CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 1710

Jibba · #**34181** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 3:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Nope, they bought the project plans and all, that was the point, Outlook likely doesn't have the expertise to pull any of this off on their own.

Hopefully they'll spring for a facade and windows that are up to spec.

the urban politician · #**34182** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 4:33 PM**

If the city weren't in such dire financial condition it could have the flexibility to try new things that financially encourage preservation while not harassing and repeatedly punishing property owners.

An example would be an automatic property tax discount for all Orange rated properties that of course is gone if the property is demolished. Also, an additional demolition permit fee for orange rated buildings which is high enough to get an owner to instead consider renovation, but not so onerous that it would make demolitions nearly impossible.

PKDickman · #**34183** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

I was living in Denver when they addressed this issue...they created a new historic district that was not based on a geographic area, but a "contributing status" of 60 or so buildings all around the city. It included financial incentives for NOT tearing it down or changing it significantly. Worked really well.

It also drove a lot of development toward parking lots and vacant parcels - something Chicago could do too.

That is similar to what we did for banks and tied houses, but even then it is difficult with out the owners consent.

But this property, just seems to be a case of "Old and in the way"

From what I can tell, the property went into foreclosure the bank's development arm, M15 acquired title and they are the owners on the demo permit.

However it would appear from recorders records that the bank deeded this property back to morretti (original owner) prior to the demo application. The bank kept the triangular lot on Ogden.

So who knows?

intrepidDesign · #**34184** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 5:24 PM**

..

the urban politician · #**34185** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 6:08 PM**

According to Crains, SC Johnson just purchased 600 w Washington with plans to put 175 employees there. There is almost certainly something big that's going to be built there. Perhaps a headquarters?

XIII · #**34186** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 6:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

According to Crains, SC Johnson just purchased 600 w Washington with plans to put 175 employees there. There is almost certainly something big that's going to be built there. Perhaps a headquarters?

I really hope SC Johnson leads the construction there, they value good architecture.

In addition to the FLW campus, they added on a Norman Foster annex in 2010.
http://www.scjohnson.com/en/company/...leza-Hall.aspx

It would be great to see the company invest in similar quality architecture here.

Kngkyle · #**34187** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 7:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

According to Crains, SC Johnson just purchased 600 w Washington with plans to put 175 employees there. There is almost certainly something big that's going to be built there. Perhaps a headquarters?

Not quite. It was announced in November 2015 that they subleased 49,000 sq ft of space in 550 W Washington with plans to move 175 employees there. Now they have acquired 600 W Washington which will undoubtedly be used for a future development. They are not saying what their plan is. But I agree, this sounds like a future headquarters.

What they said in November when the sublease was announced:

"We operate more than ever in a global competitive environment and we have to expand our talent pool to nearby Chicago to remain competitive."

marothisu · #**34188** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 7:41 PM**

Why do you guys say it's a future headquarters? Because they bought the entire site/building and plan to build something else there and it would make more sense to build something like a HQ?

Why not build something there and then lease out some space to other companies?

Kngkyle · #**34189** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

Why not build something there and then lease out some space to other companies?

Because that isn't their line of business. Whatever they intend to do with that site they'll now have full control over it. To me that says they have some significant plans for it. I'm sure it wasn't cheap either - that is a pretty prime location right next to Ogilvie. (a site that makes much more sense for a HQ than a certain Oprah Winfrey studio...)

marothisu · #**34190** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Because that isn't their line of business. Whatever they intend to do with that site they'll now have full control over it. To me that says they have some significant plans for it. I'm sure it wasn't cheap either - that is a pretty prime location right next to Ogilvie. (a site that makes much more sense for a HQ than a certain Oprah Winfrey studio...)

I'm pretty sure one of the largest private companies in America can build a building, occupy part of it, and lease out some other space to other people and figure out the correct people to hire to do that even if they've never done it before. Maybe I'm just not buying that they're about to move their HQ to Chicago in the next handful of years. Don't see it happening but hope I'm wrong.

Kngkyle · #**34191** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 7:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

I'm pretty sure one of the largest private companies in America can build a building, occupy part of it, and lease out some other space to other people and figure out the correct people to hire to do that even if they've never done it before. Maybe I'm just not buying that they're about to move their HQ to Chicago in the next handful of years. Don't see it happening but hope I'm wrong.

Of course they can do that. Even if they do build a headquarters there I expect their to be excess space for them to lease out to other tenets. (room for them to grow if need be) However, if it wasn't going to be something significant and just be another back office why are they spending tens of millions of dollars to have full control over a site when they could just lease space from any number of office buildings in the immediate (or better) areas?

I'm not saying it definitely is going to be their HQ, but there is a strong case to make that their acquisition of this site and the trend of companies moving their headquarters downtown definitely points in that direction.

marothisu · #**34192** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Of course they can do that. Even if they do build a headquarters there I expect their to be excess space for them to lease out to other tenets. (room for them to grow if need be) However, if it wasn't going to be something significant and just be another back office why are they spending tens of millions of dollars to have full control over a site when they could just lease space from any number of office buildings in the immediate (or better) areas?

Not sure where I ever stated it wouldn't be significant - but at the end of the day money wise, you could still make this work while spending millions and still not be a HQ.

I seriously hope it's a HQ, but honestly...big building doesn't just automatically mean HQ.

the urban politician · #**34193** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 8:00 PM**

Pretty much the defacto HQ will be Chicago. I doubt the CEO spends a whole lot of time in Racine, WI. Sure you can get a Kringle and some great prime rib, but, come on...

Kngkyle · #**34194** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 8:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

I seriously hope it's a HQ, but honestly...big building doesn't just automatically mean HQ.

How often do multinational corporations buy prime downtown real estate to open a branch office?

marothisu · #**34195** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

How often do multinational corporations buy prime downtown real estate to open a branch office?

I can think of a few off the bat in both NYC and Chicago with IBM - though those were a long time ago. Old IBM building in Chicago and 590 Madison Ave in Manhattan (1983). 590 Madison Ave has many tenants other than IBM in it. Neither are/were ever HQ

LouisVanDerWright · #**34196** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 8:36 PM**

I was just asking around about the La Luce building today and I guess the preservation community is feeling very exhausted right now. WE need to be the ones to step in and fill in the gaps through which these properties are slipping.

The La Luce building is in Burnett's ward, I just sent him an email and will be calling to express my outrage about this particular property. Here is my draft email:

Quote:

Alderman Burnett,

I am writing to you to express my utter dismay and disgust at hearing that the beautiful building that used to house La Luce has been taken off the demo delay list and will be razed. How such an exquisite structure can be so wantonly tossed in the trash is beyond me. This building is quite literally the only building with this kind of historic character for at least a block in all directions and one of the few reminders of the totally devastated near west side neighborhood that once was.

I sincerely hope that you can use your position to encourage the owner to change their minds and/or to landmark the property (via district landmarking or otherwise). We simply cannot afford to keep losing the few remaining buildings that give character to relatively bleak areas such as Ogden and Lake. Sure a developer may someday build something there, but it will never replace the gem that we are about to lose.

This madness has to stop before we are left with nothing more than sterile streets indistinguishable from any other city on the planet. If there is any place where historic architecture matters, it is Chicago, it is one of the differentiating features of our city and many parts of your ward contribute to that.

Please let me know if there is any way I can be of help on this matter,

Let's bombard him with emails and calls, get your spouses, friends, whoever, make them all send at least a few line email:

ward27@cityofchicago.org

Burnett's Office: 312-744-6124

LouisVanDerWright · #**34197** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 8:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Not quite. It was announced in November 2015 that they subleased 49,000 sq ft of space in 550 W Washington with plans to move 175 employees there. Now they have acquired 600 W Washington which will undoubtedly be used for a future development. They are not saying what their plan is. But I agree, this sounds like a future headquarters.

What they said in November when the sublease was announced:

"We operate more than ever in a global competitive environment and we have to expand our talent pool to nearby Chicago to remain competitive."

600 W Washington is a historic cable car steamplant, hopefully there are no plans to try to wreck it...

PKDickman · #**34198** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 8:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I was just asking around about the La Luce building today and I guess the preservation community is feeling very exhausted right now. WE need to be the ones to step in and fill in the gaps through which these properties are slipping.

The La Luce building is in Burnett's ward, I just sent him an email and will be calling to express my outrage about this particular property. Here is my draft email:

Let's bombard him with emails and calls, get your spouses, friends, whoever, make them all send at least a few line email:

ward27@cityofchicago.org

Burnett's Office: 312-744-6124

Jeez, what a NIMBY!

There is precious little the alderman can do at this stage, in fact there is precious little anyone can do even with the 90 day delay. The time to landmark is before someone wants to demo it.

The best the alderman can provide is to refuse any future zoning change if the building is demoed.

Honestly, I hope the demo permit is an artifact of the foreclosure battle.

The buildings seems to be in sound condition, the last time they failed an inspection was in the great porch roundup.

It's not part a bigger development parcel.

And La Luce seems to still be in business.

Via Chicago · #**34199** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PKDickman

Jeez, what a NIMBY!

There is precious little the alderman can do at this stage, in fact there is precious little anyone can do even with the 90 day delay. The time to landmark is before someone wants to demo it.

The best the alderman can provide is to refuse any future zoning change if the building is demoed.

Honestly, I hope the demo permit is an artifact of the foreclosure battle.

The buildings seems to be in sound condition, the last time they failed an inspection was in the great porch roundup.

It's not part a bigger development parcel.

And La Luce seems to still be in business.

unfortunately the flaw in the system is unless you are a development nerd or closely watching, these types of approvals largely happen quietly devoid of any public input or even publicity. does anyone know the decision making process that either grants or denies a rated building demo? i sure as hell dont. i would have gladly written an email or picked up the phone a month ago, but i and a lot of other people didnt know about it until this morning when it was approved (which by default meant it was coming down, and THEN the press jumped on it).

there needs to be a better way.

PKDickman · #**34200** Posted **Jul 13, 2016, 9:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

unfortunately the flaw in the system is unless you are a development nerd or closely watching, these types of approvals largely happen quietly devoid of any public input or even publicity. does anyone know the decision making process that either grants or denies a rated building demo? i sure as hell dont. i would have gladly written an email or picked up the phone a month ago, but i and a lot of other people didnt know about it until this morning when it was approved (which by default meant it was coming down, and THEN the press jumped on it).

there needs to be a better way.

Because Orange and Red are just colors and not a designation, there can be no real public input phase, otherwise we would need a public hearing every time someone calls Danley Garage.

The permits go to landmarks and they ascertain what they can do. Their only real power is to give it a preliminary designation. They need at least 2 of the seven criteria to do that and, realistically, to do that over the owners objection they would probably want 4.

The hold list gets published here:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en...st--2016-.html

It's up to people to check it.
Ward Miller at Preservation Chicago and the folks at LPCI do keep an eye out, but sometimes things fall through the cracks and without local support for saving something, there's not a lot they can do except make impassioned speeches.