CHICAGO | General Developments

[SamInTheLoop]

I havent seen this reported here, but if it is duplicative, I apologize. It looks like the space immediately to the west of the new Marriott Suites, on the northeast corner of Clark and Kinzie, is going to be a parking garage. There is a picture of it in a recent Friedman Properties magazine. The rendering shows 11 stories, and they are calling it the River North Self Park. What a bummer.


Just north of this parking garage will be the residential tower that's part of this overall plan development. I'm wondering if (I thought I had read something from Friedman that implied this, but I could be dead wrong) the parking for the residential tower will also be contained in this parking structure. If not, that's an awful lot of new parking on the western half of this block. If so, that could explain why there may have been a downsizing in the residential tower - I believe they are approved for something on the order of 45 stories, 500 feet. However, someone over in the boom rundown thread reported a while back that the current plan was for 35 stories. Removal of dedicated residential parking from the tower and placed in a combined public/dedicated residential parking structure (the 11 story river north self park) could very well explain the tower losing 10 floors or so...

[VivaLFuego]

A few misc things I saw on the bus:

1. The old Culver building near Clark and Delaware across from Washingtin Square Park looks set for demolition. I remember some time ago (perhaps 2 years?) seeing a rendering for a low-rise glassy residential project for this site, I wonder if that's still on.

2. Hotel Wacker at Clark/Huron, just east of Staybridge. Someone please tell me this isn't about to be demolished, and it's just getting prepped for a rehab. The sidewalk is fenced off and the first floor retail has been vacated.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=qzg4ty7pxn1c&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=11385608&sp=Point.qzg4qt7pxn8p_Untitled%20item___&encType=1#

[chicagoguy1]

Hotel Wacker is being renovated.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/812602,CST-NWS-wrig26.article

If state rehabs Wrigley, it'll want something from city
Thompson: Relax landmark status, give up tax money

February 26, 2008
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter fspielman@suntimes.com

The Tribune Co.'s plan to have a state agency acquire and renovate Wrigley Field would require the city to relax the ballpark's landmark status and forfeit for 30 years the sales tax growth generated by the remodeling, a top official said Monday.

..........Crane Kenney, the Tribune Co. senior vice president who oversees the Cubs, added, "If you're going to restore and maintain the facility, you're going to have to take parts of it down and rebuild it, just like we rebuilt the bleachers two years ago. Landmarking authorization doesn't let you do that.".............

[spyguy]

2. Hotel Wacker at Clark/Huron, just east of Staybridge. Someone please tell me this isn't about to be demolished, and it's just getting prepped for a rehab. The sidewalk is fenced off and the first floor retail has been vacated.


Yeah, they're just gutting it and redeveloping it into a boutique hotel.

[JV_325i]

Modern Wing expansion:

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/325/dsc03059ri9.jpg
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5927/dsc03060ps8.jpg

[ardecila]

Renzo Piano is the shite.


Yes, I DO like NYT Tower.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Couldn't agree more. Very elegant designs...

[Via Chicago]

i dig how those supports of the terrace come to a point at the top, making it look like its effortlessly holding the whole thing up

[honte]

^ Yes, it's an old trick, but one that is really working here. Probably the most interesting part of the design?

[Tom Servo]

hey mr. downtown, or someone else who knows everything:
where is this going?
http://www.studiogang.net/site/images/projects/a4_1.jpg
*gang
it's a columbia media center by studio gang scheduled for a 2010 completion. thanks! :tup:

[Tom Servo]

also, what's the story on this:

LOGAN SQUARE MARKET

http://www.studiogang.net/site/images/projects/b6_1.jpg
http://www.studiogang.net/site/images/projects/b6_2.jpg

The project program includes plaza space, a food market, cultural space, retail and commercial space and parking. Different programs are accessed separately from Milwaukee Avenue yet are banded together in a single building with an articulated roof line. The heart of the project is 39,000 SF indoor, year-round food market renting stalls to over 35 individual small business vendors. Visual access to all vendors from inside and outside is the organizing idea behind the market interior. Integrating passive and active sustainable technologies, the project is slated for LEED silver.
*gang

[Mr Downtown]

Columbia's Media Production Center is slated for SWC 16th/State.

[Loopy]

^Did Pat Dowell finally give it an OK? She was holding out for retail in this location.

Also, Does anyone know how Avalon Bay fared in their Zoning hearing earlier this week? I think they needed an administrative change to reconfigure FAR for their revised 3 tower scheme.

[Mr Downtown]

I don't know that Ald. Dowell has formally signed off, but I heard earlier this week that Columbia was optimistic.

Avalon Bay was deferred for Plan Commission approval. DPD is throwing new requirements (50% green roof, LEED certification) in their way, and so it can't be handled as an administrative amendment.

[VivaLFuego]

DPD is throwing new requirements (50% green roof, LEED certification) in their way
Hooray for increased housing costs in the 2nd ward! Fioretti's the bestest.

[Mr Downtown]

These requests are coming from DPD, not Fioretti. Fioretti hasn't specifically asked for any changes.

[Eventually...Chicago]

^^^^ The funny thing is that even thought these politicians want green buildings they oppose increases in density. As everyone here knows, the more dense an area, the more efficient use of land, the more green a building is. Dense urban development is green by its very nature.

Also humorous, the same people requiring a green building are the same people who want a 1 residence-1 parking space requirement

[honte]

also, what's the story on this:

LOGAN SQUARE MARKET
...


The project program includes plaza space, a food market, cultural space, retail and commercial space and parking. Different programs are accessed separately from Milwaukee Avenue yet are banded together in a single building with an articulated roof line. The heart of the project is 39,000 SF indoor, year-round food market renting stalls to over 35 individual small business vendors. Visual access to all vendors from inside and outside is the organizing idea behind the market interior. Integrating passive and active sustainable technologies, the project is slated for LEED silver.
*gang

That is very interesting - I didn't know they had that job. In fact, I don't know which of the many interested parties commissioned it, or if there is even a real job there. The "in coming" community in Logan Square has been trying to get redevelopment of the MegaMall at Sacramento / Milwaukee for quite some time now. They see it as an eyesore and a place for crime. On the other side are many vendors, many of them immigrant entrepreneurs who look at the MegaMall as the ticket to the American Dream. This became very controversial.

Then, the mall had a huge fire (arson?) recently and the Korean owner vows to rebuild. So, I don't know who is asking Studio Gang to look at this project - or perhaps they just took it upon themselves as a conceptual activity? Does anyone know where this issue stands now?

[VivaLFuego]

These requests are coming from DPD, not Fioretti. Fioretti hasn't specifically asked for any changes.

You don't think this has Fioretti's fingerprints on it? Despite "green development" being one of his campaign promises, and an amendment generally needing his consent?

[Mr Downtown]

Not according to my sources. It's the mayor who's irrationally keen on green roofs, despite the very low cost/benefit ratio.

[schwerve]

^^^^ The funny thing is that even thought these politicians want green buildings they oppose increases in density. As everyone here knows, the more dense an area, the more efficient use of land, the more green a building is. Dense urban development is green by its very nature.

be careful, that's not entirely true. being "green" is entirely about efficiency and while a dense area may be an efficient use of land it may not be an efficient use of energy. a highly dense area without the proper infrastructure to support it can be just as inefficient as a single occupancy mansion on a massive swath of land. thus a green building is one that properly allocates the density to the ability of the infrastructure to maintain it. the current "green" push is to develop technology to increase the efficiency of said infrastructure (green roof, alternative energy etc.). its about energy efficiency, not land efficiency, though the latter does play a role in the former.

[VivaLFuego]

Not according to my sources. It's the mayor who's irrationally keen on green roofs, despite the very low cost/benefit ratio.

fair 'nuf.... I take back my blame of Fioretti. I'm still opposed to the mandate on what was supposed to be a reasonably affordable rental building that will now be slightly less affordable for very little benefit.

[Abner]

fair 'nuf.... I take back my blame of Fioretti. I'm still opposed to the mandate on what was supposed to be a reasonably affordable rental building that will now be slightly less affordable for very little benefit.

SOME green roofs will more than offset their increased costs with lower utility bills... of course, nobody takes that into account when they are deciding where to buy/rent. For a larger apartment building, though, I would imagine the benefits of a green roof to be pretty minimal. Too bad the mayor didn't wake up one day and decide to make everybody use green techniques that are actually worth it.

[VivaLFuego]

Too bad the mayor didn't wake up one day and decide to make everybody use green techniques that are actually worth it.

You mean like supporting any type of TOD whatsoever wheresoever? Or any measures to actually reduce VMT (park 'n ride, parking taxes, etc.)? Using TIF money and political pressure to retrofit and clean up the Fisk and Crawford coal power plants? Mandate gradually increasing fuel economy standards for taxi fleets? A more serious recycling program? A more serious preservation/rehabilitation initiative? Added capital subsidy to speed the CTA transition to hybrid buses and AC-motored railcars? Make a push to replace public light fixtures (including traffic lights) with LEDs?

Green roofs and a few pricks on bicycles (who would rather ride in bus lanes, then blow through Red lights, than down some worthless painted lanes on Elston Avenue) do not a green city make.

[honte]

^ :tup:

[Abner]

You mean like supporting any type of TOD whatsoever wheresoever? Or any measures to actually reduce VMT (park 'n ride, parking taxes, etc.)? Using TIF money and political pressure to retrofit and clean up the Fisk and Crawford coal power plants? Mandate gradually increasing fuel economy standards for taxi fleets? A more serious recycling program? A more serious preservation/rehabilitation initiative? Added capital subsidy to speed the CTA transition to hybrid buses and AC-motored railcars? Make a push to replace public light fixtures (including traffic lights) with LEDs?

Green roofs and a few pricks on bicycles (who would rather ride in bus lanes, then blow through Red lights, than down some worthless painted lanes on Elston Avenue) do not a green city make.

Yeah, you had me until the bikes part...

[VivaLFuego]

Yeah, you had me until the bikes part...

When bicylclists stop: 1)acting like they own road and stop ignoring traffic laws endangering drivers and pedestrians alike, 2) saying everyone should use bikes all the time as competition for transit, the latter of which is absolutely necessary in a non-auto-dependent society for the very large portion of the population who are unable to bike for a variety of reasons (to wit: the latest story in the SunTimes with the prez of the Bike federation saying that this new communal bike program should be competitive with CTA), and 3) driving down bus lanes despite having a marked dedicate parallel lane a block over (e.g. the bikers down LaSalle who make buses idle behind them, who should be using Wells Street), then I'll support their cause. They don't need any more of my help with this mayor a true believer in their ultimate righteousness.

[Abner]

When bicylclists stop: 1)acting like they own road and stop ignoring traffic laws endangering drivers and pedestrians alike, 2) saying everyone should use bikes all the time as competition for transit, the latter of which is absolutely necessary in a non-auto-dependent society for the very large portion of the population who are unable to bike for a variety of reasons (to wit: the latest story in the SunTimes with the prez of the Bike federation saying that this new communal bike program should be competitive with CTA), and 3) driving down bus lanes despite having a marked dedicate parallel lane a block over (e.g. the bikers down LaSalle who make buses idle behind them, who should be using Wells Street), then I'll support their cause. They don't need any more of my help with this mayor a true believer in their ultimate righteousness.

This isn't the place to explain my disagreement, but I will say that the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation's explicit mission is to work for transit and pedestrians as well as bikes.

I will also say that I was almost killed this morning by a bus driving behind me in the bike lane, so you have no business being self-righteous yourself.

[Marcu]

It doesn't help that we live in a city where most can only bike on the 2/3 of the days (when it doesn't rain) from late April to early October.

[VivaLFuego]

This isn't the place to explain my disagreement, but I will say that the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation's explicit mission is to work for transit and pedestrians as well as bikes.

I will also say that I was almost killed this morning by a bus driving behind me in the bike lane, so you have no business being self-righteous yourself.

Generally-speaking, there shouldn't be bike lanes on streets with buses, or any major arterial for that matter, at least during rush hour. Wells Street, Augusta, etc make perfect streets for bike lanes.

[Eventually...Chicago]

It doesn't help that we live in a city where most can only bike on the 2/3 of the days (when it doesn't rain) from late April to early October.

You know what Marcu, there are some maniacs who bike year round. It is unbelievable, 0 degrees out, snow on the ground, they bike.

Does anyone know if there is a map that shows all the designated bike lanes on city streets? As an avid biker myself, i would be thrilled if i could type in two locations and have something spit out a path using only streets with bike lanes. Otherwise i just end up taking the route i would if i were driving.

[Eventually...Chicago]

Hey just ran across this. I figured that some people here might want this.

Go to www.worldbusinesschicago.com scroll down and look on the right for "cooler by the lake" I put in a request for the dvd and one for my friend who is considering moving here. thought maybe some here would want to do the same.

[Mr Downtown]

The Chicago bicycling map "Streets for Cycling" is available at any Chase branch or at City Hall. It's also online at http://www.chicagobikemap.com

[Chicago Shawn]

fair 'nuf.... I take back my blame of Fioretti. I'm still opposed to the mandate on what was supposed to be a reasonably affordable rental building that will now be slightly less affordable for very little benefit.

If the previous Concord project received a density bonus because of green roof, then the revised project will need one too. Also, green roofs don't cost that much at all for a basic modular tray system which meets the requirements. They can easily recoup the cost of installing by charging an extra $10 dollars per month over two years, and that is being conservative. That does not include any cost savings from installation over time. And for those of you who claim the green roof will do little good:

-Longer roof life span, (saving money)
-Lower temperature air intake for roof mounted HVAC units. The difference can be up to 80 degrees on a summer day with full sun exposure (Saving money and energy)
-Some carbon sequestration (small amount, but better than nothing)
-Storm water management (HUGE benefit which few take notice of)

Green roofs provide significant benefit. Particularity in Chicago where we have a combined sewer system that backs up in heavy summer rains. IF the majority of our roofs were green in the city, we would not need Deep Tunnel and could have spent the couple billion dollars elsewhere. More areas to absorb storm water, including landscaped medians, porous paving, French drains and green roofs are the new answer to storm management, and in the future less taxation for continuing to expand the "big pipe" solution. In fact MWRDGC is taking a very serious look at sustainable storm water management since that major storm last August.

Chicago right now has more green roofs than any city outside of Germany. And it started one roof at a time. Give it more time, and with more coverage we will see some noticeable results.

[VivaLFuego]

The Chicago bicycling map "Streets for Cycling" is available at any Chase branch or at City Hall. It's also online at http://www.chicagobikemap.com

Definitely one of your best works, Mr D. Just thought I'd put that compliment out publicly. I've got two of these taped up to form a complete chicago map on my wall, and have gotten several of my friends to do the same.

[Mr Downtown]

Clark/Polk was approved with a 25% green roof, but now DPD is demanding 50%. So Avalon Bay is revising its site plan (less landscaping?) to save money, and probably asking the architects to specify cheaper materials as well. But think how much better the world will be with four more trays of half-dead Chia Pet up on the roof!

[honte]

^ :)

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Hopefully these more stringent requirements won't force Avalon Bay to cheapen the quality. Here's my question, though - since DPD (or Fioretti, or whomever) is requiring more environmental concessions from Avalon Bay, are they also offering to increase the density bonus from what Lennar received? Fair is fair, I'd argue. Also, the plan now is for 2 towers instead of 3, correct? Hopefully the new site plan will be a little more urban - reduce those setbacks from the street, for one. Also, if it is just 2 towers, at least one should crack the 500' mark (I know - the horror, Mr. Downtown, the horror, the outrage of not conforming to an outdated guideline!)

[SamInTheLoop]

be careful, that's not entirely true. being "green" is entirely about efficiency and while a dense area may be an efficient use of land it may not be an efficient use of energy. a highly dense area without the proper infrastructure to support it can be just as inefficient as a single occupancy mansion on a massive swath of land. thus a green building is one that properly allocates the density to the ability of the infrastructure to maintain it. the current "green" push is to develop technology to increase the efficiency of said infrastructure (green roof, alternative energy etc.). its about energy efficiency, not land efficiency, though the latter does play a role in the former.


Although your points are valid, they are all, in aggregate, vastly outweighed by the overall positive environmental impact that densification of existing urban areas has - I don't care if it was built in the most inefficient manner imaginable - building tens or hundreds of thousands of new residential units, tens of millions of sq ft of new office space, etc in an existing downtown constitutes an exponentially lighter environmental footprint than that space being built in an outward suburban or exurban expansion

[schwerve]

Although your points are valid, they are all, in aggregate, vastly outweighed by the overall positive environmental impact that densification of existing urban areas has - I don't care if it was built in the most inefficient manner imaginable - building tens or hundreds of thousands of new residential units, tens of millions of sq ft of new office space, etc in an existing downtown constitutes an exponentially lighter environmental footprint than that space being built in an outward suburban or exurban expansion

I basically agree, my main point is that density is not necessarily environmentally friendly in of itself, its density in relationship to location. An urban area is almost by definition designed for density so adding more units to a lot in these locations are almost typically green unless you start pushing it to the outer extremes. The infrastructure/energy usage gets divided amongst a larger pool of people so that energy tends to be used more efficiently. The infrastructure for a single family home on a large lot can be as efficient but because it doesn't have the inherent advantage of a large pool of users the energy usage of each particular piece of infrastructure (car, house etc) needs to be reduced to be comparable. Its possible, but tends to be difficult and in many cases counterproductive.

[SamInTheLoop]

Speaking of this project, see link for a rendering on Fitzgerald's website. Not a high-quality rendering mind you, and have no idea if it's the current plan, but is it just me or is there somewhat of a sterile, public-housing feel to this? Other issues too - glass coverage should be greater, I say bring the parking (with a much better design, mind you!) up to the street and put in retail along Clark - site plan-wise, let's take a cue here from the K Station site A twin-tower plan (not aesthetics-wise though!)....



http://www.fitzgeraldassociates.net/htdocs/Portfolio/ClarkPolk.html

[honte]

^ Thanks for that - new to me. Ironically, the simple box will be almost unique in the South Loop's skyline. I agree that the parking looks very unattractive.

There is also some interesting info on the Van Buren tower in West Loop. I am not sure if this is new or not?
http://www.fitzgeraldassociates.net/htdocs/OnTheBoards/otb1035.html

[Chicago Shawn]

Clark/Polk was approved with a 25% green roof, but now DPD is demanding 50%. So Avalon Bay is revising its site plan (less landscaping?) to save money, and probably asking the architects to specify cheaper materials as well. But think how much better the world will be with four more trays of half-dead Chia Pet up on the roof!

I do believe the Lennar project had more open space at ground level, as the parking was placed into podiums under the towers at a .7 ratio. Here we have two towers and a stand alone garage exploded out to a .95 ratio. Less green space on the ground, in exchange for more greenery on top.

BTW, it was cheap materials from the start on this one. And the "half dead chia pet" syndrome you describe is false. Its a drought tolerant plant, usually a verity of sedums that goes dormant in the summer. Its not supposed to be vibrant green in August.


Sam and Honte, both of those links are the current renderings of each project.

[honte]

^ Honest question from a non-botanist: If the thing is dormant during the times you need it most, isn't its usefulness largely diminished?

[Chicago Shawn]

^ Honest question from a non-botanist: If the thing is dormant during the times you need it most, isn't its usefulness largely diminished?

No, the sedium plants store water in little pods after removing it from the soil. If there is a lack of water, it just slows down the photosynthesis process. Much like natural prairie grasses, which store water in the massive root system below grade, and have evolved over 10,000 years to deal with the dry late summers, by sequestering water and rationing it when the drier season hits. The evapo-transpiration process still occurs, and still works to cool down the surface temperature.

Here is some more food for thought; most of the entire expanse of prairie from the great lakes west to the rocky mountains was plowed under and grazed off in a span of about 40 years, and Illinois actually had studies performed as far back as 1874 regarding local climate changes through disruptions of the hydrologic cycle from ripping out the native vegetation. That all occurred one farm at a time.

Anyway, just some tidbits from my studies in sustainability that came with the degree. I am in no way an expert on these issues, but it was part of the very core of the program, so I have studied up on this stuff quite a bit.

[VivaLFuego]

If the previous Concord project received a density bonus because of green roof, then the revised project will need one too. Also, green roofs don't cost that much at all for a basic modular tray system which meets the requirements. They can easily recoup the cost of installing by charging an extra $10 dollars per month over two years, and that is being conservative. That does not include any cost savings from installation over time. And for those of you who claim the green roof will do little good:

-Longer roof life span, (saving money)
-Lower temperature air intake for roof mounted HVAC units. The difference can be up to 80 degrees on a summer day with full sun exposure (Saving money and energy)
-Some carbon sequestration (small amount, but better than nothing)
-Storm water management (HUGE benefit which few take notice of)

Green roofs provide significant benefit. Particularity in Chicago where we have a combined sewer system that backs up in heavy summer rains. IF the majority of our roofs were green in the city, we would not need Deep Tunnel and could have spent the couple billion dollars elsewhere. More areas to absorb storm water, including landscaped medians, porous paving, French drains and green roofs are the new answer to storm management, and in the future less taxation for continuing to expand the "big pipe" solution. In fact MWRDGC is taking a very serious look at sustainable storm water management since that major storm last August.

Chicago right now has more green roofs than any city outside of Germany. And it started one roof at a time. Give it more time, and with more coverage we will see some noticeable results.
So the follow-up question is, will Avalon get an additional density bonus in return for more green roof space? That would indeed be a reasonable concession, as otherwise it hurts their margin and changes the economics of the project (which we'll see in some combination of lower-quality finishes and higher rents). I thought I remember reading about this project, like the AMLI 900 project, that they were both decidedly targeted at the "mid-level" market, not luxury, which is a valuable rarity throughout this boom.

[SolarWind]

February 29, 2008

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/8003/dscc0040sh7.jpg

[ardecila]

I really like the way this tower is turning out.

[Taft]

^^Agreed.

My only concern is the large slab of concrete that is currently exposed on the (I think) South side of the building. From that angle, it is IMO detrimental to the glassy, lightweight aesthetic of the building. Anyone know what the final plans for this are? Paint?

Taft

[the urban politician]

What were they thinking 80 years ago, building no parking? Sigh...look at what they are making us do. We have to compensate for this clear error in planning. Luckily nowadays we still have room to build garages; the neighborhood is saved!

[Abner]

No, the sedium plants store water in little pods after removing it from the soil. If there is a lack of water, it just slows down the photosynthesis process. Much like natural prairie grasses, which store water in the massive root system below grade, and have evolved over 10,000 years to deal with the dry late summers, by sequestering water and rationing it when the drier season hits. The evapo-transpiration process still occurs, and still works to cool down the surface temperature.

Here is some more food for thought; most of the entire expanse of prairie from the great lakes west to the rocky mountains was plowed under and grazed off in a span of about 40 years, and Illinois actually had studies performed as far back as 1874 regarding local climate changes through disruptions of the hydrologic cycle from ripping out the native vegetation. That all occurred one farm at a time.

Anyway, just some tidbits from my studies in sustainability that came with the degree. I am in no way an expert on these issues, but it was part of the very core of the program, so I have studied up on this stuff quite a bit.

No doubt, a rational developer/end-user would build a green roof for many projects since it is ultimately more efficient. Unfortunately, nobody takes them into account when considering the cost of a building, so they "look" more expensive. The woes of green building.

[Chicago Shawn]

No doubt, a rational developer/end-user would build a green roof for many projects since it is ultimately more efficient. Unfortunately, nobody takes them into account when considering the cost of a building, so they "look" more expensive. The woes of green building.

Exactly. Unfortunately, most developers have no intentions of managing buildings they create, so they sell them off before they can see any benefits of adding the green qualities. Does anyone now if Avalon Bay retains their properties, or do they sell them off to pension funds and the likes? Thankfully, more and more buyers are seeing the benefits and efficiencies of green design for the longevity of their investment. I think we will soon reach a tipping point where a substantial portion of buyers will require LEED certification or some other standards of green design, especially as energy prices continue to climb.

[Mr Downtown]

Avalon Bay is a REIT that holds the properties it manages. I'm not sure how it's relevant whether its stock is predominantly owned this week by pension funds or wealthy individuals.

To Avalon Bay, a green roof is a very expensive way to achieve a very small benefit. Want less heat gain through the roof in the summer? Painting it silver or adding a layer of insulation is a lot cheaper. Want less stormwater released into sewers during an event? Put a rain barrel (or a retention pond) and a valve at the bottom of the drainpipe.

[Chicago Shawn]

Avalon Bay is a REIT that holds the properties it manages. I'm not sure how it's relevant whether its stock is predominantly owned this week by pension funds or wealthy individuals.

To Avalon Bay, a green roof is a very expensive way to achieve a very small benefit. Want less heat gain through the roof in the summer? Painting it silver or adding a layer of insulation is a lot cheaper. Want less stormwater released into sewers during an event? Put a rain barrel (or a retention pond) and a valve at the bottom of the drainpipe.

True, but a green roof also significantly outlives a typical roofing membrane. So, more money upfront now, means less maintenance and repair work for years to come. The plant verity takes care of itself and needs very little attending too.

Also, a vegetative roof will still stay cooler than a reflective coating. It also provides insulation in the winter.

Anyway, that ends the discussion for me, time to move on.

[honte]

^ If anyone can PM me with scholarly studies pointing to longer life spans of green roofs or increased insulation potential, that would be appreciated. The only rigorous efforts I have found that discuss these matters point to exactly the opposite, although I frequently hear what Shawn is stating.

[VivaLFuego]

Speaking of this project, see link for a rendering on Fitzgerald's website. Not a high-quality rendering mind you, and have no idea if it's the current plan, but is it just me or is there somewhat of a sterile, public-housing feel to this? Other issues too - glass coverage should be greater, I say bring the parking (with a much better design, mind you!) up to the street and put in retail along Clark - site plan-wise, let's take a cue here from the K Station site A twin-tower plan (not aesthetics-wise though!)....



http://www.fitzgeraldassociates.net/htdocs/Portfolio/ClarkPolk.html

Garage looks so-so. I don't think it needs retail, as one half of Clark is already dead as a doornail because of Dearborn Park. At most, a couple small slots for neighborhood basics (e.g. dry cleaner, bodega). This street will never be a vibrant retail/consumption stretch. And oversaturation with retail space is decidedly not desirable, as it just leads to vacancy and prevents establishment of critical mass at key retail intersections (look at Canada, whose cities take the residential/retail balance seriously and it shows in their awesome retail districts even in low density neighborhoods. Contrast with the dreadful West Loop). Let the South Loop retail concentrate in Roosevelt Collection, or over along Wabash and Michigan.

Also, more glass-coverage = higher construction cost = higher unit rents. Desirable? I dunno, but I think people should be less hostile to developers trying to build units targeted at something other than the top end of the market, particularly with construction costs where they are. Conversely, too much painted concrete, of course, is hideous; back in the 60s (whose high-rises most of you guys trash), the monotony of painted concrete in mid-price-range highrises was broken with some interesting brickwork, often to great effect (look closely at some of the north lakeshore/Sheridan high-rises sometime....some real concrete/brick gems in there). And no, I don't mean po-mo a la Columbian.

[VivaLFuego]

^ If anyone can PM me with scholarly studies pointing to longer life spans of green roofs or increased insulation potential, that would be appreciated. The only rigorous efforts I have found that discuss these matters point to exactly the opposite, although I frequently hear what Shawn is stating.

I'd be interested to see these too. . . if they were truly more economical (e.g. longer replacement cycle leading to reduced overall cost of ownership) this would all be priced in and they would be included. I feel like at best, it could only be considered more economical from the developers standpoint if proponents of green roofs could clearly identify an external cost of non-green-roofs for which the developer is subsidized.

[the urban politician]

^ Retail districts certainly should be concentrated, but sometimes having even one corner 7-11 or similar convenience store in an otherwise mostly residential zone can go a long way towards reducing automobile trips

[Abner]

I'd be interested to see these too. . . if they were truly more economical (e.g. longer replacement cycle leading to reduced overall cost of ownership) this would all be priced in and they would be included. I feel like at best, it could only be considered more economical from the developers standpoint if proponents of green roofs could clearly identify an external cost of non-green-roofs for which the developer is subsidized.

This isn't to say anything about green roofs specifically, but no, most green features are actually not priced accurately, which is why they have not been adopted widely. People have a very hard time understanding or caring about benefits that accrue over a long period of time, plus many of the direct economic benefits (e.g. lower utility bills) are enjoyed by the tenant, not the owner, who has no interest in reducing tenants' utility bills. It's been shown again and again that when green features are designed into the building from the beginning, the increase in cost is minimal (one percent or less of total costs) and the features can pay for themselves very quickly. Unfortunately, when sustainable design is something tacked on at the end, like with this AvalonBay project, the added costs are much higher. This is one reason these "surprise" requirements may be counterproductive--they further the myth that sustainable building practices are exorbitantly expensive.

[Mr Downtown]

Avalon Bay will be the owner, paying the construction, maintenance, and utility bills, for the economic life of the asset. Why would the economic (as opposed to societal) value of a green roof or other "green" asset not be apparent to them?

[Abner]

Avalon Bay will be the owner, paying the construction, maintenance, and utility bills, for the economic life of the asset. Why would the economic (as opposed to societal) value of a green roof or other "green" asset not be apparent to them?

Avalon Bay will be paying all the utilities for the lifetime of the building? Then that eliminates the incentive problem, but probably not the information problem. Unqualified faith in the market is unfounded here. There's substantial evidence of the economic benefits of various green building practices, but publishing papers in engineering journals is not exactly the fastest way to revolutionize the business world, especially when businesspeople have reason to dismiss the concept of green building as being politically motivated. Essentially, they all make the point you are making--"If it were profitable, everybody else would already be doing it"--and stop paying attention. This is getting far from the subject of this thread.

In Avalon Bay's case, as I said, it may be counterproductive to ask them to tack on a green roof after the building has been designed, because that is the surest way to inflate the costs. Green roofs generally don't provide the best cost/benefit ratio to begin with, particularly for a big apartment building like this.

[UChicagoDomer]

March 2008 Atlantic Monthly

The subprime crisis is just the tip of the iceberg. Fundamental changes in American life may turn today’s McMansions into tomorrow’s tenements.

by Christopher B. Leinberger

The Next Slum?

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime


interesting article discussing suburban deterioration and urban rejuvenation in the Atlantic Monthly. if it were only true...

[Breezyfingers]

I posted this photo in the Trump thread and a few people commented on the buildings in the foreground.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/2297722833_55a4a08580_b.jpg

I've been meaning to walk around the neighborhood and take some development pictures, so thought I'd take advantage of the balmy 35 degree weather to hit the area around 21st and Damen, over to the Illinois Medical District.

There are a ton of beautiful (if dilapidated) old brick and brownstone buildings, but lots of one and two-story frame buildings that are likely to be torn down and replaced in the next decade.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3107/2308009856_0d4b2849dc_o.jpg

This three-condo structure replaced a single-family frame house near Oakley and 21st:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2095/2307201699_df6436787d_o.jpg

Nothing to get excited about, but at least it pays attention to the larger building next to it. Across the street we see how bad things could be:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2051/2308009964_dc6611ab9b_o.jpg

Here, they've torn down two small, serviceable brick bungalows for these things. NO FRONT DOOR, as you'll notice. I fear much more of this crap is in store for the neighborhood. Is it better or worse than some of the redevelopment that has gone before (at 21st and Damen)?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2127/2307203819_7b57fe66d3_o.jpg

Heading up Damen, a mosaic at the newly constructed (well, about five years ago) Pink line stop. Similar mosaics at Western and California are welcome additions to the area.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3252/2308009932_d48368f232_o.jpg

Walking past Harrison Park. This view always strikes me as a Chicago version of the famous shot of the San Francisco skyline with little Victorian houses in the foreground:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2174/2307203613_6cd2a018ee_o.jpg

Under the viaduct . . .
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2047/2308009664_e4b7883694_o.jpg

. . . and into the Illinois Medical District. That's the new Therapeutic School and Center for Autism Research behind the sign.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/2307203439_ce4ae535c6_o.jpg

Not very exciting architecture, but indicative of the wave of construction transforming this area.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2053/2307203515_6272fc5692_o.jpg

Across Damen is the Chicago Children's Advocacy Center with the new FBI complex in the background:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2283/2307203415_ed197f0c12_o.jpg

I thought the FBI originally planned two large structures and a smaller building with a garage. They ended up building one large structure and this awful ramp (with the Cook County Juvenile Court ramp in the background):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3165/2307203147_a2ae857da2_o.jpg

It bugs me that the FBI built this thing on Roosevelt, but I'm not necessarily opposed to parking garages. IMD offers some great looking options:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/2308009480_026940106d_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2135/2307202259_bdfde36dbb_o.jpg

I particularly love this thing. Rush is building a new structure in front of it, but I didn't see a rendering.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/2308008556_691b876564_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3184/2308008440_dd7a80ec01_o.jpg

A while back a few of you commented on buildings along the expressway that will come down for new Rush construction. Here they are with old Cook County:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3144/2307202785_eff5fdf55e_o.jpg

Not much left to save here,
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2358/2308008848_e4b32b672e_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2071/2307202517_78d827d6b8_o.jpg

although this old lab on Polk looks pretty good from the outside. Anyone know exactly which buildings are being torn down?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3275/2307202405_c8bb86a65a_o.jpg

Work continues on the back of the old Cook County Hospital building:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2053/2308008768_cc2479af1d_o.jpg

Modern buildings on Polk are getting a facade-lift. Before building on the right, after is the treatment on the left. Is sterile design more acceptable in a hospital setting?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2335/2307202367_ea3e802ee2_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/2307202321_0c25dd9975_o.jpg

The VA has been doing a lot of building:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/2307203081_81fd9a332e_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2048/2307202939_ab5851898b_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2024/2307202977_bfb1b3faee_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2361/2307202731_e5b2b88be7_o.jpg

I think the new VA parking garage is supposed to compliment this big lab building across the street:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2308/2308009068_7cd7578772_o.jpg
I say move the Children's Museum into this thing (I failed to note the name of the building, but it houses labs).

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3289/2307202893_2bb849260c_o.jpg
This area is huge and stuffed full of architecture. Not much of it (strikes me as) very good, but there have clearly been many attempts to try to tie all the disparate styles together over the last hundred years. Those attempts have been pretty half-assed (as indicated by the pictures above), but it's kind of fun to walk around and try to match the buildings that are intended to compliment each other.

Construction continues. No indication of what they're working on here.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2101/2308008716_feebc7a275_o.jpg

Walking up Harrison between the IMD and UIC. These developments don't seem to attract the same vitriol and rage forumers reserve for Dearborn Park and University Village. Why not?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3154/2307202225_dedc239d21_o.jpg

Some West Loop development:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2307202073_bc036ec55a_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2146/2307201799_35dd33fea7_o.jpg

Whether you hate the kind of development in this area or not, you have to agree that it takes a certain kind of Midwestern optimism to see these alley-side balconies as a plus:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2293/2308008278_440d42a54d_o.jpg

Emerald:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3251/2308008156_a52527bcfd_o.jpg

Finally, this wasn't the best trompe l'oeill mural in the city, but I was sad to see it go (sorry, no before picture). I was pleasantly surprised when the developer left the post-sand blasting image visible.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2307201997_dd00f968b5_o.jpg

[Busy Bee]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2127/2307203819_7b57fe66d3_o.jpg

Those are way old. I highly doubt anything this poorly designed and placed would be built again.

[JV_325i]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2174/2307203613_6cd2a018ee_o.jpg

This is sweet. Thanks for the update breezy.

[Breezyfingers]

I agree that these wouldn't get built again, but am not sure the stuff going up today is any better designed. NO FRONT DOOR!

I guess I was trying to say it's a shame that the design of replacement buildings in this area sucked after the war (I failed to get photos of what looks like a post WWII development of very small houses at Western and 21st), sucked in the 60s and 70s, and continues to suck to this day.

[NSawyer]

Here's a link for Honte and any other contributors who are interested in scholarly studies on the economic benefits of green roofs:
http://greenroofs.org/grtok/economic_browse.php

[Abner]

I guess I was trying to say it's a shame that the design of replacement buildings in this area sucked after the war (I failed to get photos of what looks like a post WWII development of very small houses at Western and 21st), sucked in the 60s and 70s, and continues to suck to this day.

Yeah, pretty much everything that went up after 1920 in the neighborhood is junk, and most of the recent construction doesn't seem to have sold well at all, either. If you haven't already, you should check out the pathetic townhomes going up on the east side of the neighborhood, on 16th immediately east of the Dan Ryan ("Union Row Townhomes," I think?). They abut an elevated expressway on one side and freight tracks on another!

[Chicago3rd]

Ohio and Fairbanks (Hot dog stand south of Jahn's Place).

Work to clean it up will start shortly and last a few months. From what I have heard nothing else is going to be happening on that lot for the remainder of 2008. But then again...get it cleaned up (one of the hottest lots in Chicago) and there might be lots of people knocking at their door.

[VivaLFuego]

Yeah, pretty much everything that went up after 1920 in the neighborhood is junk, and most of the recent construction doesn't seem to have sold well at all, either. If you haven't already, you should check out the pathetic townhomes going up on the east side of the neighborhood, on 16th immediately east of the Dan Ryan ("Union Row Townhomes," I think?). They abut an elevated expressway on one side and freight tracks on another!

How is Pilsen holding up in the current foreclosure wave? The scam that swept the lower-income areas of the city (inflating prices citywide) was for developers/brokers to either build new condo units or convert old flats into condos, then sell the units to low-credit low-net-worth buyers at absurdly inflated prices with 100% financing, with the buyers immediately defaulting on the loans and the bank ultimately holding the bag (the "buyers" would get a cut, of course, if they were in on the scam; otherwise they simply defaulted once their rate reset by which time the developer/broker was long gone). Ever wanted to know the answer to the question that enters all of our minds when driving by brand new, often 'luxury' condos in the most absurd locations? I feel like Pilsen might make it out OK, as there hasn't been nearly as much conversion/construction activity there as there has been in, say, Humboldt Park, whose market will continue collapsing for some time.

[ethereal_reality]

Iam going to try and post a photo for the first time...here goes!
http://img.186.imageshack.us/img186/9681/preillinoiscenter1968strk4.th.jpg A few pages back there was a discussion about 'piazza di spagna' type stairs leading into Illinois Center.

This is an amazing photograph I found years ago, showing the area, before Illinois Center was built. The building (321-325 Michigan Ave) to be razed for the 'grand entrance' would be the smaller building between 333 N. Michigan Ave on its right, and the Old Republic Building on its left. The building actually looks larger from this perspective, as it clearly shows 2 large floors
below grade.

I also love the lights for the Wrigley Building on the dilapidated brick building in the foreground. It seems so mysterious.....I wonder what was in the building? It even has a wooden bay window..which seems odd for an industrial type building.

ANYWAY....if the photo doesn't work, could someone give me some tips.
I have other old photographs of Chicago I'd like to share.

[ethereal_reality]

didn't work ;(

[Abner]

How is Pilsen holding up in the current foreclosure wave?

Crain's has an interactive map that lets you see all foreclosures by zip code. Here's Pilsen (which is mostly in 60608): http://interactive.chicagobusiness.com/foreclosures/zipcode/?zipcode=60608
Your guess is probably pretty accurate. There's definitely been some foreclosures, but Pilsen hasn't been nearly as hard-hit as Woodlawn, Humboldt Park, etc. It's neither a too-rapidly gentrifying neighborhood nor a destitute black neighborhood where buyers are vulnerable to scams, and people generally still all rent. It's true that this neighborhood has generally seen a lot less new construction than other areas that people usually associate with it like Logan Square or Humboldt Park. And some projects seem to be indefinitely on hold, like the Centro 18 project on 18th and Peoria.

[budman]

didn't work ;(
I have not posted any pictures here, but I think you need to go to an image hosting site like imageshack, load it there, and then you can put it up here from imageshack. I really would love to see that picture, so hopefully you can work it out!:)

[cbotnyse]

didn't work ;(is it a scan? I'd really like to see that picture, sounds very intersting. Did you try using www.photobucket.com ?

[ethereal_reality]

hi cbotnyse-
I was using 'imageshack'. And I just uploaded it on 'the imagehosting.com as well.
I'll check out 'photobucket'.

I know it's something I'm doing wrong (duh..obviously) because I'm not too
computer savy (I'm an artist/illustrator)

The photo IS great though.

[ethereal_reality]

I uploaded it on photbucket under my screen name 'ethereal_reality.
The title of the pic is 'pre illinois center 1968', if you want to check it out.

To post here...I see the IMG code beneath my photo (on photobucket)
..but then what?

I'll try not to tie up this thread any longer. SORRY people.

[honte]

This is an amazing photograph I found years ago, showing the area, before Illinois Center was built. The building (321-325 Michigan Ave) to be razed for the 'grand entrance' would be the smaller building between 333 N. Michigan Ave on its right, and the Old Republic Building on its left. The building actually looks larger from this perspective, as it clearly shows 2 large floors
below grade.

I also love the lights for the Wrigley Building on the dilapidated brick building in the foreground. It seems so mysterious.....I wonder what was in the building? It even has a wooden bay window..which seems odd for an industrial type building.

A lot of older industrial buildings on that side of Michigan were altered when the boulevard was widened. Often, facades were stripped off and the buildings reduced in size, but the old buildings were left standing (similar to LaSalle Street). It's quite remarkable, if you've never seen photos of it.

It's possible that the bay window you found illustrates the true age of this structure.

[honte]

Here's a link for Honte and any other contributors who are interested in scholarly studies on the economic benefits of green roofs:
http://greenroofs.org/grtok/economic_browse.php

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Breezyfingers, thanks for the tour. All of the older Rush buildings were supposed to come down, last I heard. The shot you have of work on Cook County is them preparing for demolition of the side structures I believe, which were (sadly) not a part of the preservation plan, for reasons that I never really accepted.

Also, bummed to see the Jelke building getting a bad redo (before and after are visible in your shot looking east on Harrison). It would have been much more attractive to restore it. The building was designed by Walter Netsch (SOM), who didn't really like the results very much. Still, it was a highly attractive building; I'm glad it's still standing. I don't think the building across the street (to the south) is going to be altered in this manner.

Finally, can I just vent a bit and say how HIDEOUS that Stanley Tigerman thing is? I don't care if you're 2 years old. I'm sure it still looks hideous.

[Breezyfingers]

Yeah, the Tigerman building didn't look great to start with and is looking worse as time goes by. I don't know if it's crappy materials or poor construction, but the brickwork looks kind of sloppy and astonishingly dirty.

So this building (on Harrison, not Polk as I mislabeled it) is definitely coming down?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3275/2307202405_c8bb86a65a_o.jpg

[honte]

^ Well, I haven't heard for a long time. To my knowledge, that's still the plan.

Also, since I said three negative things in my last message, I think I should add that I love Pilsen and also the IMD. There are some great buildings in the IMD. I really like the little new VA hospital too (not the big new one) - I forget the firm... someone from Minneapolis, I think?

[ethereal_reality]

http://www.photobucket.com/ethereal_reality/illinoiscenter1968.jpg

[Abner]

Also, since I said three negative things in my last message, I think I should add that I love Pilsen and also the IMD. There are some great buildings in the IMD.

...and how many of them are being demolished in the near future?

The IMD would be a whole lot more pleasant if it were surrounded by something other than acres of vacant land owned by the IMD.

[ethereal_reality]

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8731/illinoiscenter1968za2.jpg

[ethereal_reality]

^^^
HOORAY!!.....I got it to work ; and it only took me ALL day.

The building to be demolished, 321-324 Michigan Ave. is in the center of the photo, with 333 N. Mich Ave. on it's right, and the Old Republic building on it's left. This is where they want to build the 'piazza di spagna' type steps as an entrance to Illinois Center. From this perspective the small building looks much larger, as you can see the two floors below grade.

I had also pointed out, in my earlier post (sans photograph), the lighting for the Wrigley Building on the mysterious brick building in the foreground.
I love that little old building.

[Taft]

^^^
HOORAY!!.....I got it to work ; and it only took me ALL day.

Awesome pic. Thnx.

Taft

[Mr Downtown]

the dilapidated brick building in the foreground. It seems so mysterious.....I wonder what was in the building? It even has a wooden bay window..which seems odd for an industrial type building.

That was the office for the Illinois Central (originally Michigan Central) incoming freight house. The oriel window overlooked the truck scales.

[ethereal_reality]

^^^
wow...you know your history.
That's amazing...thanks very much for the info.

[cbotnyse]

great photo! it took you long enough! ;)

Just think how great all of the pictures we are taking now will beneifit future generations. Especially all of the supertalls along the river. There will be pictures around of just about every beam and floor put in place.

[Mr Downtown]

Except they'll be on long-discarded hard drives and SD cards. Physical prints and negatives are what survive, because people can see what they are.

[ethereal_reality]

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/5750/illinoiscenter1968bfb3.jpg

Does anyone have a current photo of the FRONT of 321-325 Michigan Ave?
I'm actually outside of the city right now, so I can't go see for myself. This 'spanish steps' idea has intrigued me. I have always found Illinois Center to be confusing in it's layout.

[cbotnyse]

Except they'll be on long-discarded hard drives and SD cards. Physical prints and negatives are what survive, because people can see what they are.I'm sure many digital images will survive.

[ethereal_reality]

Here's one last photograph for today. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate thread, but it goes along with the other two photos from 1968.

It is the backside of the Prudential Building, with what looks like a South Shore Line train coming out from under it. I often used the Randolph Street Station to go downstate to visit my parents. I just never realized the tracks extended quite this far. So do trains go under 2 Prudential Plaza today? When you're down there (in the station) it's difficult to figure out just exactly WHERE you are, in terms of the buildings above.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/8621/prudential1968le5.jpg

[schwerve]

"Chicago Steps"

Pictures from the Chicago Loop Alliance Report

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/2311436582_47dc15ca08.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3160/2311436438_10c5392578.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2036/2311436528_b2617c05e0.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/2311436374_8afbc93a88.jpg

[budman]

[QUOTE=ethereal_reality;3394602Does anyone have a current photo of the FRONT of 321-325 Michigan Ave?
I'm actually outside of the city right now, so I can't go see for myself. This 'spanish steps' idea has intrigued me. I have always found Illinois Center to be confusing in it's layout.[/QUOTE]

^Wow, those are great pictures! Feel free to post more:)

[ardecila]

Ewww. I don't care if the designers are drawing inspiration from the Spanish Steps, because all I can think of with those sketches is "downtown LA". Those extra windows added onto the backside of 333 North Michigan are absolutely terrible, and completely against the Art Deco spirit of the original building.

ethereal_reality: The South Shore/Metra Electric tracks are virtually unchanged from the 1960s layout - they're just covered with thousands of tons of concrete and steel. The terminal tracks extend two blocks north from Randolph, past Lake Street, and all the way to Lower Water Street.

It's interesting to see that, though. I had no idea that the Prudential Building had a gigantic base before the Loebl Schlossman Hackl addition. I just assumed the building had always had a plaza back there in some form.

[ethereal_reality]

schwerve-thanks for posting the photos/illustrations.

Those squiggly illustrations are new to me. I think they're really unattractive.
I wonder if they told the illustrator...."Well, we don't actually know what we want, so can you fake it with a bunch of REALLY squiggley lines?"

Also, I think the facade of 321-324 Michigan Ave. is very sleek looking (despite it's 3 storey height).

So.....for me.....the 'Spanish Steps' idea....is now a toss up.
With 321-324 Michigan Ave. buffeted by 333 N. Michigan and the old Republic Building...this trio creates a beautiful art deco block.

[schwerve]

they're basically nothing more than sketches on the back of a envelope. judging from the report there isn't a design or anything close, just some general ideas to improve the pedestrian accessibility of that couple block area.

[Mr Downtown]

I'm astonished at the folks here who seem unable to differentiate between planning and architecture. You make a rough sketch to show the idea to people who might have trouble visualizing it. Maybe it impresses them enough that they give you the money to actually design it. And when it's designed, you make some renders and study it some more and eventually produce working drawings. Criticizing the precise treatment of 333's south wall at this point is as premature as complaining about one of the subcontractors not being a DBE.