CHICAGO | General Developments

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by honte

Don't take this the wrong way please, but the opinion that demolition is the correct solution, provided the replacement is ok, gets right to the root of the problem. Our society, and Chicago in particular, is set up to encourage "out with the old" and usually very little thought is given to these decisions on a broader scale..

Absolutely agree.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by honte

Don't take this the wrong way please, but the opinion that demolition is the correct solution, provided the replacement is ok, gets right to the root of the problem. Our society, and Chicago in particular, is set up to encourage "out with the old" and usually very little thought is given to these decisions on a broader scale.

I don't agree. I would argue the bigger problem is the idea that demolition is the correct solution to maximize the well-being of the single landowner at the expense of the well-being of the surrounding neighborhood - a key distinction. We should be so lucky that the worst battle preservationists fight is preventing new landmarks from being built on top of demolished old ones (e.g. the Field replacing Home Insurance, etc. - debatable to be sure, but I don't such an example as the very root of the problem).

I mean, it's sort of an academic argument in this instance, since the pessimists among us are probably right: whatever replaces this high-quality mixed-use building at Addison/Sheffield will likely be some type of schlock, a clear downgrade - in which case this is indeed a tragedy. But if it were a high-quality design and a notable increase in density, I just don't see this demolition as nearly on par, in terms of craptitute, with the multitude of architectural tragedies that occur when landmarks are torn down to make way for, say, parking lots, drive-thrus, decreases in density, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating wanton demolition by any means - heck, I'd love to see the structural/procedural changes honte describes put into place to better protect our historical assets. In fact, if such proposals were had a plausible chance of passing, I"d be right there with letter-writing, phone calls, and donations in support. But at least in some cases, just because a building is old doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't be redeveloped to the benefit of all.

[ardecila]

Is it possible that the owner wanted to put rooftop seats on the building? This would square with the removal of residential usage from the zoning, since the second story would have ecome a bar/party room connected to the rooftop seating. Then, he may have discovered that the roof could not bear the weight of the rooftop seating, hence the demolition in preparation for a complete replacement.

[BWChicago]

Well, they wouldn't be very good seats. But it seems plausible.

Vince Michael had some very insightful writing on the demolition issue recently, also citing the Field/Home Insurance issue: http://vincemichael.wordpress.com/20...this-chestnut/

[Chicago3rd]

What is hilarious about Sheffield/Addison being torn down (a great building) is that the NIMBYS fought to keep the beautiful 7-11 and parking lots and sport shops alive and well...because of their concern for their neighborhood yet they let this happen. The NIMBYS in that area are only power pigs and don't give a damn about the integrity of the neighborhood.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd

the NIMBYS fought to keep the beautiful 7-11 and parking lots and sport shops alive and well...because of their concern for their neighborhood yet they let this happen.

When do you think the NIMBYs would have had the opportunity to express an opinion either way? No public meeting is held for a demolition permit.

[honte]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I don't agree. I would argue the bigger problem is the idea that demolition is the correct solution to maximize the well-being of the single landowner at the expense of the well-being of the surrounding neighborhood - a key distinction. We should be so lucky that the worst battle preservationists fight is preventing new landmarks from being built on top of demolished old ones (e.g. the Field replacing Home Insurance, etc. - debatable to be sure, but I don't such an example as the very root of the problem).

I mean, it's sort of an academic argument in this instance, since the pessimists among us are probably right: whatever replaces this high-quality mixed-use building at Addison/Sheffield will likely be some type of schlock, a clear downgrade - in which case this is indeed a tragedy. But if it were a high-quality design and a notable increase in density, I just don't see this demolition as nearly on par, in terms of craptitute, with the multitude of architectural tragedies that occur when landmarks are torn down to make way for, say, parking lots, drive-thrus, decreases in density, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating wanton demolition by any means - heck, I'd love to see the structural/procedural changes honte describes put into place to better protect our historical assets. In fact, if such proposals were had a plausible chance of passing, I"d be right there with letter-writing, phone calls, and donations in support. But at least in some cases, just because a building is old doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't be redeveloped to the benefit of all.

Actually, I agree with what you have said. My comment was meant primarily to point out that there are many larger issues than simply, "Is it going to be a good building?" (History, resource usage, neighborhood integrity and sense of place, the understanding of Chicago's unique architectural movements, all the rest of it....)

In the last few years, I would mention the Piano Art Institute expansion and the Legacy at Millennium Park as two examples when preservation was not a clear-cut choice on purely artistic grounds. These are the "Corbusier à Paris" situations.

At the museum, you have an internationally-celebrated architect replacing two works by two local architects (one locally very well known and regarded, the other internationally known but not at Piano's level of stardom). I personally was strongly against the plan because I believed not enough effort was being given to the idea that all three could coexist harmoniously, and to the greater benefit of the whole. I will always look at the new building with some regret, however great it might be. I think the same can be said of the Field Building, although it's certainly a masterpiece.

At the Legacy project, you all know the story. After a lot of thought, I was cautiously in favor of the compromise plan to keep the facades and allow the tower.

The main point I'm trying to make is that there should be a lot more consideration given to demolition than simply whether or not the end product is going to be great. If the final product is spectacular, it certainly lessens the pain, but I don't believe that "forgive and forget" is sufficient when the stakes are this high. If all of Chicago were to be torn down and rebuilt with top-notch, truly amazing architecture, I'd still say we would have suffered a great loss. And of course, needless to say, this city is teeming with vacant lots and underutilized spaces that could accommodate all of our building needs for at least 100 years.

[ardecila]

I found a new site plan for Riverside Park (now called Riverside District) on SCB's website. A 2008 date is given on the plan, making it newer than either the first plan by Pappageorge/Haymes or the second plan by Antunovich.



It shares certain things with the two older plans (including the preservation of the lamentable barrier along Clark ), but overall, it seems to have much more in common with Lakeshore East - it is oriented around a sizable park at the center, and surrounds the park with high-rises. Unlike the previous plans, townhomes are merely kept to mask the towers' parking podiums.

On the one hand, I like this because it places tall towers along the river, effectively extending the density of the Loop southward. On the other hand, towers contain many more units than townhomes and take longer to build, meaning that this development will take far longer to fill in. Also, the existing mega-developments of Lakeshore East, Central Station, and even LaSalle Park/Franklin Pointe are only half-completed, and those developments are far closer to the popular areas of the city than Riverside District will be.

The optimistic projections of the last decade or so of increasing interest in living downtown seem quite absurd now. Clearly, there is quite a sizable interest in living downtown, but I don't think this demand is growing. Even at the peak of the boom, the demand was not enough to fill the buildings that were built. The existing glut of units and the difficulty of obtaining mortgages only serves to severely curb this demand. As much as it pains me to say it, I'd prefer to see this parcel remain undeveloped as a land reserve, in order to facilitate the completion of Central Station and Lakeshore East as planned, which in their lakefront locations are far more significant to the city than Riverside District will ever be. Either a different use can be found for the land, say, as an Olympic Stadium or large park, or the land can be kept undeveloped until the time is right.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by dvidler

The building where the Sports Corner is was torn down??

un f---in real.

[honte]

Riverside Park looks profoundly boring. It reminds me a lot of the River East master plan.

But it's better than the fugly French fantasy they were proposing first.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila

the preservation of the lamentable barrier along Clark

Presumably Metra's fault, no?
In any event, the direct connection to 18th Street is intriguing. Are there connections to Roosevelt or do they go under Roosevelt?

My concern would be that they are squandering a chance to really engage with the water - like adding small slips or bays, like I believe Smith+Gill did for the Harrison site.

As it is, it's a boring enough development that it will have to have price points much lower than LSE and Central Station. If they invested a little more in some creative infrastructure, maybe they could have a shot at a few luxury towers and some better density.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

When do you think the NIMBYs would have had the opportunity to express an opinion either way? No public meeting is held for a demolition permit.

Do you really think that well-connected groups need a public meeting to "express" their opinions? Not that this behavior is limited to NIMBYs...developers, the city and everyone with connections get their fair share of backdoor meetings. In fact, I'd feel confident saying that most of the important influence peddling in this city happens not in public meetings, but in private conversations. Backdoor politics (even if it isn't illegal or unethical) rules the day in Chicago, IMO.

Taft

[Mr Downtown]

Whether the meeting is public or private, no advance notice is given of demolition permits. So no one had an opportunity to offer an opinion.

[VivaLFuego]

Accepting that Riverside Park is a very challenging site due to poor access, that SCB plan is still a lame attempt. At least reference the one major arterial bordering the site and the waterfront in the site plan! Concentrate the density in the accessible northern end of the site, and leave the forever-secluded no-man's land in the southern end of the site to be Dearborn-Park-Phase-3-cul-de-saced-gated-townhome blight. Maybe they could deign to at least lay out the PD to slightly resemble a Chicago grid-style development?

[honte]

^ I'd rather they not grid it... why not find a more appropriate geometry that works with the "no man's land" and actually makes it a unique and inviting part of the downtown? Grids to nowhere are pretty depressing in my opinion, and we have enough of them. Meanwhile, an interesting layout with some character seems like a fitting and marketable alternative. Not cul-de-sacs, of course, but a little variety is a good thing, especially on a parcel that is being forced not to cooperate with existing city grids anyway. I'd like to see geometry in the planning that cues up more exciting skyscraper forms and more dynamic relationships between spaces.

I also like the idea of bringing the river back into the site a lot. If I had total control, I'd probably restore the course of the river to its pre-industrial route.

By the way, did SCB acquire Kim Goluska's operations? I thought most of the things on their web site were his (and that would explain a lot of things...).

[EarlyBuyer]

Photo taken by EarlyBuyer

Re-painting now near complete on Columbus Drive bridge

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

From today's Trib. . . this has always been a pet-peeve of mine as it has such a negative impact on all the pedestrian tourist traffic. . .

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5646846.story

Michigan Avenue bridge set to reclaim some of its ancient luster
Handrails, sidewalks will be restored over next six months, officials say

By James Janega

Tribune reporter

December 27, 2008

Beginning in January, the city will restore decorative handrails on the Michigan Avenue bridge to a design reminiscent of their original 1920s Beaux Arts pattern while also replacing sidewalks on the bridge with non-skid fiberglass decking.

The project will restore a stroke of beauty to one of the city's most iconic tourist and pedestrian landmarks and address one of Chicago's iciest river crossings. But it also promises to snarl pedestrian traffic for up to six months as first one side of the bridge and then the other is closed in the $3.5 million face-lift.

"This is something that has been planned for at least a couple of years," said Chicago Department of Transportation spokesman Brian Steele. Because pedestrian counts are lower now, he added, "winter is a better time to handle this type of construction."

The bridge was designed by Chicago architect Edward Bennett. One of the first priorities of the plan was the double-deck bridge finished in 1920 to link the north side of Michigan Avenue with the southern end and downtown. The interlaced diamond pattern of the original railings will be recreated (though with smaller gaps in the lattice, bringing them up to modern code) as new deck plates are installed to reduce the ice-rink quality the bridge has had in recent years.

If Venice has its Bridge of Sighs, Chicago has on Michigan Avenue its Bridge of Muttered Curses. Four years ago, metal deck plates were covered with a polyurethane non-skid surface, Steele said. "Because of the high traffic on that bridge, it has deteriorated."

Though conceptually simple, renovating one of the city's landmark bascule-style bridges involves painstaking attention to detail. To open and close properly, the weight of each bridge leaf must be balanced with a counterweight hidden below the streets on either side of the river.

I wonder if this involves any work on the lower level?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Accepting that Riverside Park is a very challenging site due to poor access, that SCB plan is still a lame attempt. At least reference the one major arterial bordering the site and the waterfront in the site plan! Concentrate the density in the accessible northern end of the site, and leave the forever-secluded no-man's land in the southern end of the site to be Dearborn-Park-Phase-3-cul-de-saced-gated-townhome blight. Maybe they could deign to at least lay out the PD to slightly resemble a Chicago grid-style development?

^ I'm going to reserve judgement until we see more renderings, especially from other perspectives (ie street level views, etc). I can't tell from the given perspective which green spaces are the tops of podiums and which ones are actual ground level parks.

But I agree that I'd like to see more density along Roosevelt, especially since Roosevelt Collection and Target are already flush against that street. Perhaps if this ever becomes a serious proposal city planners will push for such changes.

[honte]

^ There are additional images at www.scbdesign.com

[chicago]

Originally Posted by pip

at Addison and Sheffield there was a nice old building that has been torn down. Hope something other than a three story building with two stories of parking goes up or even better yet it is left vacant for years or a 7-11 with nice parking in front. I'm surprised that building was torn down.

History repeats itself. Shot from 1914 before the building in question was erected.