^^^ Yeah if they had been able to go ahead with the huge original plan that would have been Primo.

To be fair Loyola is definitely committed to "good design" the question is if they are willing to take the risk to go from good to "great" design. I can't name a single Loyola building constructed since the abomination Gentile Center in the 1990's that isn't at least "good" design. Yeah it may be pomo or pomo-modern mishmash, but they are all solid, dense, street-facing, buildings with good urban planning principles. This attitude is all the more impressive considering that the school was in "fort campus" and "screw the pedestrian" mode just 15-20 years ago. Its hard to argue that a handsome 25 story, 600 bed, dorm with no parking and 20k sq ft retail on a quarter block right downtown is not at least "good" design. Could they have had Studio Gang or K+S design that building? Sure, but they aren't willing to take such a risk.

Also, Yes Please to that campus center design. I want it, build it now!

Thanks for pointing that out. That alleviates some of my concerns. I am definitely not a post-cub-game wrigleyville bar goer, but I appreciate the benefits of having a cohesive bar district uninterrupted by say a Best Buy.

.

A very recent visionary proposal for Wrigleyville... on acid.

Everything I've heard says that building is a holdout and is staying put.

L

A very recent visionary proposal for Wrigleyville

Insanity^.

The article says "The displaced include iO Theater, formerly known as ImprovOlympic, 3541 N. Clark; Bar Louie, 3545 N. Clark; Salt & Pepper Diner, 3537 N. Clark; Goose Island Beer Co., 3535 N. Clark, and Red Ivy, 3519 N. Clark." Nice if their wrong.

My thoughts exactly. . . :cool:

DePaul to raise $250 million for arts, academic buildings in Lincoln Park

By: Shia Kapos May 17, 2010
DePaul University will launch a $250-million capital campaign this week to build new theater, music and art schools on its Lincoln Park campus. The 10-year fundraising effort is the first comprehensive capital campaign in the university's 112-year history.

The article says that 1/2 of the funds have already been obtained.

Here is another notable excerpt:

The new buildings will be: Theatre School, southwest corner of Fullerton and Racine avenues; School of Music, west side of the 2300 block of North Halsted Street; DePaul Art Museum, 935 W. Fullerton, and one new academic building on the west side of the 2300 block of North Kenmore Street.


^ Some questions/concerns: Is 935 W Fullerton a vacant lot? Also, a streetview of the 2300 block of N Kenmore shows that there is no vacant land whatsoever on that whole block, and it is in fact pretty densely built up.

Yet not far around the corner is a huge parking lot.

Is there a need to demolish historic building stock like this?

If you are well educated in urban design and understand the psychological impacts buildings can have on generating busy energetic atmospheres, you will understand how a fine-grained arrangement of buildings lends itself to better neighborhood atmospheres.

Developers and architects tend to get very dreamy eyed when they built up all those West and south loop block-long buildings with ground floor retail. It seemingly had the mix of right ingredients to build successful streetscapes, but they were wrong. The areas out front of the buildings have a quiet feel to them, they are not energized in the way Wrigleyville is.....reason being the more subdivisions of architecture you have along the street, the more interesting and diverse a street becomes.

Unless we are downtown, I'm very against large single-building multi-use developments. In my opinion this development should at most occupy the under-utilized space on Addison, not Clark. This project has still not been scaled back enough to be a well fit component for this neighborhood.

Wrigleyville already has an "energetic atmosphere" and little shy of demolishing Wrigley Field can substantially damage it. The ground floor retail in most of the West/South loop buildings is an afterthought since it's unsellable for residential purposes, not a cohesive development with tenants waiting in the wings as the case is here.

Poor quality but you get the idea.
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/t...N/be2edfb1.jpg

It already has an energetic atmosphere because much of the row of buildings on Clark are contributors to a great neighborhood. The vacant lots need to be addressed before we pick and choose what buildings have to go.

If there are indeed "tenants waiting in the wings" then I have substantially higher expectations for this building. Expectations that 90% of Chicago developments in the last 15 years have not come close to reaching.



On a different note, there is scaffolding around the brick 8 story structure occupied by East West University. This building was next door to the other two recently demolished buildings. There are some substantial chunks of the facade missing with a large chunk of the cornice and parapet gouged out at the top. Please tell me this one is being renovated.

That's the structure for the marquee/canopy that's always been on the side of the building. http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1234/...e16cb6d60b.jpg

935 is a vacant site. It was formerly the site of a boiler plant. The 2300 building will replace a number of two- and three- flats. They are attractive buildings, but they're surrounded by the university. The parking lots are all future building sites. Nothing's been announced for the one at Seminary and Belden, that will be tricky because it's basically neighborhood territory.

I tend to agree with you, but I would point out that there are quite a few successful large multi-use historic buildings, particularly theatre buildings - think of for example the Lakeshore or Music Box.

Nope. It's everything from Red Ivy to IO, not including Sports World.

Yes, but that is a whole separate discussion. Many large scale historic buildings are successful in how they break down scale and create more visual stimulation. I hate to say visual stimulation because it creates an architectural debate on what is superior, but the point is on the building's exterior there is more to look at.

It's interesting, but I'm a bigger fan of contemporary architecture when we are dealing with smaller buildings. By contemporary, I mean anything in the past few decades, not necessarily stylistic qualities.

FULLY agreed. this is one of my main gripes with this new development. the loss of the old characteristic buildings on Clark, to be replaced with a long sterile monotonous storefront scheme.

Why not perform a facadectomy? preserve the storefronts, and build this project behind the streetwall? i understand this isnt the cheapest solution, but if this developer really wants to undertake this project, the city should demand this.

Because there is no point in saving the "facades" of 50% of those buildings as the facades hardly exist. I mean half of them are just one story commercial buildings that are almost all windows. There is nothing to save...