HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #15861  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 8:21 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,328
What this issue really addresses in my mind is the need to revisit that landmark ordinance to protect these low rise buildings in River North that failed to pass a few years ago. Does anyone have info on how that vote went down or what explenations were given for rejecting it?

I don't think this building would have been included under that ordinance but in general terms the idea of making many of River North's early century low rises off limits should be considered. There are plenty of parking lots and mediocre low rise buildings in which to push up and build high density neighborhood that River North (or just beyond in this case) deserves.

The low rises give the neighborhood a great character and contrast next to the towers that have and will rise eventually. It would be a great shame to one day make it a Loop Deux only with far more mediocre towers to replace the streetscape.

Last edited by nomarandlee; Jun 3, 2012 at 10:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15862  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 8:38 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
I have a vague recollection that, at one point, Nowhereman talked about the demolition for the Pearson corner building stopping at least 1 building short of Baumhart. That was probably at a tentative, early stage. But the new render does leave a gap between the buildings, a little mysteriously.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15863  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 9:54 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
What this issue really addresses in my mind is the need to revisit that landmark ordinance to protect these low rise buildings in River North that failed to pass a few years ago. Does anyone have info on how that vote went down or what explenations were given for rejecting it?

I don't think this building would have been included under that ordinance but in general terms the idea of making many of River North's early century low rises off limits should be considered. There are plenty of parking lots and mediocre low rise buildings in which to push up and build high density neighborhood that River North (or just beyond in this case) deserves. The low rises given the neighborhood a great character and contrast though to the towers that have and will go up and it would be a great shame to one day make it a Loop Deux only with far more mediocre towers.
I strongly agree. There are dozens of these smaller buildings left that need to be protected on both sides of Michigan Avenue really. We've already lost quite a few of these to Northwestern, the condo tower boom, and Gold Coast retail expansion.

For example, on Erie you have this to the west of Michigan and this to the east. You can play this game with pretty much any street that intersects the Mag Mile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15864  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 10:10 PM
george's Avatar
george george is offline
dream fast
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east village, chicago
Posts: 3,290
I biked through the fenced in, empty, Cabrini Green Rowhouses this afternoon. It's an eerie place as they await their fate.



http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...public-housing
__________________
To have ambition was my ambition - Gang of Four
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15865  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 11:14 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
^ Wow it's going to be weird seeing a big empty lot over there get even bigger.

La Casa in Pilsen



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15866  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 11:21 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,352
La Casa looks fantastic, but a little bit instagram-ish.

The renderings showed structural glass for the corner, but it looks like that was value-engineered down to a traditional aluminum-framed system. Still, the variegated metal panels on the sides look great.

As a side note - this is exactly the type of building we need to be encouraging next to L stops...
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15867  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 11:55 PM
george's Avatar
george george is offline
dream fast
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east village, chicago
Posts: 3,290
La Casa is coming along nicely.^

6-3 Burberry

__________________
To have ambition was my ambition - Gang of Four
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15868  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 12:59 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago View Post
If the rendering is accurate, it means they will also demolish the little 3-story house right next to Baumhart Hall. Originally the Frank Schofield House, it was built in 1934 and has a very quirky, almost modern design with a lot of interesting brickwork - similar to the Carl Street Studios in Old Town. I'll try to get photos soon so everyone can see what's being lost.
It would be nice if they could somehow relocate it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15869  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 1:02 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
La Casa looks fantastic, but a little bit instagram-ish.

The renderings showed structural glass for the corner, but it looks like that was value-engineered down to a traditional aluminum-framed system. Still, the variegated metal panels on the sides look great.

As a side note - this is exactly the type of building we need to be encouraging next to L stops...
LOL! Yes, it was my attempt at making a phone photo a bit less shitty....add an instagrammy filter. I always seem to pass by Pilsen at night when of course it's dark. I hope the next iphone camera will have manual settings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15870  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 3:27 AM
george's Avatar
george george is offline
dream fast
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east village, chicago
Posts: 3,290
Starbucks on Rush plods along

__________________
To have ambition was my ambition - Gang of Four
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15871  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 4:55 AM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
What this issue really addresses in my mind is the need to revisit that landmark ordinance to protect these low rise buildings in River North that failed to pass a few years ago. Does anyone have info on how that vote went down or what explenations were given for rejecting it?
...
If I remember some scuttlebutt from the time, I think what happened was that someone fairly junior cooked it up without getting support from Friedman. Considering how many buildings he owns that would be impacted, not getting his support from the outset was a huge political blunder.

Disclosure: I own a condo in River North, in an association made up of four vintage buildings (average age: 120 years) on the same block as a Friedman building and one other vintage building, and no buildings on my block were marked for protection under the ordinance. Which is weird and dumb, because I bet at least 80% of my neighbors would have voted to accept landmarking of our association - especially if it brought any tax benefit.

If they make another go at it, it should be comprehensive, and it must have Friedman's support, and it must include all of River North, and not just a few buildings in the middle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15872  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 5:24 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,352
The Italianate buildings in the "middle" of River North are small, relatively low-intensity structures that are vulnerable to demolition because of their size.

The industrial loft buildings along Franklin are in a different class and deserve a different type of protection. They're not even really under threat, although future-proofing can't hurt.

Generally the narrower the scope of a landmark district the better. There's no doubt that numerous blocks along Hubbard and Illinois are high quality, contiguous urban fabric from the 1870s and 80s, first wave after the Fire buildings. But only the blocks that survive more than 50% are worth landmarking. Otherwise the economics will give us a situation where all the non-landmarked parcels of any size will fill with massive skyscrapers and prevent the midrises that would help resolve the scale differences. Protecting isolated buildings also leads to a lot of weird, ugly through-block and L-shaped buildings (I couldn't get too upset at the loss of that bank for the Tri-Hotel, since several small vacant lots will be filled)
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15873  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 6:17 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Damn, La Casa in Pilsen looks nice, and it's dense!

I really hope this tips the scale for that neighborhood.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15874  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 3:06 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago View Post
If the rendering is accurate, it means they will also demolish the little 3-story house right next to Baumhart Hall. Originally the Frank Schofield House, it was built in 1934 and has a very quirky, almost modern design with a lot of interesting brickwork - similar to the Carl Street Studios in Old Town. I'll try to get photos soon so everyone can see what's being lost.
No, that house is safe from what I understand. I actually had a series of discussions with Honte about this before he died/disappeared. That building is extremely historically and architecturally important and I believe was one of the earliest "Modernist" buildings in Chicago. Honte also disclosed to me that he knew who the owner was and I correctly deduced from his hints exactly who it is. It is none other than one of the principals of one of the most avant-garde architecture firms in the city. I won't say who it is (though I'm sure some could find out if they snooped around), but there is no way in hell they will ever sell it to Loyola. This is also royally pissing Loyola off because they want to grab the alley in the middle of the block so they can connect all the buildings on the block together at ground level to use it for a huge block of classroom space, but this one little house is categorically preventing them from ever doing that. They are the only building on the block that requires access (for trash collection, not even for the garage, lol.

Anyhow, that building is "not for sale at any price" and will never be torn down thank god. From what I learned from Honte it is extremely important. Below is an excerpt from one of Honte's PM's to me (I know its not quite Kosher to copy and past from PM's, but this is information that should be more widely known):


Quote:
Originally Posted by Honte
Of course, no one wants to stop Loyola from building a great new building, but with so much land (and so many buildings already torn down for this purpose), I think it's perfectly reasonable that at least one could be saved. Personally, I think it would be cooler to have a much taller building on their existing vacant sites (plus the hardware store), and all of the vintage buildings on Pearson saved. They could be turned into some kind of student retail experience (in conjunction with the street mall you mention), something like Maxwell Street for UIC, which would lend a pedestrian scale and quaint quality to their concept. But the only thing I am truly worried about for now is the Speyer house.

As I mentioned in the thread, the house was done in 1928 by Sol Kogan. If you don't know his work, please go check out the artist enclave in Old Town on Burton Street. It's one of my favorite places in the city, where artists and a few architects "took over" the block and transformed it by hand into something extraordinary. Kogan worked with the noted artist Edgar Miller over there, and he very well might have done the same on Pearson Street.

Most of the information I have on the building is coming from John Vinci's excellent monograph on Speyer, which was self-published and done basically because Vinci is a great person. I did, however, verify though my independent research that Kogan was the architect. I also learned that the building was a studio on the top floor, and stables on the bottom.

The area surrounding this building, as I am sure you know, was once called "Tower Town" (after the Water Tower) and was the city's principal arts enclave. While I don't know the history of this building completely, I would guess, given Kogan's participation and the progressive look of the building, that it has a direct link back to this part of the city's history. As such, it is probably the only reminder left in Chicago that Tower Town ever even existed.

A. James Speyer was Mies van der Rohe's first grad student. He literally followed Mies into Chicago and asked to work with him. He went on to become a great architect, of major importance to the 2nd Chicago School of architecture, as is very wonderfully explained in Vinci's book. His career as an architect was short-lived, however, because he was offered a job at the Art Institute, becoming their chief curator of Contemporary Art in 1961. He is responsible for obtaining a lot of the amazing pieces that will be housed in the new Piano wing. While he was an architect, he produced some of the earliest and most beautiful Miesian homes in Chicago, which to be precise only number 3. It's worth noting that all of these homes are, remarkably, still standing (considering that Highland Park has no landmarking ordinance, and nearly everything under 5000 sq ft seems destined for the dumpsite in that suburb). I have photographs and addresses if you ever want to learn more, or if you need them to show to anyone at Loyola.

Speyer bought the house on Pearson in 1965. His work is mostly found on the inside, but now that Loyola has demoed the buildings one block north, you can see some of the cool parts he added to the back of the building, as well as the partial 3rd floor he added. These small additions, ironically, are the only exterior architecture within Chicago city limits by one of its most important early Modernists.

The house is now owned by an important Chicago architect, whose name you surely know. For the sake of his privacy, I don't think it would be right to mention the name here. But there is a third-generation connection to the house's architectural legacy that only adds to its importance.

As far as a response to a lot of the bellyaching about "sterilizing" and "institutionalizing" the street goes, I simply disagree. I don't think Loyola has sterilized that area at all. In fact, they've amped the vibrancy of that area way up with the amount of foot traffic their concentrated mass of uses has generated and the active WLUW station on the corner. It would be completely stupid for them to try to locate this use several blocks away simply to take up a parking lot. Additionally, there is no way Holy Name would hand over that huge vacant lot at Chicago and State to Loyola. Many here may not be familiar with Catholic politics, but most of the church doesn't exactly love to cooperate with the Jesuits. That's why Loyola wasn't able to snag the seminary across from Lewis Tower; the arch diocese would rather waste money and let a perfectly good building go underutilized than let the Jesuits get it. That building should have gone to Loyola and would have made and excellent home for their business school, but the arch diocese are assholes and wouldn't let Loyola have it despite the fact that it was already set up to be used as classrooms. They instead converted it to offices.

Anyhow, Loyola now controls most of that block to the East of State and the YMCA and intends to continue to push West into those empty lots (hopefully preserving the low rises along State) with dorms and additional classroom facilities. However, the details of those plans are still very blurry as they haven't quite fleshed them out yet.


PS: the street mall Honte mentioned is something that I don't know if I've mentioned before of if it's public knowledge. There are long term plans to turn Pearson from Water Tower through Loyola Campus into a pedestrian mall. I think the Speyer House is fouling up these plans as well. Normally I would never support such a thing (obviously super blocks are horrible), but Pearson gets almost no real traffic and is mainly used by cars circling and looking for parking. It could work out pretty well if it's executed correctly, but I'm apprehensive about that idea as well.

PPS: If you look at the rendering you can see there is in fact a gap left in it for Speyer House. There is a brown blob placed where Speyer House is probably to distract from the fact that Loyola has again failed to drive out mid block owners. This is a touchy issue for the administration as it happened to them once previously when they were building Corboy Center and that little Italianate 3 flat between McGuire and Corboy refused to sell out them. They figured they'd eventually break him after they started construction and be able to buy it when they decide to re-build McGuire, but the owners have since fortified their position and I believe might have gone as far as to place the building in trust so that the school can never acquire it. That is a sour issue for the administration because it smacks of their utter incompetence in the late 1990's when 25 E Pearson was being planned and constructed.

Last edited by Nowhereman1280; Jun 4, 2012 at 3:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15875  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 8:00 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
Random neighborhood projects

Ald. Moore rejected a plan to build two 6 unit buildings at 7220 N. Oakley.

Meanwhile, Ald. Moreno seems to support a new project at 1711 N. Winnebago even against community objections. The developer want to build three 5-story buildings containing a total of 54 apartments and 78 parking spaces. Renderings/burry photos here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15876  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 8:42 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
Ald. Moore rejected a plan to build two 6 unit buildings at 7220 N. Oakley.

Meanwhile, Ald. Moreno seems to support a new project at 1711 N. Winnebago even against community objections. The developer want to build three 5-story buildings containing a total of 54 apartments and 78 parking spaces. Renderings/burry photos here.
Most of the objections about the Winnebago project are laughable. The strongest criticisms would be parking ratio and the treatment of the ground floor facing Winnebago, both of which are pretty negotiable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15877  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 9:31 PM
ChiTownCity ChiTownCity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago, USA
Posts: 1,163
Why was NoWhereMan banned?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15878  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 10:19 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
The Italianate buildings in the "middle" of River North are small, relatively low-intensity structures that are vulnerable to demolition because of their size.

The industrial loft buildings along Franklin are in a different class and deserve a different type of protection. They're not even really under threat, although future-proofing can't hurt.
...
Okay to be specific, the north side of Huron between LaSalle and Wells, the west side of Wells between Huron and Superior and a half block north of Superior, that cluster of buildings are all small-scale buildings that most people find charming but aren't always economic to maintain without protection.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15879  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 11:03 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,352
I guess I never really looked closely at that area. Interesting stuff, a lot of unique buildings that are halfway in between the italianate lowrises and Chicago School midrise warehouses. I guess I drew a strong dividing line too hastily.

The building at Wells and Superior has been altered... from Streetview it seems pretty cool, a great example of the creative stuff that can happen when building owners aren't constrained by strong landmark protection. So far, it seems like the gallery owners and restaurants in the area prefer the character of the older buildings instead of erecting new ones, although there are some newer residential buildings. Unfortunately, often alterations become mutilation.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15880  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 12:31 AM
Dan in Chicago's Avatar
Dan in Chicago Dan in Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 612
That's great news about the Speyer/Schofield House, and I can understand now why the university commissioned a rendering that obscures it in the small gap. It will be out of context between two large university buildings, but that's better than being demolished.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:21 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.