CHICAGO | General Developments

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by harryc

just wow.

i dunno whos picking up the slack for Kamin while hes gone, but it seems like architecture and preservation reporting has completely fallen by the wayside at the Tribune since then. if he flipped out over a Trump sign on the sidewalk, gotta believe this would have at least gotten a couple blog postings and some well deserved public shaming.

[denizen467]

If anyone was thinking that decidedly roomy Franklin in the Loop might remain 2-way after the 2-year Wacker construction hiatus, no, it has reverted to 1-way (northbound) again. Must've happened at some point in December.

[ardecila]

Yes, but with one less lane than the original one-way configuration IIRC, thanks to the new bike lane.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by denizen467

If anyone was thinking that decidedly roomy Franklin in the Loop might remain 2-way after the 2-year Wacker construction hiatus, no, it has reverted to 1-way (northbound) again. Must've happened at some point in December.

Yea, it changed back a couple weeks ago. As a pedestrian, Im grateful for the return

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

i dunno whos picking up the slack for Kamin while hes gone, but it seems like architecture and preservation reporting has completely fallen by the wayside at the Tribune since then.

I sent Ron Grossman a note in November and he did an 800-word story about it in the Dec. 9 Tribune:

http://archrecord.construction.com/y...y_id=180068605

[Mikemak27]

As a pedestrian, one way streets are a life saver. They allow for more mid-block crossings when there is no traffic, you only have to look one-way (assuming no one is driving the wrong way), and there are fewer blind spots for both pedestrians and drivers. It's a shame Kinzie, Clinton and Canal in the Fulton District, Lake, and pretty much every street in the Loop, River North, West Loop, and South Loop cannot be one-way.

[Buckman821]

Crains is reporting that the YMCA Lawson house is nearing a sale. This could be a huge positive for that area if it goes right. Certainly can't get worse.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mikemak27

As a pedestrian, one way streets are a life saver. They allow for more mid-block crossings when there is no traffic, you only have to look one-way (assuming no one is driving the wrong way), and there are fewer blind spots for both pedestrians and drivers. It's a shame Kinzie, Clinton and Canal in the Fulton District, Lake, and pretty much every street in the Loop, River North, West Loop, and South Loop cannot be one-way.

Frame of reference I suppose. Many cities are removing one-way streets to improve auto access to businesses, and people don't have to circle blocks in confusing directions.

They also encourage speeding, which sucks in quiet or depressed areas where drivers aren't expecting pedestrians.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Buckman821

Crains is reporting that the YMCA Lawson house is nearing a sale. This could be a huge positive for that area if it goes right. Certainly can't get worse.

They're selling it to Holsten, which means in all likelihood that it will remain as low-income housing. Maybe it will get a nicer street presence with retail. Holsten will probably try to sell off the parking lots, since those were primarily used by YMCA staffers.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I sent Ron Grossman a note in November and he did an 800-word story about it in the Dec. 9 Tribune:

http://archrecord.construction.com/y...y_id=180068605

I stand corrected, thanks for the link

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Mikemak27

As a pedestrian, one way streets are a life saver. They allow for more mid-block crossings when there is no traffic, you only have to look one-way (assuming no one is driving the wrong way), and there are fewer blind spots for both pedestrians and drivers. It's a shame Kinzie, Clinton and Canal in the Fulton District, Lake, and pretty much every street in the Loop, River North, West Loop, and South Loop cannot be one-way.

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Yea, it changed back a couple weeks ago. As a pedestrian, Im grateful for the return

Originally Posted by ardecila

Frame of reference I suppose. Many cities are removing one-way streets to improve auto access to businesses, and people don't have to circle blocks in confusing directions.

They also encourage speeding, which sucks in quiet or depressed areas where drivers aren't expecting pedestrians.

I understand why some cities are converting some streets to 2-way, but I do kind of prefer one-way streets as a pedestrian. Jane Jacobs was anti-one-way-streets, but rather ironically she came to that opinion as a driver (or as one being driven, anyway), not as a pedestrian.

I have to admit, though, that even on Franklin where drivers know there are a lot of pedestrians around, they drive very fast when it's one-way. As do I when I'm driving on it (which is rare, but does happen occasionally). But as a pedestrian, it is easier to jaywalk, which I'm sure all commuters to the train stations appreciate. I also like the Clark/Dearborn pair. When they're paired like that with 2-way streets adjacent the pair, they become almost like a giant boulevard.

[denizen467]

Speaking of Ron Grossman of the Tribune, here's an article posted a half hour ago:

(Follow article link to see 1 render.)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7977087.story
Preservationists unveil 4 new ways to save Prentice
By Ron Grossman, Chicago Tribune reporter
8:03 p.m. CST, January 3, 2013

... Jim Peters, former deputy commissioner of Chicago's Department of Planning and Development, on Thursday introduced four possibilities for reusing old Prentice assembled by different teams of architects.

The proposals represented a change of direction for Save Prentice, a coalition of preservationist groups. Previously, preservationists championed alternative uses — for example, transforming it into condos or a hotel — an argument Northwestern rejected, saying it needed the site for research that could provide cures for intractable diseases.

The four variations presented Thursday share the common feature of preserving old Prentice as the administrative hub of Northwestern's research facilities. In each, the architectural team proposed building new research facilities alongside or around it.

Under the proposals, an additional floor that partially hid the arches holding up the tower would be removed, revealing the full sweep of the base as designed by famed Chicago architect Bertrand Goldberg.

...

[J_M_Tungsten]

^^^That would be awesome! I really don't care too much for prentice, but this makes me appreciate it more.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by ardecila

They're selling it to Holsten, which means in all likelihood that it will remain as low-income housing. Maybe it will get a nicer street presence with retail. Holsten will probably try to sell off the parking lots, since those were primarily used by YMCA staffers.

I believe the YMCA already sold the lot and corner building to Loyola a couple of years ago.

Originally Posted by denizen467

Preservationists unveil 4 new ways to save Prentice

What I don't get about this whole issue is why Northwestern is not building (or talking about) the already approved second Lurie research tower next door. Not to mention the fact that they own the land under current and soon-to-be vacant Rehab Institute (although I like that building as well).

[denizen467]

^ I do get why Northwestern isn't talking about it ... however, are demolition opponents talking about it enough, to call NU's bluff?

Maybe wrong thread, but if you look at the render from today's article, it raises a compromise idea of fusing Prentice's north 2 lobes into a new tower (or I suppose demolishing them), but leaving the south 2 lobes intact. Would that be structurally impossible (do opposite lobes balance each other, and/or do adjacent lobes share too much structure)?

[BWChicago]

Originally Posted by denizen467

^ I do get why Northwestern isn't talking about it ... however, are demolition opponents talking about it enough, to call NU's bluff?

Maybe wrong thread, but if you look at the render from today's article, it raises a compromise idea of fusing Prentice's north 2 lobes into a new tower (or I suppose demolishing them), but leaving the south 2 lobes intact. Would that be structurally impossible (do opposite lobes balance each other, and/or do adjacent lobes share too much structure)?

http://saveprentice2013.wordpress.com/ The proposal calls for building new floor plate around the tower, not removing half of it.

[denizen467]

^ I know; that's why I asked the question about the more radical (probably not workable) compromise alternative. These proposals put quite a bit of linear window footage looking directly, like 5 feet away, at another building, which NU could scoff at. Plus, are there window washer issues or wind tunnel effects in those sliver canyons. So, I wanted to take away the reasons for those objections.

[ardecila]

All of the alternatives included here are on the schematic level, and each one has its own downsides. Northwestern can find excuses all day to reject alternative designs. The fact is that NMH does not like the appearance of Prentice and they do not like the image it projects about their hospital. [insert tired critiques of modernism: test tubes, lab rats, etc] In order to appear pragmatic, NMH has framed its hatred for Prentice by saying it is "obsolete" and "unworkable". Anybody with two eyes can see that, for an institution with the resources and clout of NMH, almost nothing is truly unworkable.



The pictured BauerLatoza scheme does not have a "sliver canyon". The new building comes right up to the walls of the old, and includes ramps in the floorplan to accommodate the level changes between new and old.

In the awesome Marsollier/Villacorta design, the two buildings directly abut each other but do not connect. The old building is reused as a library and a new glass-box is built around it for the research labs.

The Kujawa design includes a sliver canyon, but it also requires Northwestern to build out over the sidewalk of Superior and commit to a tiny floorplate size on a point tower, so that's probably a non-starter.

The Loebl Schlossmann Hackl scheme is probably the most informed scheme relative to the needs of Northwestern's research team, but it's a master planning exercise instead of an architectural concept, and it relies on adjacent sites (Lurie II, RIC) instead of the Prentice site.

[denizen467]

^ I didn't realize some of the proposals actually fused the 2 buildings together -- I would not have thought it was possible: A highrise, next to Chicago's windy lake, would sway in a manner that would be disharmonious with an old, concrete, mid-rise structure. Having just a single skybridge would be one thing, even if it is, say, halfway up a pair of 88 story southeast Asian towers, but how do you continually fuse, over many floors, a modern highrise with an older concrete mid-rise? Or are they not entirely "fused" but have a couple inches of expansion-joint-like, accordion connections at every floor and on every ramp, and also in the building envelope/enclosure?

[JDMChicago]

Has anyone else noticed the nice new big windows on the north side of 810 W Grace? They look great. I was wondering if it's being converted to condos or nice rentals or something. I don't know much about the building, but I always thought it was a subsidized housing deal.