CHICAGO | General Developments

[Via Chicago]

so instead of a bland 4 story building we get a clumsy 3 story building with a cheap looking terrace to boot?

[spyguy]

so instead of a bland 4 story building we get a clumsy 3 story building with a cheap looking terrace to boot?

The current building is worse than bland. Bland is what replaced the Mather Building further north. This at least looks alright to me, certainly lighter than what's there now.

[the urban politician]

7/18

http://i.imgur.com/uDM7qWTh.jpg

That started? Alright!

[the urban politician]

Re: Clark and Diversey--TJ Maxx strikes again! Why can't we get more interesting apparel retailers in the city than this?

[ardecila]

There needs to be a come-to-Jesus moment for people to realize that, yes, the suburbs are here, and not going anywhere...

Love the sinner, hate the sin -> love the suburbanite (slash likely Bulls/Bears/Hawks fan) and hate the suburb they hail from.

All Chicagoland residents are welcome in Da Mare's kingdom...

[JK47]

Takeda shifting jobs to Boston because they have a Biotech supercluster while we have the nation's most corrupt and dysfunctional (and near bankrupt) State Government speak to what the stakes are for Chicago.


New York has Illinois beat on corruption by a country mile. Hell, even Rhode Island does it better, for instance using Federal Interstate Highway funds to fund their Riverwalk by using state funds to relocate a river to where the interstate used to be. Incidentally the mayor of Providence, Buddy Cianci, was arrested in 2001 and ultimately convicted for rather openly running the city as a corrupt criminal enterprise.

[SolarWind]

July 17, 2017

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

http://i.imgur.com/njV2Atg.jpg

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

[LouisVanDerWright]

Get over the silliness. We either succeed as a region or we die as one.

Takeda shifting jobs to Boston because they have a Biotech supercluster while we have the nation's most corrupt and dysfunctional (and near bankrupt) State Government speak to what the stakes are for Chicago. The people buying those condos downtown aren't Saudi Billionaires. Many of them are wealthy people who spent years living in the suburbs but have an affection for the city and are investing in it. Kill the suburbs and you're only hampering Chicago's future.

No one is proposing sending all jobs in the suburbs out of state. What I am saying is good-riddance. There is no reason for communities like Algonquin or Schaumburg to exist beyond sheer government subsidy of the automobile. These areas are highly inefficient and a drag on the metro. All uses in these areas that can efficiently move downtown should move there, it benefits the user and it benefits the metro. Am I proposing that we level all suburbs? Obviously not.

The suburbs will not cease to exist, but the fairy tale of the good ole day small towne that is actually a horrendous suburban mess consisting of Walmarts and tract housing is dead. There will be a handful of premium suburbs that survive, just as there was a handful of premium urban neighborhoods that survived. The rest are destined for the trash heap as the depreciation cycle leaves whole sections of the suburbs in disrepair just as it did with entire sections of the city. Except the housing stock and basic reason for existence of these places simply is not as resilient as the inner city neighborhoods. Places like Lawndale continue to stand strong despite decades of abuse. Subject a 70's kitschville like Bloomingdale to the same abuse and watch how quickly the paper mache turns to sludge.

And yes, this is good for Chicagoland. I'm not saying kick the businesses in such places out, I'm saying watch as the market continues to transplant them to the charred grounds of the industrial wastelands of the city which lie fertile a prairie after a wildfire. Takeda isn't shifting jobs to Boston because the suburbs are collapsing as you admit, but because our government sucks. One of the big reasons it sucks it total decentralization of government and redundant governing bodies. How do we reduce this? Bring the suburbs to their knees and force them to annex to Chicago.

The suburban economy will adapt as well. There is no shortage of industrial demand in the suburbs right now. If residents move into the city or office parks go vacant great, there apparently wasn't lasting demand for garbage office buildings and shitty ranch homes. Raze them and build high cube distribution space.

Oh and in response to Mr. DT. I couldn't give less of a shit about "the ordinary taxpayers of Deerfield". I mean really? I couldn't find a group of people who I pity less. Take all of the office users in the entirety of Deerfield which is wildly inefficient and probably a detrimental to those users and move them downtown. When the Deerfield taxpayers suffer, then they can move into the city themselves where they don't have to pay for a bunch of spread out infrastructure that will only get exponentially more expensive to maintain as it ages to 50, 60, or 70 years. It makes no sense, period. There does not need to be one 300,000 SF building every quarter mile with huge swaths of parking surrounding them. That is not a rational or efficient development model. If Walgreens goes downtown, then the exact same thing will happen to that campus as happened to the South Barrington Allstate campus: here comes the wrecking ball. Then they can rezone it for biomedical research facilities or something like that which actually needs to have huge open spaces to be efficient. Maybe reasonable land use in the surrounding areas will keep Takeda from moving out...

[SolarWind]

July 18, 2017

http://i.imgur.com/enMV2zc.jpg

[SolarWind]

May 8, 2017

http://i.imgur.com/E7V088s.jpg

July 18, 2017

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

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

[SolarWind]

July 18, 2017

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

[SolarWind]

July 18, 2017

http://i.imgur.com/eC2WPyR.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/fyRNUO0.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/7GJEhlR.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/0AJkNz7.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/nkX9cra.jpg

[Bonsai Tree]

No one is proposing sending all jobs in the suburbs out of state. What I am saying is good-riddance. There is no reason for communities like Algonquin or Schaumburg to exist beyond sheer government subsidy of the automobile. These areas are highly inefficient and a drag on the metro. All uses in these areas that can efficiently move downtown should move there, it benefits the user and it benefits the metro. Am I proposing that we level all suburbs? Obviously not.

The suburbs will not cease to exist, but the fairy tale of the good ole day small towne that is actually a horrendous suburban mess consisting of Walmarts and tract housing is dead. There will be a handful of premium suburbs that survive, just as there was a handful of premium urban neighborhoods that survived. The rest are destined for the trash heap as the depreciation cycle leaves whole sections of the suburbs in disrepair just as it did with entire sections of the city. Except the housing stock and basic reason for existence of these places simply is not as resilient as the inner city neighborhoods. Places like Lawndale continue to stand strong despite decades of abuse. Subject a 70's kitschville like Bloomingdale to the same abuse and watch how quickly the paper mache turns to sludge.

And yes, this is good for Chicagoland. I'm not saying kick the businesses in such places out, I'm saying watch as the market continues to transplant them to the charred grounds of the industrial wastelands of the city which lie fertile a prairie after a wildfire. Takeda isn't shifting jobs to Boston because the suburbs are collapsing as you admit, but because our government sucks. One of the big reasons it sucks it total decentralization of government and redundant governing bodies. How do we reduce this? Bring the suburbs to their knees and force them to annex to Chicago.

The suburban economy will adapt as well. There is no shortage of industrial demand in the suburbs right now. If residents move into the city or office parks go vacant great, there apparently wasn't lasting demand for garbage office buildings and shitty ranch homes. Raze them and build high cube distribution space.

Oh and in response to Mr. DT. I couldn't give less of a shit about "the ordinary taxpayers of Deerfield". I mean really? I couldn't find a group of people who I pity less. Take all of the office users in the entirety of Deerfield which is wildly inefficient and probably a detrimental to those users and move them downtown. When the Deerfield taxpayers suffer, then they can move into the city themselves where they don't have to pay for a bunch of spread out infrastructure that will only get exponentially more expensive to maintain as it ages to 50, 60, or 70 years. It makes no sense, period. There does not need to be one 300,000 SF building every quarter mile with huge swaths of parking surrounding them. That is not a rational or efficient development model. If Walgreens goes downtown, then the exact same thing will happen to that campus as happened to the South Barrington Allstate campus: here comes the wrecking ball. Then they can rezone it for biomedical research facilities or something like that which actually needs to have huge open spaces to be efficient. Maybe reasonable land use in the surrounding areas will keep Takeda from moving out...

"then they can move into the city themselves " WTF

Why do you think they live in the suburbs? They don't want to move into the city! They would rather have the slow, unchanging life of the suburbs instead of the fast life of the city. They would rather have a good school system than one in disrepair. They would rather have a home than rent. They would rather have a yard, and a car, than be stuck on some L train. You can't force people to move somewhere they don't want to (unless you were the US government back in the 1800s with the Native Americans). There are reasons the suburbs exist! Your reasoning makes zero sense to me, and I hope to the rest of the people in this discussion.:yuck::hell:

[Randomguy34]

July 18, 2017
http://i.imgur.com/fyRNUO0.jpg


That brickwork :slob::slob:

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ What a shame, it's too bad McDonalds is moving into the city and hurting poor Oak Brook...

Lol, for real though, super high quality. It's weird that SB is proposing such an ugly design for that hotel. They usually fall into the quality camp, not the concrete box camp.

"then they can move into the city themselves " WTF

Why do you think they live in the suburbs? They don't want to move into the city! They would rather have the slow, unchanging life of the suburbs instead of the fast life of the city. They would rather have a good school system than one in disrepair. They would rather have a home than rent. They would rather have a yard, and a car, than be stuck on some L train. You can't force people to move somewhere they don't want to (unless you were the US government back in the 1800s with the Native Americans). There are reasons the suburbs exist! Your reasoning makes zero sense to me, and I hope to the rest of the people in this discussion.:yuck::hell:


^^^ Lol, you say this as if it were even physically possible to live in the "suburbs" prior to trillions of dollars in government subsidies of that lifestyle. "The American Dream" is just that, a dream. A passing hallucination that is in no way connected with reality. We are waking up from the fever dream now and the absurd opulence of the post war era, it's not sustainable and almost no one else on earth lives this way. Sorry, but no one has a "right" to a white picket fence and a Ford Excursion. If they want that they can move back to rural America and enjoy living in semi-poverty in a small town in Kansas.

I'm not just saying this because I think good riddance, but because it is going to happen just like white flight happened and there ain't shit anyone can do to stop it. And yes, people will have the right to stay in Deerfield if they want to, they just can't expect Walgreens to be there subsidizing their lifestyle anymore. They can live there with moderate to high crime as the city services decline in quality and hold out like some Czech granny in Pilsen. Stay in the suburbs all you want, but it's not going to be your father's burbs. It doesn't matter what people "want", it matters what they can afford and what reality will allow. I "want" to live in a $40 million skyscraper penthouse, unfortunately that isn't within my means. I "want" to live on top of the Chicago Spire, but reality unfortunately dictates that the building was never built, therefore I can never live on top of it.

[Domer2019]

Sorry, but no one has a "right" to a white picket fence and a Ford Excursion. If they want that they can move back to rural America and enjoy living in semi-poverty in a small town in Kansas.


Sorry, I thought money gives you a picket fence and a Ford? Some suburbs, in fact, don't have major corp headquarters or office parks and are for the most part residential (not that that isn't the point of the suburbs anyway). So McDonald's and co. packing up and moving downtown just means longer commutes, and a tax bump/lower QoL from less corp tax revenue for the suburbs in general. But back to the money point, as long as these residents have jobs that enable them to live the suburban lifestyle - and even the impending squalor you predict won't change lifelong suburbanites to suddenly want to leave en masse - then you can bet they'll stay put.

Edit: I mean, I know you point that out in your last paragraph, but you're acting like some economic crisis/trend will force a major shift in the demographics and finances of the burbs. I don't see that happening as a prerequisite, no matter whether a portion of businesses ditch them or not.

[LouisVanDerWright]

You don't think Walgreens leaving Deerfield taking a million plus SF and dragging another million SF of vendors with them isn't an economic crisis for a city of that size? I mean if 2-3 million SF of office in Deerfield goes dark, there's gonna be more than "a minor tax bump" and that's not even getting into the economic consequences of losing that kind of commercial activity.

This isn't going to happen overnight, but it will happen overnight by historical standards. Over the course of two to three decades things are going to get much much worse for the burbs. And what will happen to a suburb once the tax base collapses or entrenched poverty sets in? It won't have the resources to service these kinds of issues once they arise. It's not like Chicago which limped along for decades (and still does) with stronger neighborhoods subsidizing and carrying the costs of addressing the issues of poorer parts of town. Once a suburb the size of Austin or Englewood fails like Austin or Englewood, it's over. They don't have the resources of a big city. I suspect Chicago will begin annexing suburbs again in the not too distant future when these problems truly begin to manifest themselves.

[Randomguy34]

Retail & private residence
https://s1.postimg.org/x0suu63r3/e499a30233784b1b8d44359d3a75e0e3.jpg
https://s9.postimg.org/v96codcun/eb55abd13e73471796161d50cd717fa5.jpg

This building received its permits yesterday. Who thought it was a good idea to make this a single family home?

[Rizzo]

I'm not into the whole "self destruct" opinion on the future of suburbs. But they should in a planning sense be nothing more than a compact "town center" of commercial retail and services ringed by residential that all have reasonable access to the city. The presence of these massive office building complexes and malls. It doesn't make sense...or at least it only did for a short period of time. It put far too much burden on governments to supply all that infrastructure.

[BrinChi]

Sorry, I thought money gives you a picket fence and a Ford? Some suburbs, in fact, don't have major corp headquarters or office parks and are for the most part residential (not that that isn't the point of the suburbs anyway). So McDonald's and co. packing up and moving downtown just means longer commutes, and a tax bump/lower QoL from less corp tax revenue for the suburbs in general. But back to the money point, as long as these residents have jobs that enable them to live the suburban lifestyle - and even the impending squalor you predict won't change lifelong suburbanites to suddenly want to leave en masse - then you can bet they'll stay put.


It won't happen right away, but most suburbs will end up like Cicero, Maywood, River Forest. These are even relatively dense suburbs. But urban density is the only way to sustainably enjoy affordable property taxes -- because you're essentially splitting the cost of the public infrastructure (roads, sewers, parks, libraries) with your neighbors. The initial costs were often highly subsidized by Federal stimulus monies to encourage growth an expansion. Suburbs like Oak Park and Evanston have seen the writing on the wall and are now building denser to ensure future sustainability.

More people will choose the city, even if they prefer a backyard, garage, etc..., if they have to pay the full costs of the suburban lifestyle.

see https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/6/14/greatest-hits-the-growth-ponzi-scheme

[ithakas]

This building received its permits yesterday. Who thought it was a good idea to make this a single family home?

It's almost identical to the SFH over the Starbucks a block north that one of the owners of Booth Hansen lived in for a long time.

[moorhosj]

They don't want to move into the city! They would rather have the slow, unchanging life of the suburbs instead of the fast life of the city. They would rather have a good school system than one in disrepair. They would rather have a home than rent. They would rather have a yard, and a car, than be stuck on some L train.

Current economic reality dictates that both parents in a family work. With this in mind, the time each one spends commuting becomes more and more valuable.

Living in the city may allow you to walk your child to school and still save 30 minutes a day commuting. You can now spend that time with your child (and not paying a nanny or daycare). If this causes more parents to stay in the city, the schools will naturally improve.

All of the other things you mention exist and are attainable in the city. To say otherwise is a misunderstanding of the size and diversity of Chicago.

[Mr Downtown]

Who thought it was a good idea to make [777 S Dearborn] a single family home?

The property owner.

[harryc]

This building received its permits yesterday. Who thought it was a good idea to make this a single family home?

For simple impress-your-friends impact, a Single family home at this location is quite the trump card.

[the urban politician]

The property owner.

:haha:

[the urban politician]

You don't think Walgreens leaving Deerfield taking a million plus SF and dragging another million SF of vendors with them isn't an economic crisis for a city of that size? I mean if 2-3 million SF of office in Deerfield goes dark, there's gonna be more than "a minor tax bump" and that's not even getting into the economic consequences of losing that kind of commercial activity.

This isn't going to happen overnight, but it will happen overnight by historical standards. Over the course of two to three decades things are going to get much much worse for the burbs. And what will happen to a suburb once the tax base collapses or entrenched poverty sets in? It won't have the resources to service these kinds of issues once they arise. It's not like Chicago which limped along for decades (and still does) with stronger neighborhoods subsidizing and carrying the costs of addressing the issues of poorer parts of town. Once a suburb the size of Austin or Englewood fails like Austin or Englewood, it's over. They don't have the resources of a big city. I suspect Chicago will begin annexing suburbs again in the not too distant future when these problems truly begin to manifest themselves.

Nothing in such absolutist terms like you prescribe will ever happen. The resilience of suburbia is such that they can revert to being bedroom communities if the major companies leave. Although it's silly to assume that every job should be downtown; any healthy region should have regional employment centers.

Sounds like you have spent practically zero time in Chicago's burbs and you just assume they are all just like Schaumburg and Rosemont. If the suburbs were all destroyed, Chicagoland would lose a vast, vast proportion of its prewar and urban/walkable TOD (and non-TOD) built environment. It's frankly preposterous that you take issue with whether or not such built environments are within a separate municipality than Chicago itself. It's meaningless tit for tat that I have more important things to do than care much about.

[Randomguy34]

The property owner.

Touché :)

[Bonsai Tree]

Current economic reality dictates that both parents in a family work. With this in mind, the time each one spends commuting becomes more and more valuable.

Living in the city may allow you to walk your child to school and still save 30 minutes a day commuting. You can now spend that time with your child (and not paying a nanny or daycare). If this causes more parents to stay in the city, the schools will naturally improve.

All of the other things you mention exist and are attainable in the city. To say otherwise is a misunderstanding of the size and diversity of Chicago.

I agree with you, but my ideas in general still stand. Ask nearly anyone in the suburbs and they will give you at least one of the things I mentioned as a reason for leaving (including work) the city. Commutes are a serious issue for many families, and I understand where you are coming from, but I think for many the preceding issues matter more than their commute. Chicago has a bad reputation for many people currently, which explains why people are leaving the city. People in the suburbs hear these terrible stories of violence and think "oh that must mean the whole city is violent", or they hear stories of CPS, and think, "I don't want to have my kid go there". Of course these are generalizations, but I think they hold true to the current sentiment in the suburbs. I know for a fact that some families would rather move to say Texas, than move into the city. It does't matter what Chicago can do for a family, if the family has no desire to move there.

Also, I think I know more about suburban sentiment than most people here

[Vlajos]

Current economic reality dictates that both parents in a family work. With this in mind, the time each one spends commuting becomes more and more valuable.

Living in the city may allow you to walk your child to school and still save 30 minutes a day commuting. You can now spend that time with your child (and not paying a nanny or daycare). If this causes more parents to stay in the city, the schools will naturally improve.

All of the other things you mention exist and are attainable in the city. To say otherwise is a misunderstanding of the size and diversity of Chicago.

I live in Lincoln Square, we own a single family home, two cars with a garage, have a cedar fence (not white), a back yard, our kids walk to school, and I'm downtown to work in 30-40 minutes by CTA.

Sounds awful, right?

Oh, and my kids elementary school is better than most suburban schools and my RE taxes are no where near as terrible as in the suburbs.

[moorhosj]

Also, I think I know more about suburban sentiment than most people here

I grew up in a suburb and have seen some friends move back after starting families, certainly many things you say are true. However, the city is mostly treading water on population while the suburbs are seeing actual population declines. The family already living in the suburbs would rather leave the state (for Arizona, Atlanta or Texas or other states where the suburbs are thriving like they were here in the 90s) than move into the city.

What I am talking about are the scores of younger couples (26-40 years old) who currently live in the city and are deciding between raising families in the city or the suburbs. These people care about commute times, day care and opportunity costs. It is these couples who take a neighborhood like Wicker Park from up-and-coming to stroller-central (with great public schools) in 5-10 years. This is happening even quicker in Logan Square, where I live.

I think you may have a misunderstanding of the demographic shifts happening in the city right now. It is getting more white, Hispanic and Asian. Meanwhile, waves of black residents are leaving which causes the overall population to stay mostly level.

[davytudope]

I just moved from Chicago to Tinley Park. I love Chicago and hope to return someday, but their were many reasons to move there. My wife is pregnant and a one bedroom apartment won't do anymore. She wanted a house. The cheapest one in Edgewater, where I just moved from, thats on Redfin currently costs $90k more than my new house. It's a "REHAB SPECIAL". It's smaller. Including property taxes, it costs $600/month more. My new house is in great condition and about 70 years newer. My commute to work downtown is only a few minutes longer. I wake up at the same time and get there a few minutes later. My wife works and goes to school in the suburbs, so her commute is shorter then it used to be. We will probably wake up less often to gunshots and screaming neighbors now. We will be closer to our friends and family, almost all of which live in the suburbs. Most are thinking of moving, but further away from Chicago.

[Vlajos]

I grew up in a suburb and have seen some friends move back after starting families, certainly many things you say are true. However, the city is mostly treading water on population while the suburbs are seeing actual population declines. The family already living in the suburbs would rather leave the state (for Arizona, Atlanta or Texas or other states where the suburbs are thriving like they were here in the 90s) than move into the city.

What I am talking about are the scores of younger couples (26-40 years old) who currently live in the city and are deciding between raising families in the city or the suburbs. These people care about commute times, day care and opportunity costs. It is these couples who take a neighborhood like Wicker Park from up-and-coming to stroller-central (with great public schools) in 5-10 years. This is happening even quicker in Logan Square, where I live.

I think you may have a misunderstanding of the demographic shifts happening in the city right now. It is getting more white, Hispanic and Asian. Meanwhile, waves of black residents are leaving which causes the overall population to stay mostly level.

Yep, homes in my hood that go on the market are almost entirely old retirees downsizing or even estate sales and the replacements are young families with kids.

[Kngkyle]

The suburbs vs city calculus will dramatically change as the post-war infrastructure wears and requires replacement. Suddenly you'll be paying a magnitude more in taxes than someone in the city and receiving less in services. People and businesses will vote with their feet, further reducing the tax base and increasing the burden on those that remain. It's a vicious cycle that can only be broken by either more subsidies or collapse of the local government and annexation by the city.

It's been decades in the making and will take at least a few more to play out. The wealthier suburbs with good transit connections will weather the storm but many more will not.

[moorhosj]

I just moved from Chicago to Tinley Park.

Tinley Park is served by a convenient Metra station making your commute nearly the same. Towns like Oak Brook, Elk Grove Village and Schaumburg are either unserved or under-served by Metra. I think this was kind of LVDW's point.

[harryc]

An interesting statement from some developers proposing a new tower in Oak Park. The METRA station has always been a big draw for this location (Forest/Lake), but now the Green Line is becoming even more important, with the growth of Fulton Market and the Morgan Station.

[chrisvfr800i]

No one is proposing sending all jobs in the suburbs out of state. What I am saying is good-riddance. There is no reason for communities like Algonquin or Schaumburg to exist beyond sheer government subsidy of the automobile. These areas are highly inefficient and a drag on the metro. All uses in these areas that can efficiently move downtown should move there, it benefits the user and it benefits the metro. Am I proposing that we level all suburbs? Obviously not.

The suburbs will not cease to exist, but the fairy tale of the good ole day small towne that is actually a horrendous suburban mess consisting of Walmarts and tract housing is dead. There will be a handful of premium suburbs that survive, just as there was a handful of premium urban neighborhoods that survived. The rest are destined for the trash heap as the depreciation cycle leaves whole sections of the suburbs in disrepair just as it did with entire sections of the city. Except the housing stock and basic reason for existence of these places simply is not as resilient as the inner city neighborhoods. Places like Lawndale continue to stand strong despite decades of abuse. Subject a 70's kitschville like Bloomingdale to the same abuse and watch how quickly the paper mache turns to sludge.

And yes, this is good for Chicagoland. I'm not saying kick the businesses in such places out, I'm saying watch as the market continues to transplant them to the charred grounds of the industrial wastelands of the city which lie fertile a prairie after a wildfire. Takeda isn't shifting jobs to Boston because the suburbs are collapsing as you admit, but because our government sucks. One of the big reasons it sucks it total decentralization of government and redundant governing bodies. How do we reduce this? Bring the suburbs to their knees and force them to annex to Chicago.

The suburban economy will adapt as well. There is no shortage of industrial demand in the suburbs right now. If residents move into the city or office parks go vacant great, there apparently wasn't lasting demand for garbage office buildings and shitty ranch homes. Raze them and build high cube distribution space.

Oh and in response to Mr. DT. I couldn't give less of a shit about "the ordinary taxpayers of Deerfield". I mean really? I couldn't find a group of people who I pity less. Take all of the office users in the entirety of Deerfield which is wildly inefficient and probably a detrimental to those users and move them downtown. When the Deerfield taxpayers suffer, then they can move into the city themselves where they don't have to pay for a bunch of spread out infrastructure that will only get exponentially more expensive to maintain as it ages to 50, 60, or 70 years. It makes no sense, period. There does not need to be one 300,000 SF building every quarter mile with huge swaths of parking surrounding them. That is not a rational or efficient development model. If Walgreens goes downtown, then the exact same thing will happen to that campus as happened to the South Barrington Allstate campus: here comes the wrecking ball. Then they can rezone it for biomedical research facilities or something like that which actually needs to have huge open spaces to be efficient. Maybe reasonable land use in the surrounding areas will keep Takeda from moving out...

Jesus, your clarifying comments are a thousand times worse than the original!! "..No reason to exist.." "..bring to their knees.." "..force them to annex.." REALLY? scratch an Urbanist...find a Stalinist!!

[marothisu]

Demolition permit was issued yesterday for the 3 story building at 1968 N Milwaukee Ave (Milwaukee and Armitage, basically). This is the site where Clayco is going to develop an 8 story TOD building with 132 units. It's near the Western Blue Line stop. Currently it's mostly surface lot so this is going to be a big improvement for the area regardless (https://www.google.com/maps/place/1968+N+Milwaukee+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60647/@41.917544,-87.6886095,3a,75y,180.81h,88.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suuzRGpk29_ykI4c4jCK5xw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x880fd2981ba340c3:0x262d9b8e02b9e74b!8m2!3d41.917114!4d-87.6881927)

Interestingly enough, that building that got the demo permit was supposed to be saved with renderings showing it. Not sure if this is just some partial demolition or if they are now saying screw it to the building.

Source: https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/us/1968-n-milwaukee-avenue
https://d2kcmk0r62r1qk.cloudfront.net/imageSponsors/xlarge/2016_12_19_11_26_22_clayco_1980_n_milwaukee_renderinng.jpg

[LouisVanDerWright]

Lol, yes saying the suburbs will collapse when forced to stand on their own without government subsidy = Stalinism. Great deduction!

Demolition permit was issued yesterday for the 3 story building at 1968 N Milwaukee Ave (Milwaukee and Armitage, basically). This is the site where Clayco is going to develop an 8 story TOD building with 132 units. It's near the Western Blue Line stop. Currently it's mostly surface lot so this is going to be a big improvement for the area regardless (https://www.google.com/maps/place/1968+N+Milwaukee+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60647/@41.917544,-87.6886095,3a,75y,180.81h,88.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suuzRGpk29_ykI4c4jCK5xw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x880fd2981ba340c3:0x262d9b8e02b9e74b!8m2!3d41.917114!4d-87.6881927)

Interestingly enough, that building that got the demo permit was supposed to be saved with renderings showing it. Not sure if this is just some partial demolition or if they are now saying screw it to the building.

Source: https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/us/1968-n-milwaukee-avenue
https://d2kcmk0r62r1qk.cloudfront.net/imageSponsors/xlarge/2016_12_19_11_26_22_clayco_1980_n_milwaukee_renderinng.jpg

They are already gearing up on site. Looks like a facadectomy.

[left of center]

They are already gearing up on site. Looks like a facadectomy.

Very glad to hear. With all the new infill going up in Wicker/Bucktown/Logan Sq, it would be a shame to lose a lot of the built environment that made these neighborhoods popular to begin with.

[the urban politician]

I always love it when construction companies serve as developers. Seems like it would be a natural fit, but surprisingly not enough firms apparently do it.

[marothisu]

They are already gearing up on site. Looks like a facadectomy.

Good to hear. Facadectomy - similar to what they did for the Viceroy?

[Rizzo]

The viceroy facade had to be taken offsite and repaired / cleaned. I'm assuming this one will stay in place.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Yes, it looks to me like they will just stabilize the facade and build the new building behind it.

[chrisvfr800i]

[QUOTE=LouisVanDerWright;7870163]Lol, yes saying the suburbs will collapse when forced to stand on their own without government subsidy = Stalinism. Great deduction!



Obviously I am referring to your apparent desire to use the government to force people to live in a way you support...which, oh by the way, is an existence heavily reliant on government subsidy, too.

[10023]

Yes, it looks to me like they will just stabilize the facade and build the new building behind it.
This is done everywhere in Europe, of course. Due to wartime bombing, the vast majority of old buildings you see in London are not old on the inside. Only the facades have been preserved, and the interiors are periodically rebuilt.

For example:

http://www.costar.co.uk/Global/Building%20images/20%20Grosvenor%20Square.jpg

https://www.buildington.co.uk/images/projects/7c805f626ee921e2948af4355724ebbd.400x300.png

[LouisVanDerWright]

Obviously I am referring to your apparent desire to use the government to force people to live in a way you support...which, oh by the way, is an existence heavily reliant on government subsidy, too.

When did I ever say anything about having the government do this? I'm proposing that local governments will collapse as private markets revert to the historical mean of central cities being the most attractive real estate in a city. The government created the suburbs with eminent domain, "slum" clearance, construction of freeways, and other policies that fanned the flames of white flight. Now the city has sprawled as far outwards as practically possible and the same economic forces that once trained their attention on suburban greenfield sites is focusing back on this inner city. Many suburbs are screwed and will become the new slums just as many inner city neighborhoods collapsed when their middle or upper middle class populations (and businesses) left for the suburbs. The government has nothing to do with this, the only thing I've said about this is that governments in the burbs may very well collapse as their tax base is eviscerated or as problems due to poverty outgrow their ability to address them.

[the urban politician]

^ Many of Chicago's neighborhoods were once suburbs. Suburbs were being built when people were going about by horse and buggy, and they will still be built. The car had nothing to do with suburbs being built.

Yes, the most prime real estate is the city center, which it should be. But that doesn't mean everything else will choke and die, even though you may wish for it to be so.

[Khantilever]

The car had nothing to do with suburbs being built.


Are you serious?

Urban economist Ed Glaeser writes in a review of the literature (http://www.econ.brown.edu/Faculty/henderson/sprawl.pdf): "Suburbia, edge cities and sprawl are all the natural, inexorable, result of the technological dominance of the automobile."

And a very clever and highly-regarded paper showing the effect of highways on suburbanization: Did Highways Cause Suburbanization? (https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/122/2/775/1942140/Did-Highways-Cause-Suburbanization)

[the urban politician]

^ Many of Chicago's neighborhoods were once suburbs.

Sprawly, auto-oriented suburbs are the result of the car, but not suburbs themselves.

[Mr Downtown]

It's pretty silly to claim that suburbs resulted from auto ownership. Hints: Evanston, Elmwood Park, Oak Park, River Forest, Elmhurst, Cicero, Berwyn, Riverside, Summit, Blue Island. And, of course, Rogers Park, Lake View, Jefferson, Norwood Park, Edison Park, Austin, Town of Lake, Morgan Park, Fernwood, Gano, Hyde Park, South Chicago.

I was much impressed recently by Elaine Lewinnek's book, The Working Man's Reward, a study of Chicago's 19th century move to the suburbs.

[Rizzo]

It's pretty silly to claim that suburbs resulted from auto ownership. Hints: Evanston, Elmwood Park, Oak Park, River Forest, Elmhurst, Cicero, Berwyn, Riverside, Summit, Blue Island. And, of course, Rogers Park, Lake View, Jefferson, Norwood Park, Edison Park, Austin, Town of Lake, Morgan Park, Fernwood, Gano, Hyde Park, South Chicago.

I was much impressed recently by Elaine Lewinnek's book, The Working Man's Reward, a study of Chicago's 19th century move to the suburbs.

No.

Most modern postwar suburbs that had accelerated growth the last half of the century flourished ONLY because of automobile ownership and convenience. It made those suburbs practical to expand without having to intensify public transportation Having a rail station only reinforced their success. Cut out the rail station and they'd still survive.

Also consider there's more cities outside of Chicago where mobility is exclusively reliant on the car....like the 4.5 million suburban residents of Detroit

[Kumdogmillionaire]

^ Many of Chicago's neighborhoods were once suburbs. Suburbs were being built when people were going about by horse and buggy, and they will still be built. The car had nothing to do with suburbs being built.

Yes, the most prime real estate is the city center, which it should be. But that doesn't mean everything else will choke and die, even though you may wish for it to be so.

This is objectively just wrong top to bottom, and the real kicker is your statement that the car had nothing to do with suburbs being built. They had everything to with suburbs being built, and for the existence of sprawl in the southwest and sunbelt regions. You really need a history lesson on the influence that automobile lobbying groups had on the development of suburban America. You are either very young and haven't taken any urban politics courses(ironic for your name), or are just going senile.

[the urban politician]

^ Dude, relax. I read all that stuff long ago (GM buying all the streetcar systems and dismantling them to support buses), the fossil fuel lobby, etc etc. I schooled myself on that stuff over a decade ago.

Nothing anybody here says changes a damn thing I'm saying because I'm making a simple point that continues to remain salient--suburbs--or let's call them "collar communities", have existed and developed long before the automobile. You have already been given many examples in Chicago alone.

Suburban growth is how cities like New York and Chicago grew to begin with. The only difference now is the lack of annexation, which was more common in those days. And I still don't see mass annexation making a comeback any time soon.

[emathias]

Of course you're all right, insofar as you go.

It is probably most correct to say that transportation technology enabled the rise of suburbs.

Before the 1930s, suburbs were fueled by commuter rail. This was true in cities from as diverse a collection as Chicago, New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul, Berlin, St. Petersburg, Philadelphia, Sydney, several Chinese cities (especially in Manchuria when occupied by Japan), several Indian cities, Toronto, Buenos Aires, etc. Most of the suburbs created by or supplemented by rail service were built for a human, pedestrian-driven environment much like the larger cities they connected to. This was out of necessity since people had to be able to get to the train station for it to be useful.

With the democratization of the automobile starting in the 1920s the stage was set for a new style of suburb. The Great Depression and then the Second World War delayed the practical implementation of this new paradigm, but once World War Two ended and soldiers returned home, scores of new families wanted quiet, clean neighborhoods with their own house and a yard to be enjoyed within the private confines of the family. Initially many of these suburbs were still built fairly densely because it was assumed they would still make use of the commuter rail system for commuting, but as expressways enabled fast access to city centers and those with car discovered the speed and convenience of the point-to-point travel the automobile enabled, pedestrian access to commuter rail became to be seen as unnecessary and antiquated. Neighborhoods, subdivisions, and entire new suburbs were suddenly built in a way that not only enabled the automobile but suddenly required it. This was largely seen as inevitable and the future of transportation, with little heed given to the consequences and eventual inconvenience that mandatory participation in the age of the automobile would bring.

As the inevitable congestion and limitations of the automobile finally becoming unavoidably apparent, various localities began to realize that in their rush to embrace the automobile they'd ignored its limitations and slowly they started taking steps to reign in the ubiquity of cars. Some regions have been better at doing this than others, but there is at least a near-universal understanding that planning on 100% use of automobiles for transportation isn't possible, let alone desirable. BRT, expansion of commuter rail, creation and expansion of light rail systems have all had an impact on at least providing as an option communities with transportation choice, no longer assuming that 100% automobile dependency is desirable.

With the advent of autonomous automobiles, it will be interesting to see how communities adapt to yet another transportation technology. There are ways it will impact community design that we know of, but there will probably be unforeseen impacts, too. Some of these may be new uses that are surprisingly helpful, and some maybe situations that turn out to be far more negative than we can currently predict.

One thing is certain - transportation technology drives a constant evolution of how we live. Desired density will ebb and flow, with desired attributes of transportation constantly adapting to both practical and opinion-based considerations.

[Khantilever]

^ Many of Chicago's neighborhoods were once suburbs.

Sprawly, auto-oriented suburbs are the result of the car, but not suburbs themselves.

When we're talking about "the suburbs", we're referring more to Schaumburg, Oakbrook, and Naperville (and the many townships and villages around them) - not the classic bedroom communities of Oak Park and Evanston, and certainly not everything that at any time could have been considered a suburb.

"Suburbanization", in particular, refers to the rapid period of growth in outlying areas and the emptying of central cities in the post-war period.

[the urban politician]

^ Ok, go ahead and invent your own terminology then. Makes for a very useful discussion

[Khantilever]

^ Ok, go ahead and invent your own terminology then. Makes for a very useful discussion

It's not about inventing terminology. You're being disingenuous when you pretend not to understand what everyone is referring to when they say "suburbs".

If I were to talk about "modern" architecture, and point out an example from the '50s, you would understand that even though the building is not "of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past" (Merriam-Webster) it is a modern building in the sense of the movement and historical period.

Regardless, your point is perfectly valid that in the more general sense "suburbanization" is the process by which all urban areas grow; the fringes are slowly populated until they're eventually subsumed by the city.

[LouisVanDerWright]

When a city is not seeing population growth there is no reason to expand borders. All of the world's great cities have gone through multiple periods of slow or negative growth. This is how cities mature. Chicago was built "suburban" style from day one, it's just that the technologies changed and then the city boomed creating a distinct growth ring from the post war period that is colloquially known as the suburbs. This doesn't include pre war communities that were built as an extension of the city grid. If you go far enough back technically all of Chicago besides the loop is a suburb which is just a rediculous way of looking at things.

The interesting point you make is that places like Lawndale or Austin were built in very much the same fashion as the mid century and later suburbs we are talking about. They were built in a matter of years on green field sites and all the buildings therefore share a synched depreciation cycle. This is also a big part of why the neighborhoods took such a spill. Everything was the same age and there wasnowhere to build anything new. So people left for the next green field in the burbs. Now there's a little space and a lot of character so these older urban areas are ripe for eventual redevelopment. The suburbs built in 1950-70 are now where Lawndale, built in the 1900's and 1910's, was in 1950 or 1960. Everything is old, Everything needs work, everything is out of style. The later burbs from the 1980's or 1970's when building quality really started to fall off are catching up quick.

[Swicago Swi Sox]

I think you would all find this article and video about the difference between the growth of American cities and European cities interesting and relevant to the current on-going discussion/argument.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/why-are-american-cities-so-much-different-than-european-1788196723

[harryc]

July 19
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4294/36011636146_cbaa973789_h.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4329/36011634836_291203ff97_h.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4293/36011633836_bb8228db6d_h.jpg

[Kumdogmillionaire]

I schooled myself on that stuff over a decade ago.



Well that's your first problem, and biggest. You clearly don't have a properly nuanced understanding of white-flight, suburbanization(as someone else mentioned), Eisenhower's creation of the massive highway system, and the explosion of the automobile industry all at once. That perfect storm is why suburbs helped kill the city, and not the city losing growth first as one other user seemed to imply...

[Rocket49]

Well that's your first problem, and biggest. You clearly don't have a properly nuanced understanding of white-flight, suburbanization(as someone else mentioned), Eisenhower's creation of the massive highway system, and the explosion of the automobile industry all at once. That perfect storm is why suburbs helped kill the city, and not the city losing growth first as one other user seemed to imply...

Chicago's suburbs have, at some point, killed our city? I guess you could say certain south side and west side neighborhoods are on life support.

But where I live in Old Town our neighborhood is very much alive and flourishing

Also Chicago's white population has actually been increasing the past few years.

It's been black flight that has been by far the biggest factor in Chicago's population decline the past 20 years

[the urban politician]

Well that's your first problem, and biggest. You clearly don't have a properly nuanced understanding of white-flight, suburbanization(as someone else mentioned), Eisenhower's creation of the massive highway system, and the explosion of the automobile industry all at once. That perfect storm is why suburbs helped kill the city, and not the city losing growth first as one other user seemed to imply...

Of course I understand these things. Any idiot who grew up in America and who visits SSP (especially those of us who've been on this forum 13 years) knows these issues inside out.

What the hell are you getting at? My point is so damn basic that I think you are missing it simply because you are overthinking this topic. I'm just saying that the existence of suburbs is NOT a post-car phenomenon. I'm not interested in igniting a civil rights/racial discussion because I'm not trying to go there--it's you all who are doing that.

[Mr Downtown]

You clearly don't have a properly nuanced understanding of white-flight, suburbanization(as someone else mentioned), Eisenhower's creation of the massive highway system, and the explosion of the automobile industry all at once.

Clearly it's you who needs to do more reading; this is the comic-book version of urban history. We began creating suburbs in the 1820s, had blue-collar suburbs in the 1870s, auto-oriented subdivisions spreading into DuPage and the Skokie Valley by the 1920s, were building superhighways in the 1930s. Eisenhower had very little to do with the Interstate system, and General Motors had nothing to do with the demise of streetcars.

I recommend Ann Durkin Keating's Building Chicago, the aforementioned The Working Man's Reward, and Bob Bruegmann's book Sprawl: A Compact History. Or the "Suburbs" entry I wrote for the Encyclopedia of American Urban History.

[SolarWind]

July 18, 2017

http://i.imgur.com/01plpxy.jpg

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

[SolarWind]

July 18, 2017

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

[SolarWind]

July 18, 2017

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

http://i.imgur.com/ZL13OML.jpg

[SolarWind]

July 19, 2017

http://i.imgur.com/uEL1Fxs.jpg

[SolarWind]

July 19, 2017

http://i.imgur.com/rGdBBk1.jpg

[SolarWind]

July 19, 2017

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

[SolarWind]

July 19, 2017

http://i.imgur.com/7wlBBoi.jpg

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

[the urban politician]

^ That thing will be rad if they keep the facade black

[harryc]

July 10
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4309/35932851121_dc014abe89_h.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4310/35257090683_2d46720031_h.jpg

July 19
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4315/35932850611_b616803ad8_h.jpg

[maru2501]

LDS no spire?

[harryc]

LDS no spire?

There is the support for a spire - a real heavy spire.
March 9
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3796/32592011443_671849d540_b.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4320/35896601782_3500bcb32b_h.jpg

[maru2501]

cool. I recall a tall one in one render

[emathias]

^ That thing will be rad if they keep the facade black

It would have to be the Church of Latter-Day Satanists for that to happen ...

[ChiHi]

Saw that the corner lot at 9th and Wabash was starting to get torn up and some soil sampling rigs were out the last 2 days. Believe this was that 5 story Columbia College building.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

"Chicago's suburbs have, at some point, killed our city? I guess you could say certain south side and west side neighborhoods are on life support.

But where I live in Old Town our neighborhood is very much alive and flourishing

Also Chicago's white population has actually been increasing the past few years.

It's been black flight that has been by far the biggest factor in Chicago's population decline the past 20 years"

Whoa whoa, don't misinterpret what I'm saying. All one has to do is look at the population trends of the city and you can see what I'm talking about when I say "killed the city". The city is absolutely good looking right now, but the majority of land is along the Southside which was struck by white-flight and (still is stuck by) depopulation and underutilization the hardest. Obviously OldTown is doing well, it's one of the nicest neighborhoods in the city. That would be like expecting the Gold Coast, or Lakeview to die.

"Clearly it's you who needs to do more reading; this is the comic-book version of urban history. We began creating suburbs in the 1820s, had blue-collar suburbs in the 1870s, auto-oriented subdivisions spreading into DuPage and the Skokie Valley by the 1920s, were building superhighways in the 1930s. Eisenhower had very little to do with the Interstate system, and General Motors had nothing to do with the demise of streetcars."

Had to stop when you said Eisenhower had very little to do with the Interstate system...lol Interesting revisionist history. By expanding highways not just in Chicago but all around the US he enabled people not just to flee to the Chicago suburbs but to suburbs everywhere that were even cheaper. Again, the car killed the city, and it is just now coming back to life in relatively recent history.

[Busy Bee]

There are varying academic opinions on how much Eisenhower should or should not get credit (or blame) for the IHS and whether his first hand experience in Germany has anything to do with the vision since there were existing parkways and such in the US at the time already. What I have heard though is that Eisenhower was shocked and originally objected to the highway planners intention to ram the expressways right through the center of cities and not have peripheral routings skirting or around urban areas as one would see in Europe. Oh how American history could have been much much different...

[emathias]

676 N Lasalle. Cedar Street Flats
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4297/36074815645_37c4bbe796_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/WXNRS6)
July 21, 2017 (https://flic.kr/p/WXNRS6) by me (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericmathiasen/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4326/36034887356_2bc5cc6bb6_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/WUhdzj)
July 21, 2017 (https://flic.kr/p/WUhdzj) by me (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericmathiasen/), on

[Rizzo]

I was waiting to see some good shots of this from emathias

[Kumdogmillionaire]

So true Busy Bee, but instead we have basically no Little Italy thanks to Daley...

[denizen467]

^ So are you now understanding what Mr Downtown was trying to tell you?

------


FLATS River North - 676 N LaSalle

Is this really by FLATS, the budget apartment rehabber with a spotty record? On LaSalle Street?? Surprised to see that happen. I hope they pull off something decent.
The future of the LaSalle corridor in River North is still very much a blank slate, it would be nice if there was some plan or direction for it to take going forward. With State Street being pretty narrow and choked (it probably needs to become one-way), LaSalle is essentially serves as the grand boulevard for the area, and it also has the CBOT vista. It's probably lucky that it's the last place that River North tower development is spreading to, converging from west and east. The fact there's a 70s style rug shop at 700 north is amusing but it won't be there for long.

------

Is anybody witnessing the events at Pokepalooza today? I wonder if the bandwidth trainwreck could be a good opportunity for lots of visitors to end up roaming the Riverwalk and discovering all kinds of other parts of the city.

[the urban politician]

I sat in front of BVictor today for 75 minutes, he is an absolutely brilliant architecture tour guide, knocked it out of the park.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Both of my comments don't have to be mutually exclusive to both be right though denizen....

[harryc]

July 22
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4323/36057194176_d3b883dc92_h.jpg

Fabbris - Sells pizza rounds in bulk - the foundation for 100s of Gingerbread houses over the years (at Hatch school).
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4325/36097419625_09a873a5a3_h.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4296/36097411345_24468ec521_h.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4307/35965029211_5ff8b4fdaf_h.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4321/35965017101_1ca38fa026_h.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4318/36097404325_eb8a6cb17f_k.jpg

[emathias]

I was waiting to see some good shots of this from emathias

If you want close-ups of anything in particular from this angle, just let me know.

[emathias]

I sat in front of BVictor today for 75 minutes, he is an absolutely brilliant architecture tour guide, knocked it out of the park.

My parents got to see him a few weeks ago and really enjoyed it!

[emathias]

... The fact there's a 70s style rug shop at 700 north is amusing but it won't be there for long. ...


I kinda like that little building, for what it is, it's actually pretty smartly designed. Not that I expect it to resist market forces for much longer, though.

Speaking of market forces, I wonder how long Catholic Charities can justify sitting on a gold mine instead of cashing out of their building on Huron and parking lot on Erie to better support their mission. And now that HoJo is gone, pressure must be building on Ohio House.

Once south of Chicago is built out, I wonder if Moody would sell their grassy knoll to enable a solid streetscape and raise some funds.

[harryc]

July 22
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4314/36098648855_e368f7ef14_h.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4324/36098650195_c66a922646_h.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4308/36098652435_97e7c2f0a8_h.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4299/36098660585_9a106418d4_h.jpg

[harryc]

July 19
Pulling into Morgan Station
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4315/36106538275_c04f035426_h.jpg

July 22
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4314/36106509265_7c636a02da_h.jpg

in context - CA Aberdeen in yellow - 1035 VanBuren peeking over the trees.
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4307/36106522615_d80e282f1f_h.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4291/36106528765_d4ac0659eb_h.jpg

BRICK !
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4296/35298608433_13062fc467_h.jpg

And more to come
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4301/35266719604_91c25e024b_k.jpg

[the urban politician]

Was in the West Loop last night. It's a strange place right now. Still pretty quiet once you get off Randolph, but you get this feeling that it's just about to take off

[harryc]

Was in the West Loop last night. It's a strange place right now. Still pretty quiet once you get off Randolph, but you get this feeling that it's just about to take off

That cantina next to the Morgan station was rocking yesterday. Sounded like summer break in Daytona beach.

[VKChaz]

I kinda like that little building, for what it is, it's actually pretty smartly designed. Not that I expect it to resist market forces for much longer, though.

Speaking of market forces, I wonder how long Catholic Charities can justify sitting on a gold mine instead of cashing out of their building on Huron and parking lot on Erie to better support their mission. And now that HoJo is gone, pressure must be building on Ohio House.

Once south of Chicago is built out, I wonder if Moody would sell their grassy knoll to enable a solid streetscape and raise some funds.

Or perhaps Moody could develop a proper quadrangle-green space for their students (and the neighborhood).
No idea what, if anything, CC would be planning but I believe they provide services out of that location so that could be a consideration. It is also a central location for their employees to access. If they would left, all that needs to be replaced in an appropriate location.

[spyguy]

North & Clark - redesign
https://s10.postimg.org/agvyngutl/image.jpg
https://s10.postimg.org/eskkch1qh/image.jpg
https://s10.postimg.org/56qzw6akp/image.jpg
https://s10.postimg.org/jsi0kf7d5/image.jpg

[J_M_Tungsten]

Wow, that is definitely an improvement over "ye olde" design that was there before. I just hope it happens this decade

[the urban politician]

Yep, this looks way better

[intrepidDesign]

I don't think that's brick. If you look closely you can see the distressing pattern clearly repeat in some of the "bricks". It doesn't look bad. I just question what the material actually is.

[LouisVanDerWright]

I don't think that's brick. If you look closely you can see the distressing pattern clearly repeat in some of the "bricks". It doesn't look bad. I just question what the material actually is.

It's precast with brick inlay. Those are real bricks, just cut in half and laid in the form before they pour the panel. Not as cool as "real brick", but still has the pleasant effects we are all interested in. This is a proper way of using precast unlike the "ye olde limestone block" style of OBP et. al..