more power...

Really? Last I checked the United States of America was a Republic, where there are a few that are elected to represent the interests of the many. The decision making process is purposely left to the few in order to avoid the anarchy and complete indecision that results from the arguing of the masses in an actual democracy (see ancient Greece).

You don't have to like Daley, or some of the ways he's circumvented the legal process, but this town was on a much closer level to being Detroit before he took office. He's done wonders in his tenure here, and barring him chopping off someone's head on live television, or getting hit by a bus, he's always going to be the mayor, because when the many go to cast their vote for the few, in our Republic, Daley keeps winning with something on the line of 70-80% of the vote.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by aic4ever

You don't have to like Daley, or some of the ways he's circumvented the legal process, but this town was on a much closer level to being Detroit before he took office.

Right. I'm taking the long view here. I remember what the city was like back when the mayors played their part in office, which is very weak. I'm not sure Via appreciates how little power a Chicago mayor is supposed to have, in part because from 1955-present so much of the time it has had a Daley running things. The period 1976-1989 were a (relatively) terrible time for Chicago, a time of decay, stagnation, and losing its Second City status. Think that's got nothing to do with the perennial and racially-charged Council Wars when all the Aldermen squabbled and basically brought the city to a standstill while white flight to the suburbs continued unabated?

My point is from a governmental structure perspective, Chicago has benefitted by having a few mayors who could turn their weak position into one with some measure of clout and power, because without that we descend into parochial gridlock.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

There's also a subtext here of Mayoral power v. Aldermanic power, and I think the interests of most people on this board would be better served if the Mayor established more power and the Aldermen were weakened....

AMEN!

i'm not really a supporter of this CCM in grant park plan, but i do despise this city's aldermen, and any day that the alderman lose is a good day for chicago, even when they're fighting for something that i might support.

[Abner]

One could also make the argument that Chicago failed to learn the lesson of the first Daley that a mayor who rules by personal fiat leaves behind withered institutions that are incapable of operating without the charismatic ruler. There are many cities with a weak mayor/strong legislature that operate quite well because they have largely avoided this problem. The argument that cities need all-powerful rulers doesn't hold much comparative water, in my view. Also keep in mind that the current mayor-aldermanic power-sharing system is well within Daley's interest.

Honte, I'm not familiar with that house, but the pictures of it I've just looked up are pretty scary. It's probably in worse shape than the Schoenhofen administration building. Speaking of that area, I sure wouldn't mind if the Schulze Baking Company building were landmarked. It's too bad there is no mechanism for the city to take over neglected landmarks and make them structurally secure until someone expresses interest in them.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Abner

One could also make the argument that Chicago failed to learn the lesson of the first Daley that a mayor who rules by personal fiat leaves behind withered institutions that are incapable of operating without the charismatic ruler. There are many cities with a weak mayor/strong legislature that operate quite well because they have largely avoided this problem. The argument that cities need all-powerful rulers doesn't hold much comparative water, in my view. Also keep in mind that the current mayor-aldermanic power-sharing system is well within Daley's interest.

It's a really interesting subject, and it'd be interesting to hear from an actual political scientist who has studied this. But my gut, like with Steely, says that the aldermanic power system in Chicago spells bad news. I can't offer much other than my anecdotal experience and general take on history.

Speaking of that area, I sure wouldn't mind if the Schulze Baking Company building were landmarked. It's too bad there is no mechanism for the city to take over neglected landmarks and make them structurally secure until someone expresses interest in them.

It's a really cool building, and I used to love smelling that bread all over the south side. But at the same time, I have trouble imagining a plausible re-use of it. The scale and construction doesn't lend itself to residential lofts, it's not a great manufacturing/warehouse site without substantial subsidy, and offices? What southside loft office market?

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Ok, it's grandfathered in, but it's still violating "forever free, open, and clear so if we wanted a Grant Park that's forever free, open, and clear we should demolish it.

That makes no sense seeing as how it is specifically mentioned as an exception in the court ruling. That's like saying since the law says you can park anywhere on the street except fire zones that we should just park in the zones anyhow... Completely illogical statement.

OK. So what if the Children's Museum had some free days, so it wouldn't be a permanent obstruction?

I don't why its so hard to see the difference between a 3-day festival that temporarily fences off part of the park and a GIGANTIC GLASS PIT that is there year round? Do you know what the word permanent means? A fence that is there for 4 days then removed does not count as permanent, a giant pit with a museum in it is permanent.

I was under the impression the ruling governed all the way to Michigan Avenue. And how is an underground museum any different than an underground theater or underground parking deck with entrance ramps etc?

It does indeed govern all the way to Michigan, however, like I said before, specific objects within the boundaries were mentioned as exceptions to the law, those being the AIC and the railroad tracks. Since it is above the railroad tracks, its technically an exception as well since the tracks were originally mentioned as not part of the area governed by the law.

Originally Posted by schwerve

this post just shows the absolute stupidity of the "forever free and clear" argument. basically you can turn it into what ever you see fit, redraw the lines of grant park where you want, define a building how you want, apply it for your own purposes. I mean, somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but if pritzker and harris are okay because they technically aren't in the original borders of the park how is daley bi? monroe street garage and the plaza were constructed in the 60's right? there are plenty of reasons to argue against placing CCM in the park, "forever free and clear" isn't one of them.

You do realize that is how all laws are? You have to take a set of words and interpret them, in fact, that is the genius of the constitution, it is a set of words that you can take and apply however you like, but that doesn't stop people from arguing over it. So do you think the constitutionality is a dumb arguement? They both are essentially the same process, you take a statement and you interpret it on a case by case basis.

BTW, the reason Daley Bi, the garages and all other underground implements in the park get away with it is because THEY ARE UNDERGROUND. A giant glass walled pit does not count as "underground".

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

You do realize that is how all laws are? You have to take a set of words and interpret them, in fact, that is the genius of the constitution, it is a set of words that you can take and apply however you like, but that doesn't stop people from arguing over it. So do you think the constitutionality is a dumb arguement? They both are essentially the same process, you take a statement and you interpret it on a case by case basis.

you don't really get it so I'll say this and let it go, the problem with forever free and clear is that there is no firm definition of terminology, "grant park", "building", "sculpture", "obstruction" these are all ill-defined terms which basically renders the law meaningless. It exists without firm context and thus makes it impossible to implement except for the most egregious of circumstances. my point, is that free and clear is poorly constructed law and turns into a BS end-around of any real argument about the merits or failings of a proposal.

I'm not necessarily a CCM advocate, I don't mind the design, I could definitely see better spots, but the constant invocation of this absolutist interpretation of a badly constructed law makes want it constructed there just out of spite.

[wrab]

The "Forever Free and Clear" language comes from the original Grant Park charter (dedication), which stipulates that the park remain forever free of buildings; the court battles haven't been about terminology so much as what is or isn't a "building" for purposes of the original charter.