CHICAGO | General Developments

[ardecila]

Neat. I'm always in favor of more infill along Western. The street frontage is so damn sterile, though! I know it's fronting parking - I'd rather frame some openings in that brick wall so that you could see the cars inside. That would be more attractive IMO than the blank wall.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Current rendering. I prefer the original design, but the structural glass corner on the new version looks pretty cool.

I love it. What a fantastic looking building.

[Rizzo]

This looks nice, but I wish the ground floor Western Elevation wasn't a solid landscaped wall. To bad it's not mixed use. Parking could go underground, squeeze a ramp along the back side...Put retail...or heck replace the laundromat on the ground level.

[Nowhereman1280]

Emanuel wants TIF subsidies tied to job creation

Updated: January 30, 2012 2:47PM


CHICAGO - Developers who get tax-increment-financing (TIF) subsidies would face random audits to make certain they’re delivering the jobs they promised — and those assessments would be posted on the Internet — thanks to a long-awaited overhaul proposed Monday by Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Four months after a panel of experts gave him a blueprint to rein in TIF spending, Emanuel moved to implement those reforms in a way that could hold developers’ feet to the fire.

For the first time, the city will hire independent auditors to randomly evaluate whether developers are honoring the lofty job promises they make in exchange for city subsidies. Those who fall short will face “enforcement,” the mayor said, without spelling out what those consequences will be.



More Here: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...-creation.html

- - - - - - - - - - - -


I haven't had a chance to delve into the details, but it's good to see the Mayor putting a serious effort into TIF reform.

[ardecila]

Hopefully this kills Sedgwick's awful plan for the Maryville site at Montrose/Sheridan. At least if we kill the TIF component, Sedgwick can't sully the beautiful lakefront skyline using taxpayer money.

I'm especially leery of giving $30 million to a developer who's buying the land from a Catholic organization. It's not a violation of church/state separation, but still feels a little wrong.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Well I'm all for them getting the TIF if their promised benefits pan out. I'll feel much more comfortable with projects that require TIF if Rahm really puts together a system that actually "holds their feet to the fire"...

[pip]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Hopefully this kills Sedgwick's awful plan for the Maryville site at Montrose/Sheridan. At least if we kill the TIF component, Sedgwick can't sully the beautiful lakefront skyline using taxpayer money.

I'm especially leery of giving $30 million to a developer who's buying the land from a Catholic organization. It's not a violation of church/state separation, but still feels a little wrong.

as someone who passes by there everyday coming home from work on the 145 bus or sometimes on foot. I fully support this project. What's the old saying? Uptown may think it's Lincoln Park but it certainly isn't, with regards to being picky. It needs all the help it can get. Do people there think magically some developer in going to come in with some amazing product that requires no subsidy? HA!

On another completely unrelated note. I was in Wicker Park today for the first time in about 7 or 8 years or there able to explore a little today for about 10 minutes. Wow! I liked it and my oh my how that neighborhood has changed from 8 years ago. I was also surprised to see how much more active it was in the middle of a work day - a slow time, then Lakeview where I live.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by pip

as someone who passes by there everyday coming home from work on the 145 bus or sometimes on foot. I fully support this project. What's the old saying? Uptown may think it's Lincoln Park but it certainly isn't, with regards to being picky. It needs all the help it can get. Do people there think magically some developer in going to come in with some amazing product that requires no subsidy? HA!

On another completely unrelated note. I was in Wicker Park today for the first time in about 7 or 8 years or there able to explore a little today for about 10 minutes. Wow! I liked it and my oh my how that neighborhood has changed from 8 years ago. I was also surprised to see how much more active it was in the middle of a work day - a slow time, then Lakeview where I live.

Give it a few years. You can't expect Cappleman to reverse 20 years of Schiller overnight. Now there's a Target in the area and Wilson station will soon be rebuilt. Things are looking up.

Plus, Uptown has numerous lakefront highrises built without subsidy in the 60s-70s. People will pay for the views just like they do in Edgewater. The site doesn't need to be Lincoln Park 2520 nor would I expect it to be.

TIF money should be used for capital improvements - paving, streetscaping, utilities, parks, schools, libraries, transit. Only in the most extreme circumstances should the city directly subsidize developers. If Sedgwick can't find a bank to take their bet, I don't see why the city should do it.

[pip]

Ironically TIF paid for a big portion of that Target complex and obviously that Wilson station is going to be paid for with tax dollars.

What you are bragging about as good is paid for partially with TIF - WIlson Yards. Just like the Sedwick. You want Wilson Yards like it was a few years ago? Hence Montrose and Clarendon.

Uptown can't pick and choose at this point.

give it a few years? Without judgement on my part but Uptown is different than Lakeview to the South, Edgewater to the north and whatever is to the west, with the numbers of Section 8 and other government programs for housing and social services. Don't take that as a political commentary on my part please, just stating. The City is not going to turn over real estate to make a profit for development whether you like it or not. You know that and I do. Without this Sedwick development the best that can be hoped for is to keep the fencing up and intact around that huge empty ugly building and complex. No one is going to magically come in and propose some all private development that meets criteria. Uptown or that area of Uptown needs help.

[sentinel]

Navy Pier designs!!!!!!
Some really good potential here!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5213075.story

5 fresh visions for Navy Pier
From pools to amphitheaters, proposals from competing teams offer elements that are spectacular — and budget-busting

By Blair Kamin, Tribune critic

9:01 p.m. CST, January 30, 2012
Navy Pier is in store for a makeover, and the changes could be dramatic.

On Tuesday, five teams of celebrated designers from Chicago and around the world will begin to unveil competing plans for remaking the public spaces of Illinois' most popular tourist attraction.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...6.photogallery

[ardecila]

Wow, lots of cool things here.

Fantasies: Hopefully we can dump the gondola idea right now. I'm undecided about "The Glacier" - at first glance it seems tacky, but I'm sure they said that about the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower, and Gateway Arch. It doesn't even seem like it has a function, though.

Pools/Saunas: Sounds wonderful at first glance. Clearly the designers have Copenhagen on the mind - but ironically, BIG's design doesn't seem to include baths. I wonder if we have the civic culture to support these kinds of establishments in public places? CPD's swimming pools are not exactly the most sanitary places. Maybe with a modest admission fee, it would work.

Elaborate Viewing Structures: Interesting, I guess. I think the views are fantastic as-is.

Winter Garden Stuff: Clever ways to repurpose an 80s/90s cliche. I hope the design can allow people to interact with the landscape quietly (i.e. isolated from the carousel).

[Rizzo]

I think the designs are beautiful. And architecturally I could describe what I like about each one in detail, but I'd be going on forever. It's definitely a new image for Navy Pier. I'm still cautiously optimistic though. Looking beyond the tacky 90s kitsch, the visual noise has some benefits that convey a kid-friendly liveliness. The existing pier can also withstand a beating of dumped ice cream and beer, people sitting on railings, skateboarding and bicycling.

It will need to not be too over-designed in places to accommodate new attractions, but definitely have some centerpiece architectural features that will be timeless.

Just remember this is like the playroom in the house, not Millenium park which is Literally too pretty to touch. Architecture has a habit of being too nice, but ignoring the realities of how the public may want to use it

[denizen467]

^ Wow, that sure is thinking outside the box, at least for Chicago. I really like the more traditional or classical (symmetric, etc.) design of Navy Pier right now, but on the other hand some of these ideas would help finally exploit the great siting and environment and views at Navy Pier.

But I would guess this involves a big increase in visitors - are there significant road or transit modifications contemplated to accommodate that? What about circulation to ensure masses trek out to the attractions way at the end of the pier?

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Complies with the Riverwalk Ordinance, although the existing building (to be remodeled) is too close to the river and so the path only exists next to the parking lot. You can see that the south tip of the site is left pretty much empty - when they rebuild the Division bridges they will need to put in tunnels here like on the Halsted bridge.

You know, the turning basin (or whatever it is called) between Wrigley R&D / the North Ave bridge / Comcast / Home Depot, where the kayak fleets hang out, has the feel of a large pond or tiny lake and offers a really neat view of the city from its NW bank. Eventually getting a river trail up to there, and adding some kind of small park (or even just building a restaurant or cafe), would make it a great pocket refuge/destination in that area.

[J_M_Tungsten]

What's wrong with Navy pier that they need to redesign it? I haven't been there in years (because I live in Chicago and have already been there numerous times), but I remember it being just fine the way it was. I never wanted to grab my trunks and go swimming while I was there so I think pool ideas are ridiculous. Also, the ramps seem kind of point less for a project like this. It's a flat pier where tourist go. Why would ramps make that more fun? The designs are definitely different, I'll give them that, but not different good. Overall, disappointed.

[BorisMolotov]

I have to say I like BIGs design the best so far. It's fairly simple and I absolutely love the terrace up and terrace down at the end of the pier. I don't think the design for this needs to be buckwild but I agree with what Hayward said about having a couple timeless architectural components.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by denizen467

But I would guess this involves a big increase in visitors - are there significant road or transit modifications contemplated to accommodate that? What about circulation to ensure masses trek out to the attractions way at the end of the pier?

I'm not actually sure it does involve a big increase in visitors, just trying to recoup the ones they have lost over the years.

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

What's wrong with Navy pier that they need to redesign it? I haven't been there in years (because I live in Chicago and have already been there numerous times), but I remember it being just fine the way it was. I never wanted to grab my trunks and go swimming while I was there so I think pool ideas are ridiculous. Also, the ramps seem kind of point less for a project like this. It's a flat pier where tourist go. Why would ramps make that more fun? The designs are definitely different, I'll give them that, but not different good. Overall, disappointed.

I think that is part of the problem, really only tourists go there. If I remember correctly, the competition, at least part of it, wanted to include programming that would make it more interesting for the people that actually live here.

SSDD

[Buckman821]

It's hard for me to get behind any of these. I hate the idea of pumping money into Navy Pier. It's too inaccessible to ever be a proper public space. I don't think it will ever break free from being what it is - a seedy tourist trap. To me it is a failed concept and I'd rather we focus our efforts on getting tourists to see the better parts of the city that are connected to the urban fabric. Furthermore, I, like denizen appreciate the traditional classical symmetry that exists there currently.

[pip]

Originally Posted by Buckman821

It's hard for me to get behind any of these. I hate the idea of pumping money into Navy Pier. It's too inaccessible to ever be a proper public space. I don't think it will ever break free from being what it is - a seedy tourist trap. To me it is a failed concept and I'd rather we focus our efforts on getting tourists to see the better parts of the city that are connected to the urban fabric. Furthermore, I, like denizen appreciate the traditional classical symmetry that exists there currently.

I think you are right and the overall benefit would be greater than the downfall to getting tourists out into the neighborhoods.

But coming from someone that worked in a tourist restaurant in River North I don't want many of these people in my neighborhood. A huge number of tourists are quite closed minded, judgemental, not pleasant and also a huge number are just blah both physically and mentally. Sorry to say that as a conclusion. Tourists don't like people or things that don't fit their bubble and Chicago certainly from housing styles, lifestyles is most certainly 'different'

I view parts of River North and Navy Pier as containment, I would leave there after working thinking good glad I'm going.

[k1052]

Navy Pier is a tourist trap and always will be, however I don't think that's a bad thing. I think it's worthwhile to make it a nicer, more functional, and more productive tourist trap for economic reasons. I know basically nobody in the city who ever expresses a desire to go to Navy Pier for anything except to visit the IMAX so I'm pretty dubious on any amount of success in attracting residents.