CHICAGO | General Developments

[Joe Zekas]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8031/7984640817_3cfb039bac_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/7984640817/)
Parkside of Old Town, viewed from north (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/7984640817/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8457/7984641413_09c97f1f01_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/7984641413/)
Parkside of Old Town, viewed from west (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/7984641413/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

[the urban politician]

^ Great views.

So much wasted space...

[Swicago Swi Sox]

I walked by the Wrigley Building last night and saw that they have new construction fencing up with nice big "windows" providing a view of the construction. Below are my crappy phone photos, so if someone with a nicer set up wants to check it out it might be good.

It looks like they have already demoed the existing structural slab down to the existing steel beams and are getting ready to pour the new structural slab. Also, the cladding/glass on the bridge seems to be gone already. It also looks like they have removed the glass/metal facade from the northern building.

The rumors that I hear say that they want this open to pedestrians in time for that Michigan Ave Disney Parade at the end of November.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-I71I-S6z05Q/UFNGnWsG40I/AAAAAAAAAis/N3XieL8u_eQ/s800/IMG_3475.JPG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-u9feQWmenEo/UFNGmhSGa7I/AAAAAAAAAic/0aV4AiNu_yk/s800/IMG_3473.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-yPJrXqTWlxo/UFNGmuYEyxI/AAAAAAAAAig/SI6LfCMCxvI/s800/IMG_3472.JPG

[SamInTheLoop]

From the Public Building Commission release: (http://www.pbcchicago.com/content/about/press_detail.asp?pID=307) The new school is designed for 1,200 students and will be approximately 278,000 square feet with seven floors, plus a lower level.

I haven't seen an official height, but I think it will be around 150 feet. If it's sunny, I'll try to measure it tomorrow.


I think the official height is around 164', assuming to the top of penthouse...

[SamInTheLoop]

Although the Maxwell will help this area tremendously, it's just a sad view....those parking fields are so ridiculous being what - 1.25 miles from the heart of the nation's 2nd largest cbd

[Swicago Swi Sox]

Although the Maxwell will help this area tremendously, it's just a sad view....those parking fields are so ridiculous being what - 1.25 miles from the heart of the nation's 2nd largest cbd

I just found out a few weeks ago that the empty field just south of the Roosevelt Collection (south of Roosevelt Road) was the front runner site for New Comiskey Park in the late 80's. This was before Jerry threatened to move the team to Tampa and the team and state/city eventually compromised on land that they already owned south of Old Comiskey. Think about how different this area of the South Loop would have been if a ball park was built on that site (for good or for bad...).

Article from 1987:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-06-05/news/8702110381_1_rep-dan-rostenkowski-exemption-stadium

[Mr Downtown]

Ah, South Loop memories. I didn't think we could defeat the Sox stadium, so I was trying to get some concessions in return (like using the B&OCT RR bridge for a busway). New City published a cartoon showing me selling out the neighborhood because I was such a wild-eyed baseball fan—though I've never even watched a game on TV.

In the 1990s, the Postal Service wanted to build the new post office there, but Mayor Daley scotched that.

I'd have to look at my files, but I believe the idea of building next to the old ballpark was what finally ended the threat at Clark & Roosevelt, though the alderman (Fred Roti) had been pressured into saying he wouldn't support it.

[Joe Zekas]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8298/7986983692_4863a3a2a2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/7986983692/)
Lakeshore Athletic Club, 850 N Lake Shore Dr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/7986983692/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

Crain's is reporting (http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/article/20120914/CRED01/120919827/from-racquetball-to-rentals) that the Lakeshore Athletic Club will be converted to 198 apartments, with construction expected to start next year. It's the building to the left of Mies van der Rohe's "glass houses."

[i_am_hydrogen]

Great shot, Joe. JHC looks so good from the east.

[Mr Downtown]

No ceremony or evergreen, but I'm pretty sure Jones HS topped out yesterday (Sunday).

[jboy560]

Random question, but does anybody know anything about this building? I really like it and was surprised that I never noticed it before. I've been checking out this site for years and I don't recall ever seeing anything about it, even though it's rather new. I'm just curious when it was built and who the architect is. Thanks!

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=333+w+barry&hl=en&ll=41.936513,-87.644178&spn=0.004887,0.008256&hnear=333+W+Barry+Ave,+Chicago,+Illinois+60657&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.936508,-87.644176&panoid=TPOUT8_JLHVFVb3E8dBkKA&cbp=12,51.78,,0,-19.82

[Rizzo]

Random question, but does anybody know anything about this building? I really like it and was surprised that I never noticed it before. I've been checking out this site for years and I don't recall ever seeing anything about it, even though it's rather new. I'm just curious when it was built and who the architect is. Thanks!

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=333+w+barry&hl=en&ll=41.936513,-87.644178&spn=0.004887,0.008256&hnear=333+W+Barry+Ave,+Chicago,+Illinois+60657&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.936508,-87.644176&panoid=TPOUT8_JLHVFVb3E8dBkKA&cbp=12,51.78,,0,-19.82

I'm curious about that building as well. Just randomly saw it one day. Couldn't figure out when it was built, but I was impressed by the narrow lot size and verticality

[ardecila]

http://www.sgroupproperties.com/brighton.html

I don't think they know what "brazen" means.

[emathias]

Random question, but does anybody know anything about this building? I really like it and was surprised that I never noticed it before. I've been checking out this site for years and I don't recall ever seeing anything about it, even though it's rather new. I'm just curious when it was built and who the architect is. Thanks!

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=333+w+barry&hl=en&ll=41.936513,-87.644178&spn=0.004887,0.008256&hnear=333+W+Barry+Ave,+Chicago,+Illinois+60657&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.936508,-87.644176&panoid=TPOUT8_JLHVFVb3E8dBkKA&cbp=12,51.78,,0,-19.82

I'm curious about that building as well. Just randomly saw it one day. Couldn't figure out when it was built, but I was impressed by the narrow lot size and verticality

It was built in 2005 according to Cribchatter. That makes sense to me. I think it was started maybe as earlly as 2003 - it was delayed delivery.

[ardecila]

From Crain's...

Gonnella Baking Co. is seeking buyers for a 1.8-acre property in the River West neighborhood, offering it as a site for a residential development. The Schaumburg-based company has hired Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. to sell the property at 1001 W. Chicago Ave., about a block east of the Chicago Transit Authority’s Blue Line el stop. Gonnella plans to move a 67,000-square-foot bakery on the property to another location, said Jones Lang Vice-President John Roberson. The property doesn’t have an asking price, and Mr. Roberson said a residential developer would have to seek new zoning for the parcel, currently zoned for manufacturing. Based on current zoning for nearby residential properties, the city could permit 200 to 300 units on the Gonnella site, according to a Jones Lang marketing brochure. Gonnella recently sold a West Town property for $2.08 million to a developer that plans a 24-unit residential project there.

I hope this falls within the TOD ordinance radius. It's not often a site this big comes up so close to a transit station, this close to downtown. Who's the alderman?

Hopefully this will give some impetus to fix one of the deadliest intersections in the city.

[Joe Zekas]

It was built in 2005 according to Cribchatter. That makes sense to me. I think it was started maybe as earlly as 2003 - it was delayed delivery.

It was still on the drawing boards when we wrote about it in July of 2004 (http://bit.ly/gxKpZT).

Trivia: the greenhouse next door above 3001 Broadway, now Johnny Sprockets, was my office for 5 years.

[spyguy]

Random question, but does anybody know anything about this building? I really like it and was surprised that I never noticed it before. I've been checking out this site for years and I don't recall ever seeing anything about it, even though it's rather new. I'm just curious when it was built and who the architect is. Thanks!

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=333+w+barry&hl=en&ll=41.936513,-87.644178&spn=0.004887,0.008256&hnear=333+W+Barry+Ave,+Chicago,+Illinois+60657&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.936508,-87.644176&panoid=TPOUT8_JLHVFVb3E8dBkKA&cbp=12,51.78,,0,-19.82

Perhaps, surprisingly, a Pappageorge/ Haymes project IIRC.

---

http://ariescapital.com/news/aries-capital-completes-sale-of-vacant-development-site-in-downtown-chicago/

Aries Capital Completes Sale of Vacant Development Site in Downtown Chicago

Aries Capital is pleased to announce the sale of a 4,700 square foot vacant land site adjacent to the Chicago Motor Club building. Aries Capital secured ownership of the vacant land and the building at 68 E. Wacker Place last year. The vacant land was recently sold to a private hotel real estate company. The transaction closed on August 30, 2012. Aries Capital plans to market the Chicago Motor Club building.
​The Chicago Motor Club building, built in 1928, is a 15-story, 89,000 square foot Art Deco structure designed by Holabird & Root. Located on historic Ft. Dearborn in Chicago, it is rich with history and is an architecturally significant building amongst the downtown landscape. Since purchasing the building and vacant land last year, Aries Capital has positioned the building for sale and redevelopment. The structure boasts a dramatic three-story lobby and features numerous Art Deco fixtures and elements throughout. It is eligible for historic tax credits and the City of Chicago’s landmark Class L property tax reduction.
​“By selling the vacant land next to the Chicago Motor Club building, we are now able to bring this historic asset and opportunity to the market unencumbered,” said Neil Freeman, Chairman and CEO of Aries Capital. “This will open the door for a variety of potential investors and buyers that are interested in redeveloping just the building. It’s a chance to preserve the past while defining the future. We’re already receiving expressions of interest.”

[Tom Servo]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8031/7984640817_3cfb039bac_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/7984640817/)
Parkside of Old Town, viewed from north (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/7984640817/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr


God... SO much opportunity!

[ih8spires]

:previous:I am amazed that I don't see any Cabrini Green buildings. ;)

[emathias]

:previous:I am amazed that I don't see any Cabrini Green buildings. ;)

The Cabrini rowhouses are visible.

[george]

The majority of the old rowhouses are currently fenced off.

http://imageshack.us/a/img689/8814/cabrinirowhouses.jpg

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

God... SO much opportunity!

My thoughts exactly! I just hope it's not squandered like it has been at North and Clybourn.

[george]

9-17

Fourth Presbyterian Church - Gratz Center

http://imageshack.us/a/img560/2425/4th2.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img641/7307/4th1.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img855/9727/4th3.jpg

[untitledreality]

God... SO much opportunity!

Too bad CHA has control over it all. Prepare yourself for disappointment.

[SpireGuy]

I walked by Staybridge Suites today and did not see any activity. Are we sure they have resumed construction?

[Joe Zekas]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8456/8001979069_47202f46b7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8001979069/)
Staybridge Suites (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8001979069/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

Shot about 10 a.m. last Tuesday by Mike Scotty on our helicopter trip. No signs of any activity at that time.

[ih8spires]

:previous: I think Staybridge may look cool if they paint each block a different color. ...or is that what they are planning?

[Rizzo]

I think any solid portions of Staybridge were to be that grey metal panel....which I think should be reconsidered. I agree, each of those blocks would look cool a different shade. I think it's all from Centria. They could also try some different modules and surface texture. Shiny vs Flat.

[Joe Zekas]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8300/8004886484_ededa01761_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8004886484/)
A. Finkl & Sons steel plant (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8004886484/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

A. Finkl & Sons site, east of the river. Finkl's new plant on the South Side is expected to be operational late next year, at which time the war over redevelopment of this site will ramp up. Photo by Mike Scotty.

[ardecila]

Are they painting 77 West Huron?

[emathias]

I walked by Staybridge Suites today and did not see any activity. Are we sure they have resumed construction?

They haven't exactly been tearing it up, but I live 1/2 block from there, and there is construction noise from the interior every day. A small amount, but something - definitely more than just the solitary security guard who's been there the past 4 years.

[the urban politician]

I'm scared of the Finkl Steel site being the future home of more big box stores....

[Joe Zekas]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8295/8005082907_a84555a7e4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8005082907/)
Former site of Michael Reese Hospital (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8005082907/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

Photo by Michael Kardas, Kardas Photography.

A Chicago technology park?

[denizen467]

Niketown looks like it's getting ready to reopen.

[killaviews]

:previous:

Also on Michigan Ave, Mark Shale at 900 N. Michigan is closing.
http://chicago.racked.com/archives/2012/09/19/mark-shales-liquidation-is-getting-good.php

I bet current tenants, J.Crew or Club Monaco would be interested in expanding.

[chicagoguy1]

michigan ave, has gone from upscale shopping, to suburban strip mall shopping in the last 10 years.

[the urban politician]

michigan ave, has gone from upscale shopping, to suburban strip mall shopping in the last 10 years.

No it hasn't :rolleyes:

[emathias]

michigan ave, has gone from upscale shopping, to suburban strip mall shopping in the last 10 years.

Yes, because Top Shop, Nieman Marcus, Cartier, Ferragamo, Sak's, Chanel, Gucci, Tiffany's, those are all mainstays in strip malls.

[the urban politician]

^ And the new Burberry store looks just like something I saw in Racine, Wisconsin the other day....

[photoLith]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8031/7984640817_3cfb039bac_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/7984640817/)
Parkside of Old Town, viewed from north (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/7984640817/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr



So all of that green space was Cabrini Green?

[Buckman821]

MCZ plans Bucktown apartments

By: Micah Maidenberg September 19, 2012

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CG/20120919/CRED03/120919748/AR/0/AR-120919748.jpg&maxw=368&q=100

(Crain's) — MCZ Development Corp., a prolific condominium developer during the boom but battered by the bust, is shifting over to apartments, with plans to build a 50-unit project in Bucktown.

The Chicago-based developer wants to build two 25-unit apartment buildings at 1711-1755 N. Winnebago St., about a block northwest of the busy intersection of Damen, North and Milwaukee avenues. MCZ founder and President Michael Lerner was on hand as the project team presented its plans for the project at a community meeting Monday night, a key step in the firm's effort to obtain zoning to allow the development.

Read more: http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/article/20120919/CRED03/120919748/mcz-plans-bucktown-apartments#ixzz273UqSIn4
Stay up-to-date on Chicago real estate with our free, daily e-newsletter

Sorry if this was already mentioned and I missed it.

[Beta_Magellan]

Hey, something in my neck of the woods. I really hope this moves forward—that block of Winnebago’s just weeds and elevated track.

Sadly, the objections in the link are the same ridiculous ones about density we always hear. These apartments are essentially at the same scale as everything that’s already there (3-5 story multifamily, though of course the first story on many of the surrounding buildings is garage space), so it’s not like they’re radically upzoning. And this is within a stone’s throw of Damen blue line and abutting the Bloomingdale trail! It’s already been scaled down once, too.

Come on Moreno, let this happen!

[ardecila]

Sigh. More disappointing architecture along the Bloomingdale Line.

There are some beautiful modernist mansions along the Line now, and the Willow Court townhomes have a really cool site plan... you know, like an Italian hill town (with garage doors).

Anybody know about the mirroring site facing Milwaukee? That could be a really cool site for a signature mixed-use project. 60 units is not too dense for this site literally RIGHT ON the Blue Line. I miss the grand talk of TOD here.

[Mr Downtown]

So all of that green space was Cabrini Green?

No, you're looking at two different parks and a couple of school athletic fields.

[HowardL]

So all of that green space was Cabrini Green?If you extend the line segment formed by Clybourn terminated at Division (the angled street in the foreground), the two green spaces it intersects are Seward Park and the playing fields for Payton HS. Not Cabrini. Every major green space to the right was Cabrini and/or Green.

[Rizzo]

So all of that green space was Cabrini Green?

In a clear cut answer, all the green space was Cabrini Green including those newish clone midrise and lowrise buildings.

Here you'll find some images of where buildings used to be
http://www.rapdict.org/Cabrini-Green

It appears the photos were annotated in RapDictionary around 2005. I recall photographing the Reds coming down around 2007 with the ones on Oak hanging around until 2010. Alot of the whites were still standing as late as 2008 but the final one came down earlier this year.

The area will have a distinctive appearance in the urban fabric like a scar that's never fully healed. Such is the nature with large land ownership that results in big master planned development. I think most of us knew this would be some compromise between traditional urbanity and suburbia. I'm kind of glad sales were weak. Architectural tastes will change as well as the economic climate and hopefully....hopefully the buildings that will fill those empty spaces will be of different design. Not necessarily because they are bad, but because a traditional urban environment is piecemeal assembly of varying architecture over a very long time.

[Rizzo]

Riding my bike to work on Michigan Av this morning I went past the renovated Nike Store. It retains an art decoish look but now has double height windows. Looks really good from the outside!

[denizen467]

As if a tip of the hat to the new Apple product launch, the Starbucks in the North/Clybourn Station headhouse is getting ready for its grand opening, finally completing the reinvigoration of that triangle parcel and adding a prominent marquee on the most prominent acute corner of that intersection.

[Joe Zekas]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8321/8011027695_1f523b52a0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8011027695/)
Riverside Park development site (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8011027695/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

[denizen467]

Does anyone know what that long station/platform-looking structure along the east side of the site, at roughly 14th Street, was built for? It's new, as it is not in Google's or Bing's aerial images. It's hard to be sure whether it's an enclosed building or not.

[J_M_Tungsten]

This morning
UofC Hospital addition
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/69E8E02B-0A89-41F0-B392-DADDC63E31CB-2928-00000324728009C4_zps8c1f6b4f.jpg

[DCCliff]

Does anyone know what that long station/platform-looking structure along the east side of the site, at roughly 14th Street, was built for? It's new, as it is not in Google's or Bing's aerial images. It's hard to be sure whether it's an enclosed building or not.

Pretty sure it's just a fence along Clark - - drove by there not long ago.

[untitledreality]

Does anyone know what that long station/platform-looking structure along the east side of the site, at roughly 14th Street, was built for? It's new, as it is not in Google's or Bing's aerial images. It's hard to be sure whether it's an enclosed building or not.

Not to sound like a dick, but you aren't mistaking the Rock Island train for a building are you?

[untitledreality]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8321/8011027695_1f523b52a0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8011027695/)
Riverside Park development site (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8011027695/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr
Maybe I am alone in this thought, but does anyone else enjoy the juxtaposition of the undeveloped Riverside plot against the backdrop of the city? I think it would be a shame to develop the entire parcel... maybe just everything East of the new Wells/Wentworth connector allowing for a riverfront park to run continuously from Roosevelt into Chinatown.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Perhaps if it was surrounded by numerous high rise buildings and wasn't within a mile of grant park, I wouldn't have a problem developing this into an active park with baseball fields and whatnot.

[Joe Zekas]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8320/8012548548_d618612244_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8012548548/)
Riverside Park development site (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8012548548/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

[J_M_Tungsten]

Any one know about restoration on the building on the southwest corner of clark and division?

[denizen467]

Not to sound like a dick, but you aren't mistaking the Rock Island train for a building are you?
It seemed too short and too tall for that (seems to be practically the height of the townhouses across the street - also, it looked like some rolling stock is peeking out of its south end) and also looked too smooth and continuous and was sited on a straight stretch where one ordinarily would site such a structure. Plus, the locomotive is usually a different color and different shape. On the other hand, now with the benefit of another Zekas photo just minutes apart, it seems it may have mysteriously vanished, so...

[Joe Zekas]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8309/8013462179_147acb88aa_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8013462179/)
South Loop apartment sites (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8013462179/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

Golub & Company site, at lower right just east of Dearborn Park, for proposed 39-story 392-unit building. Lower left vacant lot just east of the tracks is AMLI's proposed site for two 11-story buildings with 398 units.

The crane in the center of the photo is the new Jones College Prep building.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8034/8013464374_2540d951b4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8013464374/)
South Loop apartment sites (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8013464374/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

Golub & Company site, just east of Dearborn Park, for proposed 39-story 392-unit building. Upper right vacant lot is proposed site for two 11-story buildings with 398 units. McCaffery has proposed 3 towers just north of the Roosevelt Collection.

[ChiTownCity]

Soooo much potential!

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8321/8011027695_1f523b52a0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8011027695/)
Riverside Park development site (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8011027695/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

Imagine with me, if you will, 3-4 blocks spanning east-west on a consistent grid with a riverside drive. All blocks consisting of highrises, midrises, a few quality townhomes, and maybe, just maybe, a couple of actual skyscrapers (500ft and up). Of course everything would be developed on a block-to-block basis instead of some garbage homogenous mass development. After that something must be done to that part east of the tracks.... it's fun to dream.

[Mr Downtown]

A decade ago, I gave this diagram to Rezmar:

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r38/mrdowntown/RivParksketch.jpg

and they later claimed that they'd used it as the starting point for discussions with their land planning team. The big problem is the Rock Island tracks. Back then, they were still legally a "relocatable easement" that could have been moved westward away from Clark Street. One result of the PD approved in 2004 was that the property owners and Metra set in stone the Metra ownership interest right next to Clark. So now there's no way to get into the parcel from the east. You can get an overpass over the tracks at 1240 south, and you might be able to get under the tracks at 15th Street, but you face the wrath of the people on 15th who've so far managed to completely block anything of the sort.

CDOT is currently choosing a consultant to advise on the design of the Wells-Wentworth Connector, and I've been trying to spread the idea of "Riverside Boulevard," a generous (100-foot) ROW fitted with street parking and median landscaping. The problem is at the Chinatown end, where you don't want it to be something daunting for pedestrians to cross. There's also substantial expense involved in passing under the St. Charles Air Line at a logical angle. Everyone wants to cheap out and use the old C&WI underpass, which makes for nasty bends.

If that roadway were built soon, using TIF money before the district expires, developers could start taking down small parcels for townhouse development instead of waiting until the market is frenzied enough to build all the infrastructure and immediately do retail and highrises. They could work their way up to highrises over a decade, the same way Central Station did.

[ardecila]

I was gonna comment on how generous that riverwalk is, but it actually looks to be just the right width for some soccer/football fields or an ice skating rink. Combine that with a promenade along the water and some restaurant pavilions and I think you've got a winner.

Is there any concrete reason Metra can't relocate as you've shown in the diagram? The city, or the land developer, could pursue a land swap. Shouldn't be too costly to grade a new right-of-way with bridges built in. Maybe $70-80 million? The new east-west streets would also make it much, much easier to build utility lines into the site.

[Joe Zekas]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8310/8016437052_b765b32a97_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8016437052/)
Site of The Maxwell, retail and apartments (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8016437052/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

The 3.9-acre vacant block at the upper center of the photo is the site of The Maxwell (http://www.bondcompanies.com/The-Maxwell.html), a proposed mixed-use development with 370 apartments and nearly 200,000 square feet of retail.

Here's the earlier image (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5829645&postcount=16487) and a link to our ever-growing set of aerials at Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/sets/72157625224564748/detail/).

[orulz]

A decade ago, I gave this diagram to Rezmar:

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r38/mrdowntown/RivParksketch.jpg

and they later claimed that they'd used it as the starting point for discussions with their land planning team. The big problem is the Rock Island tracks. Back then, they were still legally a "relocatable easement" that could have been moved westward away from Clark Street. One result of the PD approved in 2004 was that the property owners and Metra set in stone the Metra ownership interest right next to Clark. So now there's no way to get into the parcel from the east. You can get an overpass over the tracks at 1240 south, and you might be able to get under the tracks at 15th Street, but you face the wrath of the people on 15th who've so far managed to completely block anything of the sort.

CDOT is currently choosing a consultant to advise on the design of the Wells-Wentworth Connector, and I've been trying to spread the idea of "Riverside Boulevard," a generous (100-foot) ROW fitted with street parking and median landscaping. The problem is at the Chinatown end, where you don't want it to be something daunting for pedestrians to cross. There's also substantial expense involved in passing under the St. Charles Air Line at a logical angle. Everyone wants to cheap out and use the old C&WI underpass, which makes for nasty bends.

If that roadway were built soon, using TIF money before the district expires, developers could start taking down small parcels for townhouse development instead of waiting until the market is frenzied enough to build all the infrastructure and immediately do retail and highrises. They could work their way up to highrises over a decade, the same way Central Station did.
I've been curious about this Wells Wentworth connector for some time.

Is there any chance for a new river crossing between Roosevelt and 16th? Any point even?

It seems to me that being able to develop along Clark Street would add enough value to where a land swap with Metra and Rock Island relocation might be worthwhile.

How much traffic will this connector see? Any need to widen Wentworth between 18th and Cermak?

Also, what will be done with the intersection at Cermak? The options I could see are:
1. Keep the current offset intersection;
2. Shift it west to align with Wentworth in Chinatown;
3. Shift it east to align with the ramps to the Dan Ryan

To me, #3 makes the most sense but I'm not sure what obstacles there might be.

[Mr Downtown]

Those are all good questions, which I'm sure the CDOT consultant will look at. Personally, I think it should begin at the Dan Ryan offramp, come north through the Chinatown parking lots (the land is owned by IDOT, intended for the Franklin Street connector decades ago), gently reverse-curve to the Wells Street alignment, and continue all the way to Harrison. It would have a 100-foot ROW from Cermak to Roosevelt, and 80-foot ROW north of there. This would require reconstruction of the lower two floors of River City's vacant commercial space, which is the sort of thing done on hundreds of buildings in the 1920s for widening of streets like Western and Ashland and Roosevelt.

Despite having given it such a generous ROW, I would use every trick in the book to civilize it: frequent signals, curb parking, median planters.

A land swap with Metra might be worth the effort, but it's a lot of effort to deal with Metra. They're notoriously inflexible and there's very little leverage the city can exercise over them.

A bridge at 14th seems unlikely so long as the railyards across the river remain undeveloped. When the Olympic stadium is built atop the railyards (for use by UIC and the Fire afterwards), maybe we can throw in a bridge.

[ardecila]

There might be an opportunity to retrofit the B&OCT bridge for pedestrians and bikes, but I don't know why you'd want to cross the river at that location.

Maybe if they built a bikeway on the BNSF viaduct out to Ashland or something... but I'm leery of the "bicycle superhighway" concepts when on-street facilities are more useful, more successful, and cheaper.

[Rizzo]

I looked at some recently revised parcel maps that show exactly where the Wentworth-Wells connector is planned to go. Nothing really all that impressive. It's expected to move across that undeveloped area much the same as the black and white diagram suggests. Though I couldn't see any detail as to how it will negotiate the rail crossing...either by passing beneath that existing viaduct (which would be difficult with the direction of the roadway) or a simple at-grade crossing. The whole project is in the design stage right now, so I anticipate seeing plans for it soon.

It would be cool to see highrise towers straddle those Metra tracks. Maybe even some towers along the river, and the center becomes open space...much like River East. I'm kind of fond of the open green area, but the density is heavily diluted by those townhomes to the East which encourages me to take a development position.

[Remy_Bork]

Hey Everybody, I can see that something is already being built north of the Kimball/Milwaukee/Diversey intersection. It's the large triangular parcel that has been empty for a long time. It looks like whatever it is will have a large parking lot and not interact with the shape of the site very much. My first thought when looking at its size was that it will be an Aldi, but there's one nearby, so I'm not sure what it's going to be.

[orulz]

If they don't want to use the existing underpass of the St Charles Air Line because of the odd angle, then maybe the alternative is to simply wait for it to be abandoned. Since SCAL is going to be abandoned after Create P3, it doesn't make much sense to build a new viaduct that's going to be unneeded in a couple years anyway.

Also, what to do at Roosevelt - Just go under it? Elevate the entire road? Construct an interchange similar to the one recently built at Clark and Roosevelt?

[ardecila]

No vehicular connection at Roosevelt. I'm hoping for pedestrian stairs. Other streets in Riverside Park will provide the vehicular connection later, or the 10th St underpass if they ever build it.

I'd prefer a plan that doesn't rely on the abandonment of the SCAL, especially because I'm against that abandonment. If CTA ever builds the Clinton subway, it could make use of the hypothetical Wells bridge even under an abandonment scenario. Besides, P3 could turn into a political football like the Englewood Flyover/P3 has.

[untitledreality]

Hey Everybody, I can see that something is already being built north of the Kimball/Milwaukee/Diversey intersection. It's the large triangular parcel that has been empty for a long time. It looks like whatever it is will have a large parking lot and not interact with the shape of the site very much. My first thought when looking at its size was that it will be an Aldi, but there's one nearby, so I'm not sure what it's going to be.

If I remember correctly it is a school... decent filler design I think.

[spyguy]

From Ald. Reilly's newsletter:
New 42nd Ward Landmark Coming Soon: 1337 N. Dearborn Parkway

The Augustus Warner House at 1337 N. Dearbornn Parkway, in the Gold Coast community, is an exceptional example of the English Queen Anne style in Chicago. After learning that a demolition permit was filed, Alderman Reilly visited the site to assess the structure and determine his position. Alderman Reilly understood immediately that this beautiful historic structure must remain. The Warner House is not only a stand-alone architectural gem, but is also an important contributing building to an entire city block of important architecture along Dearborn Parkway.

Soon after the owner filed for a demolition permit, Alderman Reilly drafted a letter to the City's Department of Housing and Economic Development's (HED) Historic Preservation Division offering his strong support for the landmark designation of this important historic building.

Alderman Reilly is pleased to announce that the Chicago Landmarks Commission granted preliminary landmark recommendation for the Augustus Warner House at their September 6, 2012 meeting. Alderman Reilly was present at the hearing to testify in support of landmark status and represent his constituency who have called and emailed his office asking for preservation over demolition.

The Alderman's efforts were also successful on another front. Late last week, the owner of the Warner House voluntarily withdrew his demolition permit application. Alderman Reilly would like to thank those who participated in the public hearing by submitting testimony or attending the meeting.

Amazing that this still happens today.

Augustus Warner House
1337 N Dearborn
Gustav Hallberg, 1884

Today:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2526/4194675731_2377c0a7c7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/brulelaker/4194675731/)
1337 N. Dearborn Parkway (http://www.flickr.com/photos/brulelaker/4194675731/) by Brule Laker (http://www.flickr.com/people/brulelaker/), on Flickr

1951:
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/5884/p05015.jpg
Charles W. Cushman/ Indiana University Archives (http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/results/detail.do?query=1337+dearborn&page=1&pagesize=20&display=thumbcap&action=search&pnum=P05015)

[Rizzo]

Excellent news! Nothing good would have replaced it. Nothing can come close to replacing it.

[markh9]

Burberry midway thru lighting install the other day.

http://i.imgur.com/nUsOL.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/r1FMj.jpg

[vxt22]

Another demo / replacement on Rush St. Book-ended by a major renovation and the new Starbucks it was only a matter of time before the Jilly's / backroom place was destined for a rebuild.

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/2012/09/04/another-retail-tear-down-on-rush-street/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChicagoArchitectureBlog+%28The+Chicago+Architecture+Blog%29&utm_content=Google+Reader


The Bad:
Exst. Building has some ornament that adds architectural interest. Proper maintenance / restoration could have made it presentable. The floor count, depth and detail contribute to the neighborhood character. The replacement lacks much of this visual interest. It's neutral to any number of tenants.

Demolition will contribute to loss of affordable space, and therefore reduce the diversity of tenants. Many service business would have difficulty finding space in the neighborhood designed for high end retailers. Maybe it's not a problem...not entirely certain.

The Good
Modern (as in meeting needs of retailers) will upgrade neighborhood space into the 21st century, possibly attracting more big name boutiques

Personal Recommendations
Increase floor count for additional tenants. 34 E. Oak is a great example. No one would be opposed to a 4-5 story building. on a small narrow lot. Count me as 1 YIMBY, I look down onto it.

Improve architecture so it's not a generic, bland building. Architecture is part of the neighborhood desirability. Why should we permit something that isn't architecture?


Here's the thing -- this isn't a landmark quality building. I don't think anybody would even mention its disappearance if its replacement were only of similar quality. I see absolutely no reason what with the probable rent price point, other than uncaring tenants, why it shouldn't be. Unfortunately the modernist era resulted in the loss of a lot of the businesses that worked in artistic materials such as terra cotta, as well as the public's demand for art, including building owners viewing a handsome building as a basic point of pride.

Hell, the whole preservationist movement, in my opinion, is based primarily (and aside from the very most important buildings such as the Auditorium Building) upon the fact that most architecture going up these days, well... SUCKS! It doesn't have the sculptural quality of true modernism and it cannot commit to the materials and production quality needed for quality traditional architecture -- its true style seems to primarily be, in a word, cheap. Our standards have been hugely lowered.

Thousands of victorian buildings with more merit than this one were demolished in the 20s, but nobody would say that was a great shame because their replacements were equally stunning, representing what should be a basic pride of ownership. Contrast this with what replaced the Pullman Building on S Michigan -- it's tragic, but at least this building on takes a clear position, picks one thing and does it competently.

But the majority of these new buildings now do not contribute to anything. They are purely utilitarian, and they look like they could be in any city. They don't represent the place that they're built in. One of the most ubiquitous CHICAGOAN building features is -- from Root all the way through to Goldberg -- the oriel window (contemporary attempts at which cannot manage anything but cheap glass and aluminum). At one time it was literally everywhere. But in this case we have a very CHICAGO building, one that can be found all over cities that were growing in the late 19th century, but a building that if chancing a guess at its location that guess would be Chicago due to the sheer volume of building space constructed here at that time.

If developers here had a sense of local pride, a sense that their buildings ought to be points of Chicagoan pride, and unique as such, then I'd say bring on the progress. Knock down the city and build it up again, right?

But this is quietly sad, just like the two S Wabash buildings that East-West University demolished to build their new dorms, just like that queen anne apartment building at the northeast corner of Pearson and State where Loyola wants to build and cannot be bothered to keep a piece of what makes this city different. Or how about the Dana Hotel a few years back.

Not tragic, just.. sad. And on Rush, it isn't even necessary. Just alter the storefront and knock out the second floor (and redo the stair to a cast spiral or some such, of course) if you need a vaulted ceiling so damned much. Or raise the floor and knock out the third one. This is what facademies SHOULD be used for.

Just since 2006 when I moved to Chicago, the S green line ride to the loop has become far less interesting. From the Wirt-dexter tragedy, to the loss of the E-W buildings, to the loss of a few remaining buildings on S state including an old homeless mission, to the facademy of that really skinny building on the the ground floor of the RU glassy highrise dorm, Chicago is finding its future at the expense of its soul.

I'll wager most here can see what I'm talking about -- the lower-than-ever percentage of construction that strengthens the appeal of Chicago for those who move based on sense of place and the magnetism it can create.

[ChiPhi]

^^^
+ 1

Dana Hotel is probably the saddest of that group. On the one hand, the new hotel is stunningly beautiful (in my opinion). At the same time, the old building was beautiful and surrounded by surface parking lots.

Noticeably absent from your post is the Prentice debate... Northwestern wants it cast in the light of progress; Preservationists (whom Goldberg, ironically would have abhorred as anachronistic and retarding to progress) want it seen as a piece of what makes Chicago "special." What scares me the most about Prentice is that, since Northwestern built it, we are sending the implicit message to builders that, if you build some thing of true architectural import, preservationists will compromise your property rights to protect said building. Instead, protect you rights by only building schlock. I stand for preservation of Prentice. I just worry what the cost will be and if there is a way to make such a landmarking beneficial to the firm that is now paying the price for financing an architectural masterpiece.

[intrepidDesign]

^^^
+ 1

Dana Hotel is probably the saddest of that group. On the one hand, the new hotel is stunningly beautiful (in my opinion). At the same time, the old building was beautiful and surrounded by surface parking lots.

Noticeably absent from your post is the Prentice debate... Northwestern wants it cast in the light of progress; Preservationists (whom Goldberg, ironically would have abhorred as anachronistic and retarding to progress) want it seen as a piece of what makes Chicago "special." What scares me the most about Prentice is that, since Northwestern built it, we are sending the implicit message to builders that, if you build some thing of true architectural import, preservationists will compromise your property rights to protect said building. Instead, protect you rights by only building schlock. I stand for preservation of Prentice. I just worry what the cost will be and if there is a way to make such a landmarking beneficial to the firm that is now paying the price for financing an architectural masterpiece.

I get what you're saying but I would be shocked and appalled if a developer would build something so worthless because the fully intended to tear it down eventually. I don't think developers think that long term. Only visionaries think about their buildings and how they will be used/perceived in 50 or 60 years, and they aren't the type to build shlock. When NW builds garbage architecture, it's because they are either cheap or lack vision or both, not because they are planning to tear it down.

If preservationists efforts do anything, I would hope it would be to dissuade organizations like NW who don't give a squirt about history or architecture, NOT to buy land that has something that could be significant on it in the first place, and instead buy an empty lot where they wont have to deal with the headaches and public outcry. I wish NW would sell Prentice to a developer who gives a damn. I listen to WBBM on my drive in to check traffic, NW has been running radio ads about how tearing down Old Prentice will create thousands of construction jobs, draw international talent to Chicago, bla bla bla. Never mentioning that there are empty lots that they can build on, or there are NO plans for a building there, NO renderings, nothing.

[BWChicago]

Cost-engineering and apathy is what makes modern buildings build poor design. If a client wants quality architecture, they're not going to avoid it because of concern about what happens in 50 years, at a point when it's very possible they won't own it. Even if they did, the people making those decisions today won't be accountable 50 years down the line. The chilling effect of preservation is an interesting theory but it doesn't really come into play in practice.

Many people support preservation because of the low quality of modern design, but if you look at the historical development of the preservation movement it really has been mostly about the merits of the architecture itself, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a landmarks commission that can legally consider the quality of proposed replacement in the designation process.

That being said, the design today really is horrible. Even in the 40s-60s we had some creativity being put into the design of everyday buildings - you had different types of brick and limestone, it was all blonde, sand, or orange, rejecting the traditional red brick, and there was some detail. Now it's all red oversized concrete "brick" or EIFS. I'd take steel and glass any day over tilt-up concrete panels.

[Rizzo]

Here's the thing -- this isn't a landmark quality building. I don't think anybody would even mention its disappearance if its replacement were only of similar quality. I see absolutely no reason what with the probable rent price point, other than uncaring tenants, why it shouldn't be. Unfortunately the modernist era resulted in the loss of a lot of the businesses that worked in artistic materials such as terra cotta, as well as the public's demand for art, including building owners viewing a handsome building as a basic point of pride.

Hell, the whole preservationist movement, in my opinion, is based primarily (and aside from the very most important buildings such as the Auditorium Building) upon the fact that most architecture going up these days, well... SUCKS! It doesn't have the sculptural quality of true modernism and it cannot commit to the materials and production quality needed for quality traditional architecture -- its true style seems to primarily be, in a word, cheap. Our standards have been hugely lowered.

Thousands of victorian buildings with more merit than this one were demolished in the 20s, but nobody would say that was a great shame because their replacements were equally stunning, representing what should be a basic pride of ownership. Contrast this with what replaced the Pullman Building on S Michigan -- it's tragic, but at least this building on takes a clear position, picks one thing and does it competently.

But the majority of these new buildings now do not contribute to anything. They are purely utilitarian, and they look like they could be in any city. They don't represent the place that they're built in. One of the most ubiquitous CHICAGOAN building features is -- from Root all the way through to Goldberg -- the oriel window (contemporary attempts at which cannot manage anything but cheap glass and aluminum). At one time it was literally everywhere. But in this case we have a very CHICAGO building, one that can be found all over cities that were growing in the late 19th century, but a building that if chancing a guess at its location that guess would be Chicago due to the sheer volume of building space constructed here at that time.

If developers here had a sense of local pride, a sense that their buildings ought to be points of Chicagoan pride, and unique as such, then I'd say bring on the progress. Knock down the city and build it up again, right?

But this is quietly sad, just like the two S Wabash buildings that East-West University demolished to build their new dorms, just like that queen anne apartment building at the northeast corner of Pearson and State where Loyola wants to build and cannot be bothered to keep a piece of what makes this city different. Or how about the Dana Hotel a few years back.

Not tragic, just.. sad. And on Rush, it isn't even necessary. Just alter the storefront and knock out the second floor (and redo the stair to a cast spiral or some such, of course) if you need a vaulted ceiling so damned much. Or raise the floor and knock out the third one. This is what facademies SHOULD be used for.

Just since 2006 when I moved to Chicago, the S green line ride to the loop has become far less interesting. From the Wirt-dexter tragedy, to the loss of the E-W buildings, to the loss of a few remaining buildings on S state including an old homeless mission, to the facademy of that really skinny building on the the ground floor of the RU glassy highrise dorm, Chicago is finding its future at the expense of its soul.

I'll wager most here can see what I'm talking about -- the lower-than-ever percentage of construction that strengthens the appeal of Chicago for those who move based on sense of place and the magnetism it can create.

Great post. I think plenty of cities are at a crossroads where we are needing to become increasingly selective at what we save and demolish. Our oldest and sometimes best historic building stock is at the core of the city. And our city becomes newer by the day as our 19th century headcount diminishes.

While retail presence has increased on Oak Street, it's certainly lost its exclusive allure which can be credited to the converted 120 y/o brownstones that have been demolished as of this week. It's replaced by modern retail structures that are designed for today's needs, but characteristic of anywhere USA. Oak and Rush's sister street, Yorkville Ave in Toronto faces a similar crisis....a diminished sense of character.

[killaviews]

Burberry midway thru lighting install the other day.

http://i.imgur.com/nUsOL.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/r1FMj.jpg

That looks amazing.

I think prior to Burberry, TopShop/Topman was the brightest spot on the Ave. I hope this flashiness becomes a trend. I want to see more of it.

It is proof that stores do not need large LED screens flashing to stand out. Michigan Ave. can be flashy and not look like a cheap Time Square knock off.

[Rizzo]

That looks amazing.

I think prior to Burberry, TopShop/Topman was the brightest spot on the Ave. I hope this flashiness becomes a trend. I want to see more of it.

It is proof that stores do not need large LED screens flashing to stand out. Michigan Ave. can be flashy and not look like a cheap Time Square knock off.

I agree. Both places are done up pretty classy. I also like Barney's all lit up. People ask me if the bright lights from it bother me at night. The answer is no. That's what curtains are for lol.

[xXSkyscraperDudeXx]

The Burberry is coming out nice. Didn't know it was going to come out that bright & elegant!

[Mikemak27]

Work has stopped on the Pete's Fresh Market grocery store on Madison and Western because a large group of people are showing up and demanding a shake-down payout. They have no interest in jobs, just a payout. This is such a sad story for a part of town that desperately needs the fresh groceries and jobs that come along with it. They hope to re-start construction soon after receiving reassurances from police and the local alderman.

http://www.suntimes.com/15380120-761/work-halted-on-grocery-store-in-west-side-food-desert-after-threats.html

[vxt22]

Great post. I think plenty of cities are at a crossroads where we are needing to become increasingly selective at what we save and demolish. Our oldest and sometimes best historic building stock is at the core of the city. And our city becomes newer by the day as our 19th century headcount diminishes.

While retail presence has increased on Oak Street, it's certainly lost its exclusive allure which can be credited to the converted 120 y/o brownstones that have been demolished as of this week. It's replaced by modern retail structures that are designed for today's needs, but characteristic of anywhere USA. Oak and Rush's sister street, Yorkville Ave in Toronto faces a similar crisis....a diminished sense of character.


Even the Feds haven't even stopped this stuff, either. We've got GSA threatening at least one of the Consumers Building and the Century Building. Why, you ask? The reason is ludicrous -- the expansion decision is based on security concerns due to the proximity of the federal center. HELLO!? This is the loop, for christ's sake. If you want to demolish or occupy every building in a block radius of the federal center, then move to the exurbs!

Hell, I'm still peeved that the feds demolished the old federal building after they got finished demolishing an entire city block for the new one -- a block which included, among other things, Root's Great Northern Hotel.

But, and this is the most ludicrous, get a load of this:

At 63rd and Central near Midway there's a three story mixed use corner building constructed in the 20s by an immigrant family that still considers it a point of major pride and accomplishment. The city wants to demolish it because...

they claim that somebody could shoot an RPG at a nearby national guard station from its windows!!!

WHAT!? We shouldn't allow this -- this building was fully occupied and an anchor for the community. Now it has been bought under threat of eminent domain, and the tenants are being forcefully removed.

Story here!
http://achicagosojourn.blogspot.com/2012/01/terrorists-are-clearly-winning.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-08/news/ct-met-midway-building-preservation-20120208_1_dangerous-building-chicago-historic-resources-survey-preservation-chicago

Here's a more recent update:
http://swnewsherald.com/want-clearing-building-saved-p1988-1.htm


Now this is something worth protesting about -- on principle!!! Wish I knew how to get Emanuel's attention.

[denizen467]

^ vxt22, interesting (and depressing) post.

Hey Everybody, I can see that something is already being built north of the Kimball/Milwaukee/Diversey intersection. It's the large triangular parcel that has been empty for a long time. It looks like whatever it is will have a large parking lot and not interact with the shape of the site very much. My first thought when looking at its size was that it will be an Aldi, but there's one nearby, so I'm not sure what it's going to be.
What's going on with the boarded-up/fenced-off mansard-era McDonald's just south of that intersection? Can we kiss it goodbye or are they just rebuilding a drive-thru in their nouveau boxy beige and yellow style?

[the urban politician]

Work has stopped on the Pete's Fresh Market grocery store on Madison and Western because a large group of people are showing up and demanding a shake-down payout. They have no interest in jobs, just a payout. This is such a sad story for a part of town that desperately needs the fresh groceries and jobs that come along with it. They hope to re-start construction soon after receiving reassurances from police and the local alderman.

http://www.suntimes.com/15380120-761/work-halted-on-grocery-store-in-west-side-food-desert-after-threats.html

:haha:

This story makes me laugh. That's how you attract investment to your neighborhood, by threatening the construction workers of the first (and perhaps only) decent development to occur in your lifetime.

What a bunch of worthless scumbags. They need to be driven out of town and dumped into a landfill next to i294

[BWChicago]

^ vxt22, interesting (and depressing) post.


What's going on with the boarded-up/fenced-off mansard-era McDonald's just south of that intersection? Can we kiss it goodbye or are they just rebuilding a drive-thru in their nouveau boxy beige and yellow style?

It's being rebuilt. There was a fair amount of hubbub over it at the beginning of the year because the pedestrian street designation had to be temporarily lifted.

[SamInTheLoop]

:haha:

This story makes me laugh. That's how you attract investment to your neighborhood, by threatening the construction workers of the first (and perhaps only) decent development to occur in your lifetime.

What a bunch of worthless scumbags. They need to be driven out of town and dumped into a landfill next to i294


This Pete's thing is really outrageous. It's third-world country-type stuff, really. What I want to know is why haven't these goons been arrested and charged with serious crimes, and especially this - what institutions and individuals are protecting them? They should be investigated and charged appropriately as well.

I do not live in this area, but had really been looking forward to it getting underway for the sake of the folks that do. I don't know the merits as a piece of urban design (and I have my doubts that there are many, if any), however I certainly realize and appreciate the merits of proximate, plentiful, fresh, reasonably-priced fruits, vegetables and meats, and think this community as well of every other is deserving of such. It truly is infuriating, and I want to see all parties involved with these crimes, direcly and indirectly, to be prosecuted to at least the full extent of the law, if not possibly quite a bit further!! :hell:

[Joe Zekas]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8462/8031201047_e3cf0a7be8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8031201047/)
The Fisk coal plant site (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8031201047/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

It's going to be fun to watch the demolition of this puppy.

More of our aerial shots at Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/sets/72157625224564748/detail/).

[ardecila]

Speaking of neglected riverfront sites.... the initial plans for Lathrop Homes have been released. Two of the three schemes involve preservation of about 1/2 the original buildings. I don't see this as something that needs to be preserved in is entirety, but the power comes from the way multiple building interact, so a Michael Reese (where only one token building remains) will not work here.

Fortunately for us, the schemes involving significant preservation also include towers. The original design is less dense than Related would prefer, so they're offsetting it with a handful of point towers, up to 28 stories in one scheme. It's also being parked at an overall 0.65 level. :banana:

Waguespack is already saying no to the density levels that Related proposed, and if he forces them to lower the density, that probably just means more preservation.

Check it out here:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/106961085?access_key=key-1oejy6cc0xuz2ri7ilh8

[untitledreality]

It's going to be fun to watch the demolition of this puppy.


I really hope they dont. It has been a part of the community for 100 years now and could be repurposed and integrated into a large riverfront park or something similar.

Think along the lines of Duisburg-Nord Landscape Park in Germany or Gas Works in Seattle. These huge relics of infrastructure past should be kept around.

[Rizzo]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8462/8031201047_e3cf0a7be8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8031201047/)
The Fisk coal plant site (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8031201047/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

It's going to be fun to watch the demolition of this puppy.

More of our aerial shots at Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/sets/72157625224564748/detail/).

Look at the Warshawski Building looking all badass. Always thought it would be cool to rent an industrial loft in that building. I don't understand why they don't pull that sheet metal off the windows. The windows are in perfect condition underneath.

[Joe Zekas]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8030/8031733715_97bb96b610_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8031733715/)
The Fisk coal plant and the Warshawski Building (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yochicago1/8031733715/) by YoChicago1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/yochicago1/), on Flickr

Mike Scotty took a tighter shot of the site than I did. Posting this for Hayward.

[NYC2ATX]

http://i.imgur.com/r1FMj.jpg

sorry to repost this photo again but...STUNNING. I knew it would likely be good, but holy sh!t. :tup:

[orulz]

I really hope they dont. It has been a part of the community for 100 years now and could be repurposed and integrated into a large riverfront park or something similar.

Think along the lines of Duisburg-Nord Landscape Park in Germany or Gas Works in Seattle. These huge relics of infrastructure past should be kept around.
Many of the buildings on the site seem like they would have some value as reusable structures, but are real estate values in the area high enough to warrant such investment? Certainly the giant box-like buildings on the east edge of the site are so loaded with equipment and machinery it would be difficult or impossible to remove the machinery without demolishing te structure.

Look at the Warshawski Building looking all badass. Always thought it would be cool to rent an industrial loft in that building. I don't understand why they don't pull that sheet metal off the windows. The windows are in perfect condition underneath.

Perhaps the sheet metal is exactly why the windows underneath are in perfect condition?

[Rizzo]

Many of the buildings on the site seem like they would have some value as reusable structures, but are real estate values in the area high enough to warrant such investment? Certainly the giant box-like buildings on the east edge of the site are so loaded with equipment and machinery it would be difficult or impossible to remove the machinery without demolishing te structure.



Perhaps the sheet metal is exactly why the windows underneath are in perfect condition?

Well on the inside they are exposed so you see the back of the metal. They don't insulate and not all the building is storage. If I rented space i'd want them removed

[i_am_hydrogen]

sorry to repost this photo again but...STUNNING. I knew it would likely be good, but holy sh!t. :tup:

I saw it in person last night, and my jaw dropped. Very cool stuff.

[Baronvonellis]

Regarding Fisk Plant-

It has some interesting history. It was the first electrical generating power plant for Chicago and was consider a marvel when it was first opened. Fisk was considered so advanced that during a January 1921 trip to America, Queen Mary and King George V of England popped in to see it and signed their names in a huge visitors’ book. In 1912 visitor Thomas Edison had signed the same book, listing his profession as “inventor.” Fisk and Crawford’s turbines have since been replaced and upgraded many times over.

http://knowledgeproblem.com/2012/09/25/a-proposal-for-fisk-power-plant-museum-of-history-and-industry/

Some electrical equipment will remain on the site — mostly transmission equipment owned by ComEd, as well as some reserve generators that kick in on the days with the most demand for electricity. That still leaves a big portion of the site left to be redeveloped.

Midwest Generation has been approached by one group in particular that wants to use the site, a company that makes storage batteries that hook into the electrical grid. The site would be ideal for that group because of its location at one of Chicago’s electrical hubs. However, they would only take up a small portion of the site.


http://www.chicagojournal.com/news/06-27-2012/Power_plant_plans_take_shape

[Via Chicago]

Also a cool video of the Fisk plant from the Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/videogallery/72026208/Business/Video-Inside-Chicago-s-Fisk-and-Crawford-coal-burning-plants

[the urban politician]

Downtown seeing residential boom; population up 36% in last decade (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-talk-living-downtown-chicago-0928-20120928,0,2704081.story)

The report found that the number of people living within two miles of Chicago's City Hall rose 36 percent from 2000 to 2010. Though many of the largest U.S. cities experienced a similar trend in the last decade, Chicago outpaced them all in that category.

More than 48,000 moved to downtown Chicago in the last decade, according to the report.

This is an incredible growth rate. While still small compared to metro Chicago's population, 48,000 people is large enough to be needle-moving. I wonder how long this growth rate will continue? One barrier, of course, is rising downtown rents as well as land availability. Clearly stagnant job growth downtown during the same period did not stifle growth, which to me suggests that this was more about unmet demand than anything else.

While I do think this rate of growth will not continue indefinitely, I believe that more residents downtown, in and of itself, will create more demand for downtown living as a sort of positive feedback cycle.

Everybody and their dog keeps talking about Manhattanization occurring in other cities (LA, SF, etc) but Chicago is the one place in America where this process really is fully underway, it appears. Good to know that Rahm gets this and is working to build the infrastructure to nurture its growth.