CHICAGO | General Developments

[VivaLFuego]

I think this is a case where Arson could be a good thing... If the hospital were to burn to the ground, wouldn't they be forced to reconsider their "preservation". Or would the morons try to reconstruct it in the name of history...

"Preservation" was only a ploy in their scattergun approach hoping something would stick.

In the end, they won with the dry vote. So if it burned down, it would be an empty lot eyesore, rather than a dilapidated hospital eyesore. That said, there is nice zoning on this site (FAR 5.0), so if Hairston played ball and let a proposal sail through the Lakefront Protection Ordinance extortion stage of the approval process, we could potentially be blessed with a highrise designed to maximize the blockage of light and air available to the adjacent Vista Homes.

More likely, this will become yet another ages-old rotting monument to Hyde Park's crippling NIMBYism, joining many other stunted redevelopment sites slowly sucking ever more life from the neighborhood.

One of the biggest residential booms in the city in decades and decades from 2000-2007, and Hyde Park got... what done, exactly? They streetscaped some of 53rd Street. There were a few townhouse developments in the late 1990s. Bravo. Still losing residents and residences - and with them will follow ever more business.

[honte]

I think they're trying to play with volume and mass. Maybe they should take a look at the Geotz Collection (http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/P/P77/P77935_9.jpg) by HdeM or the LAGA HQ (http://architourist.pbwiki.com/LAGA+Headquarters) by our very own VDT for some better inspiration?

(I carried this conversation over here from Boom Rundown because the building in question isn't really a highrise yet.)

I'm sure they are... that's a fine game to play. Your examples are good ones.

The execution here appears terrible. The materials are weak, the massing is weak, the form is unexciting, etc. It looks like a medical office building in Burr Ridge with a big atrium sliced through the center.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

(I carried this conversation over here from Boom Rundown because the building in question isn't really a highrise yet.)

I'm sure they are... that's a fine game to play. Your examples are good ones.

The execution here appears terrible. The materials are weak, the massing is weak, the form is unexciting, etc. It looks like a medical office building in Burr Ridge with a big atrium sliced through the center.

See, to me it looks like they've "adaptively reused" a pre-existing medical office building. ;) Who are the architects? I get the impression that they're more familiar with office parks than design of this caliber; you can see they're trying but falling way short...

[emathias]

...
Some pictures of inside the hospital too: http://hydeparkprogress.blogspot.com/2008/01/inside-drs-hospital-see-what-youre.html
A real gem for the neighborhood.
...

Out of curiosity, has the radiological equipment in those photos been stripped of its radioactive sources? In Brazil looting of an old hospital resulted in one of the most serious radioactive contaminations in history. And one could always throw in the old "dirty bomb" terrorist threat angle, too.

Seriously, have those been properly mitigated?

[Nowhereman1280]

SCB is the architect of the new Loyola SBA building...

[Jibba]

^Hmmm...not sure how big a fan I am of SCB's seeming monopoly on projects these days...

[ardecila]

^^ Eh. They deliver consistently-good modern designs, and I'm sure that their gigantic size allows them to go from concept to construction drawings quickly and inexpensively.

They also have a long history in Chicago - they go back to the 1950s, at least - and they have produced some gorgeous results, like 340 OTP and Parkview West.

[Jibba]

^Fair enough. I guess I just find them unengaging and a bit cold. Perhaps sterile and safe would be better descriptors. Never the less, it makes for comfortably predictable designs that don't really offend and don't really please.

[BVictor1]

^ That actually passed?

This is one preservation battle I just can't identify with... I think the building is unremarkable, and the site could be much better served by a higher-density use. Now this fight is having ramifications far beyond its target, and could backfire quite easily. Battles like this don't help the preservation cause very much in my opinion.


While the building isn't architecturally special, it has some nice brick work and it plays nicely with Hyde Park High down the street. While I'm a fan of development and highrises, this is one building i'd like to see saved.

Now when I say "saved", I don't mean to say that major changes should be allowed. I think this is a great candidate for a facadectomy. I don't know exactly how deep the site is, but I just have a feeling that if it's torn down, whatever replaces it will be fugly.

[VivaLFuego]

Now when I say "saved", I don't mean to say that major changes should be allowed. I think this is a great candidate for a facadectomy. I don't know exactly how deep the site is, but I just have a feeling that if it's torn down, whatever replaces it will be fugly.

Facedectomy would be the only option - see the link to interior pictures posted previously.

It actually is a pretty deep site, and I think at least a partial facadectomy would work -BUT it would necessarily be paired with a taller tower rising behind since it would be set back from the street so far.

Of course I'm fine with that, but the mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers on Harper Ave or in Vista Homes would be rendered apoplectic by the mere suggestion of a 15-minute shadow being cast on their beloved backyards that are already shaded by the elevated railroad embankment.

[BVictor1]

Facedectomy would be the only option - see the link to interior pictures posted previously.

It actually is a pretty deep site, and I think at least a partial facadectomy would work -BUT it would necessarily be paired with a taller tower rising behind since it would be set back from the street so far.

Of course I'm fine with that, but the mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers on Harper Ave or in Vista Homes would be rendered apoplectic by the mere suggestion of a 15-minute shadow being cast on their beloved backyards that are already shaded by the elevated railroad embankment.

I saw the images of the interior before I commented

Screw them and their fear of shadows

[honte]

Facedectomy would be the only option - see the link to interior pictures posted previously.


Well, even though I don't really think it's a noteworthy piece of architecture, in all fairness this is a shallow argument. I guess you've never done much rehab work, but all of the things showing in the images were cosmetic or, if structural, likely very minor. I saw no evidence whatsoever that the building could not be renovated.

[wrab]

The Economist has a new article up on Chicago:

The spotlight beckons
Nov 13th 2008 | CHICAGO
From The Economist print edition
Barack Obama’s ascendancy portends America’s third city’s, too

Television sets across the world showed a vast sea of people, young and old, black and white, dancing and crying and cheering. In the background stretched a twinkling skyline with “Vote 2008” and “USA” spelled out in lights......The city, still buzzing from the election, is now wondering what comes next.....Chicago is in many ways ready for the spotlight....

-----

Continue reading at:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12608241

[VivaLFuego]

Well, even though I don't really think it's a noteworthy piece of architecture, in all fairness this is a shallow argument. I guess you've never done much rehab work, but all of the things showing in the images were cosmetic or, if structural, likely very minor. I saw no evidence whatsoever that the building could not be renovated.

What's worth saving? I find the argument that any of that interior is worth saving rather shallow, so it's an unuseful exercise to force a study of reuse when the developer has a plan to put the land to good use as a hotel - and that interior offers nothing of any value whatsoever to a hotel use. Even if ripping out the dropped ceiling reveals some nice crown moldings, or gutting the bathrooms uncover some nice tilework, none of these would contribute to an economically viable hotel development. By all means look at re-using the facade, but there is probably .01% of the interior worth saving, and that can be salvaged and re-used in some new context other than something that could be considered "preservation of the interior."

Fair enough, though: a dilapidated moldy interior alone does not necessitate that a building is completely unsalvagable or unrestorable. If the developer were seeking to restore this into an active hospital, it could likely be accomplished without complete demolition.

[ardecila]

^^ I'm sorry? The inside can be stripped without performing a facadectomy. Basically, you would just strip the building of all interior partitions.

Also, the stuff you see from Stony Island does not go all the way back to the IC embankment. There are several wings that jut out of the back, including a power plant and other utilitarian structures difficult to re-use. If these were demolished, it would allow for a hotel tower to be erected in a very sizable backlot, with the classical brick buildings preserved up front to use as ballroom and meeting space. Plus, this extremely wide frontage building could have a portion divided into condos, and the building would screen a possible parking garage in the back of the site.

The porte-cochere, to me, makes the building seem quite hotel-like. The green space surrounding the circular drive can be re-landscaped in a much more pedestrian-friendly and inviting way.

[honte]

What's worth saving? ...

Well, from what I've seen, essentially nothing.

I was merely commenting on the argument that dilapidation = need to demolish, which we do hear quite frequently from developers. I thought it was worth a small interjection on that point, although in general I am in agreement with you on this issue.

[VivaLFuego]

I was merely commenting on the argument that dilapidation = need to demolish, which we do hear quite frequently from developers.

Yes, true enough, and looking back at my previous posts that's a worthwhile clarification.


^^ I'm sorry? The inside can be stripped without performing a facadectomy. Basically, you would just strip the building of all interior partitions.

Also, the stuff you see from Stony Island does not go all the way back to the IC embankment. There are several wings that jut out of the back, including a power plant and other utilitarian structures difficult to re-use. If these were demolished, it would allow for a hotel tower to be erected in a very sizable backlot, with the classical brick buildings preserved up front to use as ballroom and meeting space. Plus, this extremely wide frontage building could have a portion divided into condos, and the building would screen a possible parking garage in the back of the site.

The porte-cochere, to me, makes the building seem quite hotel-like. The green space surrounding the circular drive can be re-landscaped in a much more pedestrian-friendly and inviting way.

I think we're in agreement - the front facade could certainly be re-used to good effect, but it's difficult to imagine anything behind it playing any role in a future hotel. It's a deep enough site that losing the setback space isn't an issue if you make up for it with a taller tower to reach the same FAR and key count for the hotel.

Of course, this is all academic since the NIMBYs have apparently succeeded in killing the project in the near future anyway.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

The Economist has a new article up on Chicago:

The spotlight beckons
Nov 13th 2008 | CHICAGO
From The Economist print edition
Barack Obama’s ascendancy portends America’s third city’s, too

Television sets across the world showed a vast sea of people, young and old, black and white, dancing and crying and cheering. In the background stretched a twinkling skyline with “Vote 2008” and “USA” spelled out in lights......The city, still buzzing from the election, is now wondering what comes next.....Chicago is in many ways ready for the spotlight....

-----

Continue reading at:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12608241

Good eye, Wrabbit. In my own little fantasy world, The Economist has a crush on Chicago (they ran a special feature on it a few years back) but it's probably just that the sheer volume of reporting is bound to include a few stories about our fair city every once and awhile. Then again, maybe it's one of the few publications to really "get" us?

[Nowhereman1280]

Loyola Update.

I am at a presentation about the future of Loyola's campus' right now, hopefully I'll be able to dictate anything of interest here as the presentation goes on.

Flanner Hall which is right along Sheridan will be reclad from Damen style Brutalism to red brick and glass like the new Quinlin center adjacent to it. Looks pretty sharp and modern.

Also, Halas Sports center will be re-clad from gross brutalism to red brick and glass as well, a little pomo in this one to match the adjacent gym. It will also be repurposed into a type of student union.

There are also plans to move all the sports facilities to an expansion of the current Gentile center sports

OOOO I like this one, Mertz/Centenial Forum Student Union is going to be rennovated and it looks SHARP. It has the same kind of feel as the new Art institute. Lots of vertical glass and open atriums.

Lots of talk of how Loyola has constantly abused building towards city streets and how they plan to rennovate buildings to make them face main streets, like building an enterance to Mertz facing Sheridan, instead of a gate and enterance to campus.

They plan to remove all parking lots from campus and replace with green space. New green space between Coffey Hall and the Chapel along there lake where there currently is a parking lot.

Plans to turn the Area bounded by the El, Sheridan road and Granville into 6 to 8 story residence halls. Have bought most of it plans to tear down all the gross 4+1's from the 60's and replace them by modern dorms. Eventually want to make streets more pederstian friendly by setting the buildings back and removing fences. Have the support of the Alderman.

Water Tower Campus.

School of Communications will open in January. (Meaning the Clare will be open).

There will be a Storefront Radio Station and perhaps TV studio at the corner of Wabash and Pearson in the Clare. Should be nice, will really bring that corner to life...


Honte should be pleased that there is lots of repurposing and rennovations compared to just tear downs, Damen is the only building planned to be torn down currently on campus (with the exception of the rancid 4+1's south of campus)...

Also, it sounds like Damen will be imploded, which sounds like it will be fun to watch at a minimum...

[honte]

^ Thanks for thinking of me, but I wish I could be excited... I think this sounds mostly like steps in the wrong direction. The new SCB, brick-and-glass buildings they have put up couldn't be more banal and pointless architecturally. Their efforts to retool everything toward some kind of 'consistency for the blind' will only make that campus less invigorating than it already is.

4+1's probably are fine to replace although with the extra-low quality of things being built these days, I honestly have to say that I prefer them to a lot of the new construction around town.

[spyguy]

OOOO I like this one, Mertz/Centenial Forum Student Union is going to be rennovated and it looks SHARP. It has the same kind of feel as the new Art institute. Lots of vertical glass and open atriums.

Any more info on this? Are you talking about the whole thing, including the tower?

[the urban politician]

Loyola Update.

I am at a presentation about the future of Loyola's campus' right now, hopefully I'll be able to dictate anything of interest here as the presentation goes on.

Flanner Hall which is right along Sheridan will be reclad from Damen style Brutalism to red brick and glass like the new Quinlin center adjacent to it. Looks pretty sharp and modern.

Also, Halas Sports center will be re-clad from gross brutalism to red brick and glass as well, a little pomo in this one to match the adjacent gym. It will also be repurposed into a type of student union.

There are also plans to move all the sports facilities to an expansion of the current Gentile center sports

OOOO I like this one, Mertz/Centenial Forum Student Union is going to be rennovated and it looks SHARP. It has the same kind of feel as the new Art institute. Lots of vertical glass and open atriums.

Lots of talk of how Loyola has constantly abused building towards city streets and how they plan to rennovate buildings to make them face main streets, like building an enterance to Mertz facing Sheridan, instead of a gate and enterance to campus.

They plan to remove all parking lots from campus and replace with green space. New green space between Coffey Hall and the Chapel along there lake where there currently is a parking lot.

Plans to turn the Area bounded by the El, Sheridan road and Granville into 6 to 8 story residence halls. Have bought most of it plans to tear down all the gross 4+1's from the 60's and replace them by modern dorms. Eventually want to make streets more pederstian friendly by setting the buildings back and removing fences. Have the support of the Alderman.

Water Tower Campus.

School of Communications will open in January. (Meaning the Clare will be open).

There will be a Storefront Radio Station and perhaps TV studio at the corner of Wabash and Pearson in the Clare. Should be nice, will really bring that corner to life...


Honte should be pleased that there is lots of repurposing and rennovations compared to just tear downs, Damen is the only building planned to be torn down currently on campus (with the exception of the rancid 4+1's south of campus)...

Also, it sounds like Damen will be imploded, which sounds like it will be fun to watch at a minimum...

^ Doesn't look like any real increase in density, which is all that I really give a shit about these days

[Nowhereman1280]

^ Thanks for thinking of me, but I wish I could be excited... I think this sounds mostly like steps in the wrong direction. The new SCB, brick-and-glass buildings they have put up couldn't be more banal and pointless architecturally. Their efforts to retool everything toward some kind of 'consistency for the blind' will only make that campus less invigorating than it already is.

4+1's probably are fine to replace although with the extra-low quality of things being built these days, I honestly have to say that I prefer them to a lot of the new construction around town.

I don't know what you are saying when you say the brick SCB stuff that is boring? Are you talking about the residence halls? Because the Brick and glass Quinlin center is pretty sweet, not boring or low quality by any stretch of the imagination. And they don't all look the same either, they are just trying to take the really ugly buildings and make them look less shitty. Nearly all the designs look very different from each other except for the fact they are using similar colors of brick and glass.

You really think the Loyola buildings are that low quality? I mean come on, look at the new residence hall "Regis" is 10x's the quality of those POS 4+1s which are almost invariably built with the cheapest possible materials...


@ Spyguy: The render I saw only showed the reconstruction of the podium part of the building where the union, theater, and dining halls are. Though they do plan on gutting Mertz tower as well eventually, so I would imagine both will be recladed.

@ TUP: No real increase in density? Well the density of the classrooms is going to stay the same, but the stuff in the real "campus" part of Loyola shouldn't be higher density, it should remain "green" feeling since it is a campus. However, the area bounded by Sheridan, The El, and Granville is going to see a huge boost in density as 4 story apartment buildings are torn down and replaced by 6 or 7 story dorms which have wayyyy higher density than apartments, the typical room in the brand new Regis dorm is about half the size of a one bedroom unit in a 4+1, plus they are going to all have 2 people in each room and they will be taller. We are probably looking at a 50% to 100% increase in density for every 4+1 torn down for a dorm...

[the urban politician]

^ Well, replacing parking lots with green space is always good to see.

BTW, I may be one of the few people out there who doesn't mind Chicago's 4+1's

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I don't mind some of them, its just that the ones Loyola owns are particularly bad. The ones down by me, towards Berwin, are nicer and some are even being renovated and repaired and look quite nice...

[VivaLFuego]

Plans to turn the Area bounded by the El, Sheridan road and Granville into 6 to 8 story residence halls. Have bought most of it plans to tear down all the gross 4+1's from the 60's and replace them by modern dorms. Eventually want to make streets more pederstian friendly by setting the buildings back and removing fences. Have the support of the Alderman.


There's nothing quite like a university for spear-heading clear-cutting wholesale destruction of existing urban fabric. Sigh. I guess Loyola got jealous of IIT, UIC, U of C, and NU/Streeterville and decided they needed to get in on the demolition action. Chicago is lucky to have the 4+1, since their density can never be replaced due to our ridiculous zoning ordinance and its minimum lot area per DU and off-street parking requirements.

Aside from the 4+1s, there are some magnificent vintage 1920s-era midrises and highrises (8-15 stories) in that corridor as well interspersed. Will they also be dynomited?

If they're all replaced by a wall of 6-8 story dorms then it might be a decent trade, but I'm skeptical that's the case until I see an actual plan with unit counts and net floor area ratio, and comparison to the current baseline. It's not like the setbacks along Kenmore and Winthrop are high to begin with - these are very ped-friendly streets already, and have bike lanes in the street ROW to boot. Loyola's apparent emphasis on "open space" is sending off warning bells that they want to turn the area into Hyde Park, meaning decimation of population density and an over-abundance of neighborhood-killing open space. So something smells fishy here already. Again, I hope this is a net increase in unit density and FAR but I'm skeptical 'til I see the actual plans.

Streetview example:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=granville+and+winthrop,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.323926,68.378906&ie=UTF8&ll=41.995693,-87.65819&spn=0.003209,0.004174&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.995192,-87.658351&panoid=m40oWrDSACv5McSFkbF7Mw&cbp=1,22.531008293209823,,0,-6.746599861877173

I look at that, and the need for clear-cutting does not come immediately to mind. But the fix is already in, so anyone else with affection for it might as well enjoy it while it's still around. We should be so lucky to have more streets like Kenmore and Winthrop throughout the city- but apparently we've actually got a little too much urbanity.

[denizen467]

Plans to turn the Area bounded by the El, Sheridan road and Granville into 6 to 8 story residence halls. Have bought most of it plans to tear down all the gross 4+1's from the 60's and replace them by modern dorms. Eventually want to make streets more pederstian friendly by setting the buildings back and removing fences. Have the support of the Alderman.

Loyola practically owns 6 city blocks south of 6400? Wow I sure missed that news.

While they're at all this raze-ing, maybe there's some way to improve the intrusion of the highway that is Sheridan Road through that stretch. Maybe it could bear northwest after Rosemont and go diagonally to hit 6400 just west of Kenmore. That way there is much more contiguous campus adjacent to the lake. Or what about supressing it below grade? So long as they're spending a lot of money on a long-term plan for this plat.

[DCCliff]

Viva, Nowhereman, TUP & Honte: I always am interested in and enjoy the thoughtfulness, intelligence, and - often - the information value of your posts. But I am surprised and scratching my head at the last few posts - Spring Break on SSP GONE WILD!!

I have rarely seen you all so negative (although most 4+1s do totally suck) based almost solely on speculation - - a LOT of speculation. Lighten up; give it a chance. Are we all so pissed off about the interuption of the skyscraper and urban density dream (economic downturn) that it has bent our brains?

[lawfin]

There's nothing quite like a university for spear-heading clear-cutting wholesale destruction of existing urban fabric. Sigh. I guess Loyola got jealous of IIT, UIC, U of C, and NU/Streeterville and decided they needed to get in on the demolition action. Chicago is lucky to have the 4+1, since their density can never be replaced due to our ridiculous zoning ordinance and its minimum lot area per DU and off-street parking requirements.

Aside from the 4+1s, there are some magnificent vintage 1920s-era midrises and highrises (8-15 stories) in that corridor as well interspersed. Will they also be dynomited?

If they're all replaced by a wall of 6-8 story dorms then it might be a decent trade, but I'm skeptical that's the case until I see an actual plan with unit counts and net floor area ratio, and comparison to the current baseline. It's not like the setbacks along Kenmore and Winthrop are high to begin with - these are very ped-friendly streets already, and have bike lanes in the street ROW to boot. Loyola's apparent emphasis on "open space" is sending off warning bells that they want to turn the area into Hyde Park, meaning decimation of population density and an over-abundance of neighborhood-killing open space. So something smells fishy here already. Again, I hope this is a net increase in unit density and FAR but I'm skeptical 'til I see the actual plans.

Streetview example:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=granville+and+winthrop,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.323926,68.378906&ie=UTF8&ll=41.995693,-87.65819&spn=0.003209,0.004174&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.995192,-87.658351&panoid=m40oWrDSACv5McSFkbF7Mw&cbp=1,22.531008293209823,,0,-6.746599861877173

I look at that, and the need for clear-cutting does not come immediately to mind. But the fix is already in, so anyone else with affection for it might as well enjoy it while it's still around. We should be so lucky to have more streets like Kenmore and Winthrop throughout the city- but apparently we've actually got a little too much urbanity.

I agree....I hope this is only speculative..and not fact

[honte]

I don't know what you are saying when you say the brick SCB stuff that is boring? Are you talking about the residence halls? Because the Brick and glass Quinlin center is pretty sweet, not boring or low quality by any stretch of the imagination. And they don't all look the same either, they are just trying to take the really ugly buildings and make them look less shitty. Nearly all the designs look very different from each other except for the fact they are using similar colors of brick and glass.


I would say these are competent buildings, meaning that they will function well and seem to have been built to an acceptable standard. Architecturally, they are beyond dull and have done nothing to visually energize that area - which I suppose shouldn't be a surprise given Loyola's general timidity. I'm not that familiar with the programmatic aspects of the buildings, but how do they contribute to campus life or education itself? Are they doing anything more than warehousing students and faculty?

Even the "matching brick and glass" approach is weak. Isn't there a better way to create visual harmony and identity without stymieing the campus from an artistic and visual sense? That is essentially the Arch 101 answer to an urban design problem. It has built-in limitations, and I suspect that there are other stylistic limitations being imposed beyond just these two choices (cf U of C, which until recently generally conforms to a Gothic and limestone [or raw concrete] aesthetic, but offers countless interpretations of this harmonizing motif). Is brick even an appropriate building material for the 21st century?

In general, I have been disappointed by the building efforts of Chicago's collegiate community and the architects that serve these institutions. For instance, is DePaul any better off as a campus due to all of its buildings of the last 10 years? Kamin seemed to like them, but I look at them as opportunities lost (with the exception of the Booth Hansen dorm that was built by third-party developer). Colleges and students are usually one of the most receptive types of institution to accept modern design - U of C and IIT might be good recent local examples of this, even UIC to some extent. Compare the Jahn dorm at IIT to the SCB buildings at Loyola, which had similar budgets. Naturally, I don't expect Loyola to have a budget on par with NW or U of C, but I would expect them to sense the potential in their campus and developments in general. I know a designer who was on the team for the building north of Sheridan that went up a while back, and from his impression as well, there was no drive at all to do something excellent.

I can give Loyola some credit for the new info commons although as we all know that building was sorely co-opted by traditionalists in the campus hierarchy. My biggest beef is with Northwestern, which has built one sub-par building after the next and isn't living up to the standards of its competition across the country at all. I hope their new music school is something deserving of its site.

In any case, I'll wait as always to see what Loyola is up to, but I have massive doubt that it will be satisfactory in the sense I have described above. Most of their new buildings I would count as a net loss due to loss of fine historic buildings south of Sheridan, funky urban character such as the old pancake house, lost density and probable diversity in the form of the tall building with the "innovative" gutter system and as VivaL postulates, and lost opportunities in development sites to make that campus truly sing.

Look at the campus development that went on in the 1960s - U of C, NW, UIC, even smaller institutions like DePaul, CCC, COD, and even McCormick Theological Seminary produced absolutely stellar buildings on a variety of budgets. Some people dislike these buildings for various reasons, but there was an obvious equating at the time of fine and progressive architecture to the attraction and retention of students, and potential added benefit in learning, which seems to be an afterthought today for most of Chicago's institutions - but not major institutions countrywide. In fact, many of the most interesting and successful new buildings built in the last decade in this country were on college campuses.

__________

For the record, I am not anti-4+1 either. Generally, my distaste for them comes from the frequent tackiness and often inadequate interior spaces. But the schlock of yesteryear certainly beats that of today - you can argue that the 4+1 has its own type of style and even that it was an "inspired" solution. They are far more visually distinct and better-designed than the repetitive, stock PoMo three flats that now plague LakeView, Edgewater, East Village, etc. Certainly, there are few other examples of that stream of Modernist thought in the area.

There is a 4+1 on Melrose that was revamped and I'd go so far as to even suggest that it is an interesting work of architecture now.

[Jibba]

I'll chime in here as a 4+1 fan as well. Besides the reasons stated above, I think they serve to really give that area a weird sense of place as a unique neighborhood within the city. It's really unfortunate how so much of the new infill going up serves to make a neighborhood's aesthetic slowly but surely morph into that of every other neighborhood getting loaded with the same crap. Bucktown/Wicker Park, for example, has now fully earned its title (given by some) as the new Lincoln Park, but not for the predominance of boutiques and baby strollers--single-family homes are taking over in huge numbers, and on their way they are taking out treasured neighborhood locales and vintage two-flats and cottages.

The lakefront is one of the only areas where Chicago's endlessly buildable topography suddenly has reason for increased interest from dwellers, and accordingly it's one place where demand can really drive up density. I really hope that Loyola's plans don't take too much of this aspect for granted.

On a side note, glad I'm not the only one on SSP at 3am...:).

[BVictor1]

Just a reminder:

Daniel Burnham's 1909 Plan of Chicago:

Centennial Symposium on Grant Park


Burnham's Vision: Grant Park's Role, Past, Present and Future...


Meeting Details:

When: Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 at 6:30pm

Where: Spertus Institute's Crown Family Great Hall - 9th Floor

610 S. Michigan Avenue




The Centennial of the 1909 Plan of Chicago is almost here and we have assembled a panel of experts to discuss Grant Park. This will be part of a series of discussions over the next year. The history over the last hundred years, the present and the future will all be discussed in a visual presentation.





The Grant Park Advisory Council and Grant Park Conservancy are proud to announce our distinguished panel for the evening:



Geoffrey Baer

Geoffrey Baer Tours Host and Producer at WTTW Channel 11



Geoffrey is an expert on all things in and around Chicago. From the El, the river, the lake and from the south and west suburbs to the very north and all in between, Geoffrey shows us a side of the city we have rarely seen before. He makes it fascinating. He is a graduate of Northwestern University and Miami University. His latest program: Chicago's Lakefront is coming in December 2008!



Gordon Gill, AIA

Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture



Gordon is a managing partner at Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture. He has designed award-winning architecture across the globe. His work emphasizes a holistic approach to design that works with natural surroundings- contributing to the sustainability of cities and augmenting the built landscape. Gordon?s work includes the design of the world?s first net Zero-Energy skyscraper, Pearl River Tower, and the first mixed-use positive energy building, the Masdar Headquarters. He was recently recognized for his Grant Park/Monroe Harbor Eco-Bridge which proposes the breakwater called for in Daniel Burnham's 1909 Plan, the last of its major components. This would be a grand civic space with a soft shoreline and a place to learn from and study Great Lakes ecology. These landmark projects exemplify Gordon?s philosophy that architecture must strike a balance with its global environmental context. Prior to founding Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP in 2006, Gordon was an Associate Partner at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP and a Director of Design for VOA Associates. Gordon has a Masters of Architecture from Harvard University and one from the University of Texas.

Web page: www.smithgill.com

Linda Keane, AIA



Linda is a National Council of Architectural Registration Boards Professor of Architecture and Environmental Design at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Linda is an architect and environmental designer. She combines an architectural practice with environmental design leadership developing eco literacy initiatives that use animation and the Internet to introduce design thinking to the design-denied public. During her tenure as Chair of the Department of Architecture, Interior Architecture and Designed Objects at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, she initiated new undergraduate and graduate architecture curricula. She continues to work on green initiatives along the Chicago- Milwaukee corridor understanding that environmental issues are in part issues in education. She directed the City of Chicago?s Green Roof Website, advised Metropolis 2020?s Metro Joe?s Regional Web Game, and, with a team of teachers, students, architects and designers, co-created www.NEXT.cc, an educational non profit art + design eco web community promoting environmental stewardship across the K-12 curriculum.

Web page: www.studio1032.com




John McCarron



John is a contributing columnist for the Chicago Tribune and an adjunct Professor at Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism. John has covered all things urban throughout his long and recognized career having once covered the urban affairs beat for the Chicago Tribune. He also passes on his wealth of knowledge at Northwestern University, as well as through his numerous appearances on WTTW's Chicago Tonight including being a frequent Friday night guest on Channel 11?s The Week in Review.

He is also a former financial editor of The Tribune and former member of its editorial board. John continues to write a monthly column for the Tribune?s op-ed page. John was also a panel moderator on "Globalizing Cities - Chicago and the World" at UIC's 2006 Daley Urban Forum.





Web page:

http://www.medill.northwestern.edu/faculty/adjunct.aspx?id=5785



Lawrence Okrent

Okrent Associates, Inc.



Larry is a Chicago-based planning and zoning consultant with over 35 years experience in Chicago and around the world specializing in land planning and zoning, aerial photography, mapping, and graphic design for real estate marketing materials. Some of his work in Chicago includes the Chicago 21 Plan (Central Area) and Dearborn Park. He began his career at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, where he was a member of the planning staff for 10 years. Larry has processed dozens of planned developments in Chicago, including the Museum of Contemporary Art, Michigan Avenue?s Park Tower, and the expansions of the Adler Planetarium, the Museum of Science and Industry, Shedd Aquarium and the Field Museum.

Larry also has an extensive image base of Chicago's past which he will be sharing with us.

He is a graduate of the University of Michigan and a recipient of a Master's degree from Northwestern University.



Web page: www.okrentassociates.com.



Robert O'Neill

Moderator

President, Grant Park Conservancy and Advisory Council

Web page: www.grantparkconservancy.com.





Mark Sexton

Krueck + Sexton Architects, Principal

Mark is the architect of the new Spertus Institute, the Chicago Children?s Museum and the Crown Fountain in Millennium Park among many other projects. The Spertus Institute was an interesting challenge. It contains over 700 pieces of glass shaped in over 500 unique ways, including parallelograms tilting in different directions. Mark also designed the Penguin Seabird House at the Lincoln Park Zoo and the Art Institute of Chicago?s Joseph Cornell Galleries, and the Herman Miller showroom, the Shure Technology Center and the renovation of Mies van der Rohe?s S.R. Crown Hall and 860-880 Lake Shore Drive cooperative. Mark lectures around the world and is a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects and, with Ronald Krueck, was named Chicagoan of the Year by the Chicago Tribune. Mark has a Bachelor of Architecture from the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Web page: www.ksarch.com.


Dr. Carl Smith

Northwestern University

Carl is a Franklyn Bliss Snyder Professor of English & American Studies at Northwestern University. He is the author of Chicago: Daniel Burnham and the Remaking of the American City, which was named Best Book in American Planning History by the Society for American City and Regional Planning History. In collaboration with The Art Institute of Chicago, he wrote the text and coordinated the preparation of the digital essay, The Plan of Chicago (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/10537.html),
He teaches American literature and cultural history and holds a joint appointment in the history department. Dr. Smith has a Ph.D. American Studies, Yale University.

Web page: www.history.northwestern.edu/faculty/smith.htm .

Dr. Howard Sulkin

Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies, President and CEO



Dr. Sulkin has a perfect view of Grant Park's progress at the newly-constructed Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies where he has served as President for over 20 years. He has been involved in activating the park as well as in preserving its history. As an institution on the park, directly influenced by Burnham's plan, Howard has a unique perspective on both its history and its future. Founded in 1924, Spertus Institute is a multi-purpose institution for Jewish studies, and awards graduate degrees, has a major continuing education program, and an extensive library, archives and museum. He also serves as a Trustee of the Institute. Prior to going to Spertus Institute, Dr. Sulkin was at DePaul University, where he was founding Dean of their School for New Learning, and then University Vice-President. Howard received his M.B.A., MA. and Ph.D. degrees from The University of Chicago, and a L.H.D. degree (honoris causa) from DePaul University, and he serves on several civic boards.

Web page: www.spertus.edu



We'd like to thank the panelists for the gift of both their time and invaluable expertise. We'd also like to thank the generous support of the Spertus Institute for hosting all of us in its magnificent and topic-appropriate space... affording all a view of Daniel Burnham?s and Edward Bennett's great work.



Also, coming in 2009 is the 50th anniversy of Queen Elizabeth II's visit to Chicago and the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. This area, where she arrived, is known as Queen's Landing at Buckingham Fountain in Grant Park. It was the first time in history that a reigning British monarch had come to Chicago.

[cbotnyse]

^^ open to all? cost?

[Nowhereman1280]

There's nothing quite like a university for spear-heading clear-cutting wholesale destruction of existing urban fabric. Sigh. I guess Loyola got jealous of IIT, UIC, U of C, and NU/Streeterville and decided they needed to get in on the demolition action. Chicago is lucky to have the 4+1, since their density can never be replaced due to our ridiculous zoning ordinance and its minimum lot area per DU and off-street parking requirements.

This will not be a clear-cutting or wholesale destruction of the urban fabric. Loyola does not plan to raze all of the buildings, only some of the more dilapidated or hodgepodge 4+1's. If you want an example of Loyola's recent dedication to preservation then look at the new Jesuit Residence which took a pre-existing 4-flat and added a wing-ling expansion to the side of it without doing any demolition, many of the older buildings Loyola owns will be preserved or re-modeled a la Santa Clara Hall on the north side of campus. Loyola does not like the 4+1's because it literally has no use for the entire first floor of the building. What is a university going to do with a bunch of first floor parking spots when none of the residents of those buildings drive? Loyola will be replacing what are already dense 4+1's with even denser dorm buildings with no parking spaces.

Aside from the 4+1s, there are some magnificent vintage 1920s-era midrises and highrises (8-15 stories) in that corridor as well interspersed. Will they also be dynomited?

No Loyola does not even own any of those vintage mid and high rises. Most of them are either private owners who won't sell because they are cash cows (a la Campus Towers which is completely surrounded by Loyola but won't sell because they make a ton of money). The wonderful buildings down along Granville are all safe as well because they are largely beyond Loyola's sphere of influence and occupied by stable, quality uses, such as the Sovereign.

If they're all replaced by a wall of 6-8 story dorms then it might be a decent trade, but I'm skeptical that's the case until I see an actual plan with unit counts and net floor area ratio, and comparison to the current baseline

Its not going to be a wall, its going to be limited destruction of the most ghetto of the 4+1's. I garantee you a density increase, I've seen some of the plans and there is no way that a 4+1 is denser than these dorms, 7 solid floors of small dorm rooms each occupied by 2 people vs 4 stories of apartments with probably 1.5 occupants per room...


It's not like the setbacks along Kenmore and Winthrop are high to begin with - these are very ped-friendly streets already, and have bike lanes in the street ROW to boot. Loyola's apparent emphasis on "open space" is sending off warning bells that they want to turn the area into Hyde Park, meaning decimation of population density and an over-abundance of neighborhood-killing open space.

When Loyola says emphasis on Green Space, they mean within the campus area, as in north of Sheridan/Devon, East of the El and South of Loyola Ave. They don't plan to widen the setbacks along the streets, but to try and remove the fencing and walls that abut the sidewalks and widen the sidewalks some to account for the increased foot traffic for students. There are no plans to tear anything down and replace it with green space.



We should be so lucky to have more streets like Kenmore and Winthrop throughout the city- but apparently we've actually got a little too much urbanity.

Don't worry about the streets, Loyola is not going to radically alter their composition, they are just going to add larger and more dense dorms in some spots.

Loyola practically owns 6 city blocks south of 6400? Wow I sure missed that news.

No, they don't own it all, but they do own about 50% of what is in the area I mentioned. They have been buying rapidly at a rate of 2 or 3 properties a year.

My words are being misconstrued here, THERE WILL BE NO WHOLESALE DEMOLITION OF ANYTHING. 70+% of the buildings will not be touched. There is no oppurtunity to alter Sheridan because they are not modifying the street grid in any way.

I would say these are competent buildings, meaning that they will function well and seem to have been built to an acceptable standard. Architecturally, they are beyond dull and have done nothing to visually energize that area - which I suppose shouldn't be a surprise given Loyola's general timidity. I'm not that familiar with the programmatic aspects of the buildings, but how do they contribute to campus life or education itself? Are they doing anything more than warehousing students and faculty?

Yes I agree that the one dorm they built recently, Regis, is bland, but what else do you find bland?

This?
http://www.scb.com/images/project/107/5.jpg
scb.com

http://www.scb.com/images/project/107/1.jpg
scb.com

I don't find this building Bland or boring. The only three SCB buildings completed on Loyola's North Campus in the past 15 years are Regis dorm, The Information Commons, and The above Quinlan Center for the Sciences. And yes, I would say brick is an appropriate building material, it is in no way obsolete.


Compare the Jahn dorm at IIT to the SCB buildings at Loyola, which had similar budgets. Naturally, I don't expect Loyola to have a budget on par with NW or U of C, but I would expect them to sense the potential in their campus and developments in general. I know a designer who was on the team for the building north of Sheridan that went up a while back, and from his impression as well, there was no drive at all to do something excellent.

Which SCB buildings at Loyola? There is only one SCB dorm completed since the early 1990's when everything Loyola was building was a pile of shit.


In any case, I'll wait as always to see what Loyola is up to, but I have massive doubt that it will be satisfactory in the sense I have described above. Most of their new buildings I would count as a net loss due to loss of fine historic buildings south of Sheridan, funky urban character such as the old pancake house, lost density and probable diversity in the form of the tall building with the "innovative" gutter system and as VivaL postulates, and lost opportunities in development sites to make that campus truly sing.

Again, there is almost no chance of any historic buildings being destroyed here. The only ones they are going to touch are the 4+1's which really just can't be efficiantly modified for Loyola's purposes of housing car-less students.

Are you really going to lament the loss of that rancid old pancake house? I mean it had a gigantic parking lot in front of it. How can you complain that a tiny building like that was razed for the construction of 8 solid stories of TOD? If those are the buildings you think are part of Loyola's campus they are not. Those buildings in the Loyola Station development area are not part of campus in any way other than the fact that Loyola seems to think it is a private developer and takes advantage of its Tax Exempt status to make huge profits developing that it uses to support the expansion of its educational facilities.

Look at the campus development that went on in the 1960s - U of C, NW, UIC, even smaller institutions like DePaul, CCC, COD, and even McCormick Theological Seminary produced absolutely stellar buildings on a variety of budgets. Some people dislike these buildings for various reasons, but there was an obvious equating at the time of fine and progressive architecture to the attraction and retention of students, and potential added benefit in learning, which seems to be an afterthought today for most of Chicago's institutions - but not major institutions countrywide. In fact, many of the most interesting and successful new buildings built in the last decade in this country were on college campuses.


For the record, I am not anti-4+1 either. Generally, my distaste for them comes from the frequent tackiness and often inadequate interior spaces. But the schlock of yesteryear certainly beats that of today - you can argue that the 4+1 has its own type of style and even that it was an "inspired" solution. They are far more visually distinct and better-designed than the repetitive, stock PoMo three flats that now plague LakeView, Edgewater, East Village, etc. Certainly, there are few other examples of that stream of Modernist thought in the area.

There is a 4+1 on Melrose that was revamped and I'd go so far as to even suggest that it is an interesting work of architecture now.

I have the exact same feelings as you on 4+1's. I often find them tacky, especially when they have those gross walls made of fake boulders at street level or around the lobby. If you want to see some good rennovations of them, check out the ones just north of Balmoral along Kenmore. They have been rennovated and they look really sharp now and even have little balconies along the backside in the alley that have a sharp almost streamline modern look to them with wide rounded parallel railings.


PS Sorry for the length of this post, definitely the most epic forum post ever...

[BVictor1]

^^ open to all? cost?

yes

free

[cbotnyse]

yes

freeI like that price. I might head over there. anybody else going?

[BVictor1]

I like that price. I might head over there. anybody else going?

I'll certainly be there.

Perfect time to ask about the Eco-Bridge :)

[ChiPsy]

Sorry for the length of this post, definitely the most epic forum post ever...

I fully appreciate the length of your post, NWM -- and I fully agree with it. This is very good news about what heretofore has been an off-putting, disappointing, life-deadening campus. I couldn't believe how bad it was when I first saw it: I naively assumed that since it was in Chicago, it would be architecturally appealing. It finally will be, once these changes (coupled with the ones already underway) are made.

Good. News.

[Steely Dan]

i'm planning on going to the GPAC burnham presentation as well.

[honte]

I don't find this building Bland or boring. The only three SCB buildings completed on Loyola's North Campus in the past 15 years are Regis dorm, The Information Commons, and The above Quinlan Center for the Sciences.

Yeah, that's the project my friend was involved in. Like I said, it's competent. It does just enough to make the public think it's not boring... but beneath the minor decorative elements, it's a very basic building in the artistic, functional / performing, and aesthetic senses of the word.

My friends and I have developed a rating scale on architecture. It works like this: The scale ranges from -10 to 10. Anything negative is simply a "Building" and does not qualify as architecture at all. Anything positive is "Architecture" with a capital A, but obviously there is still great variety in that category. I would give the building in your photos a +2 - meaning, Loyola didn't get robbed for their money, but I wouldn't want a crop of those on my campus.

And yes, I would say brick is an appropriate building material, it is in no way obsolete.

Most of the world's foremost thinkers on architecture disagree with you here. If you haven't noticed, 99% of the brick being used today is not even employed as true brick. It's just a decorative screen - and poor-performing, cumbersome, laborious, unattractive one at that.

[VivaLFuego]

Nowhereman,

Thanks for the long post in reply. I'd say probably 75% of my concerns are assuaged, since I'll generally defer to you for having actually seen some renderings and plans. I'm partial to 4+1s in general, but obviously there are specific examples that are crappy and expendable. I'd still like to see something close to a comprehensive plan showing net changes in floor area ratios and unit counts. Obviously dorm land uses are generally excellent: high population density, minimal off-street parking. Does this mean Loyola is expanding the size of its student body? Or is it simply planning on moving more students from off-campus to on-campus housing (which itself might have some unforseen impacts on the surrounding area?)

Like honte, I'm definitely concerned about the potential for an architectural downgrade (and his explanations are more eloquent and specific than mine could be), but at least for now all of this concern and trepidation is mere speculation rather than actively seeing wanton/unnecessary demolition.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I'll try and get the actual plans as I can. There were some really neat renders in there that will probably never come to reality and be VE'd to hell, but overall it was promising. Yes, Loyola is expanding its student body, Its grown by a few hundred a year since 2000 and is now almost 2000 students larger than it was in the 1990's. There has been a massive shortage of housing on campus at Loyola with lots of people being forced to live far away from campus.

@Honte, good points, I have to defer to you on the brick, I've kinda agreed for a long time, but was kinda playing devils advocate to the defense of Loyola's buildings. I don't like it when its a veneer, if you are going to build a building out of brick, the brick should be load bearing in my opinion.

[Steely Dan]

I don't like it when its a veneer, if you are going to build a building out of brick, the brick should be load bearing in my opinion.

i have detailed dozens of brick buildings over the course of my career and not once have i ever been involved with any project that used actual bricks for load bearing. that's old school stuff. nowadays, if you're doing a proper masonry load-bearing wall, it will almost always be some type of CMU cavity wall with brick or stone veneer. bricks are pretty much exclusively used as a veneer in today's standard building practices. there might be a few old schoolers left out there that are still doing 3 wythe, full brick masonry load-bearing walls, but if it still exists, it's EXTREMELY rare due to cost.

[Via Chicago]

nm

[ardecila]

^^ Sad but true. CMUs are so goddam ugly, too, forcing people to rely on dishonest veneer solutions.

I believe honte once linked to a project designed to give CMUs an interesting shape, so that they would form patterns when used en masse.

[Jibba]

^I posted a thread about this issue a little more than a year ago essentially saying that CMUs are basically the new "Chicago brick." Unfortunately, CMUs are uglier by far, and the new infill that utilizes them is almost always out of scale with the older buildings adjacent to it that has the nice old stuff--walls made out of CMUs are now way more visible than the old stuff ever was because of the way the new infill pops up and out from the streetwall. So, a lot of infill in certain areas follows the CMU/brick veneer scheme because it has to stay "in character with the neighborhood," but then they end up looking completely awkward and don't retain hardly any of the neighborhood character anyway. If developers were allowed to make infill out of other modern materials that were just as cost effective but less pretentious the city would be way better off, IMO.

[jboy560]

What's are CMU's and 4+1's?

[aic4ever]

What's are CMU's and 4+1's?

CMU = Concrete Masonry Unit

You probably know it better as a "Cinder Block"

Not sure on the 4 + 1...since I'm part of the under 30 crowd, I'll leave that description to the old timers!

[aic4ever]

There's nothing quite like a university for spear-heading clear-cutting wholesale destruction of existing urban fabric. Sigh. I guess Loyola got jealous of IIT, UIC, U of C, and NU/Streeterville and decided they needed to get in on the demolition action. Chicago is lucky to have the 4+1, since their density can never be replaced due to our ridiculous zoning ordinance and its minimum lot area per DU and off-street parking requirements.

Aside from the 4+1s, there are some magnificent vintage 1920s-era midrises and highrises (8-15 stories) in that corridor as well interspersed. Will they also be dynomited?

If they're all replaced by a wall of 6-8 story dorms then it might be a decent trade, but I'm skeptical that's the case until I see an actual plan with unit counts and net floor area ratio, and comparison to the current baseline. It's not like the setbacks along Kenmore and Winthrop are high to begin with - these are very ped-friendly streets already, and have bike lanes in the street ROW to boot. Loyola's apparent emphasis on "open space" is sending off warning bells that they want to turn the area into Hyde Park, meaning decimation of population density and an over-abundance of neighborhood-killing open space. So something smells fishy here already. Again, I hope this is a net increase in unit density and FAR but I'm skeptical 'til I see the actual plans.

Streetview example:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=granville+and+winthrop,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.323926,68.378906&ie=UTF8&ll=41.995693,-87.65819&spn=0.003209,0.004174&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.995192,-87.658351&panoid=m40oWrDSACv5McSFkbF7Mw&cbp=1,22.531008293209823,,0,-6.746599861877173

I look at that, and the need for clear-cutting does not come immediately to mind. But the fix is already in, so anyone else with affection for it might as well enjoy it while it's still around. We should be so lucky to have more streets like Kenmore and Winthrop throughout the city- but apparently we've actually got a little too much urbanity.

I think you're misinformed here. IIT hasn't demolished anything at all, but, in fact, have added the student center (the Koolhaas abomination) and the new dorms by Jahn. They have not demolished anything other than parking lots in the process. Additionally they have reclaimed a previously non-functional building on 35th street and renovated into a technology center, as well as having upgraded two of their lecture hall buildings, and made the old-school Armour Main Building ADA accessible. This is not to mention a vast improvement in general campus atmosphere via new landscaping.

Good stuff happening at IIT.

Absolutely ZERO demolition.

Also, I've bid a lot of work at U of C. They're not really demolishing anything either unless it's in the way of creating more density. Tons of new stuff happening down there too. Can't speak to UIC demolishing things since they let those contracts directly to demo contractors, but they are doing a lot of new work and renovation too.

I don't know what you're talking about as far as Loyola being "jealous" of these other schools' capacities for demolition.

[honte]

^ U of C has torn down a terrible amount of stuff, mostly on the west side of the campus by the hospitals. Another apartment building is about to go down in the next few days, it appears.

CMU = Concrete Masonry Unit

You probably know it better as a "Cinder Block"

Not sure on the 4 + 1...since I'm part of the under 30 crowd, I'll leave that description to the old timers!

Well, I'm not exactly an old timer (nor are most in this conversation), but here you go:

In the 1960s, a novel prototype of apartment building began to spring up on Chicago's North Side. These were the "4+1's," so-named because they managed to cram 1 level of parking beneath 4 levels of apartments above. You'll find these in Edgewater predominantly, where they are quite prevalent, but also in Rogers Park, Lakeview, and even Old Town. The 4+1 was a cash cow because is managed to squeeze that extra level of parking in under the existing zoning regulations on the sites.

This building type has drawn the ire of many residents for years. There are many reasons for this. In Edgewater, they almost always replaced beautiful mansions on large lots. Other problems are low ceiling heights, platform framing and therefore lots of noise transmission, small windows, and often bizarre "kitsch" decorative elements inspired by the best architects of the day (Frank Lloyd Wright flagstone, colored tiles somewhat like Le Corbusier, little concrete shell arches for canopies, etc). The architects who did these remain largely anonymous - Stanley Tigerman confessed to doing one in Old Town - and some designs are much better than others. Often I can find a little bit of design in even the worst ones...

[honte]

I think you're misinformed here. IIT hasn't demolished anything at all, but, in fact, have added the student center (the Koolhaas abomination) and the new dorms by Jahn. They have not demolished anything other than parking lots in the process. Additionally they have reclaimed a previously non-functional building on 35th street and renovated into a technology center, as well as having upgraded two of their lecture hall buildings, and made the old-school Armour Main Building ADA accessible. This is not to mention a vast improvement in general campus atmosphere via new landscaping.

Good stuff happening at IIT.

Absolutely ZERO demolition.


Actually, IIT demolished a Mies van der Rohe filling station to make way for the "Koolhaas abomination" (I agree with your title here).

[VivaLFuego]

aic4ever,
I'm referring more to the mid-century period when IIT built what constitutes the bulk of it's campus today.

[Tom Servo]

^^ Sad but true. CMUs are so goddam ugly, too, forcing people to rely on dishonest veneer solutions.

I believe honte once linked to a project designed to give CMUs an interesting shape, so that they would form patterns when used en masse.



wait... you guys think that exposed concrete block looks ugly? what's the difference between it and brick? it's all just coursed masonry... what's the difference? color?
i'd love to see more of it. what you guys think about that mondial building, or whatever it's called?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

From the New York Times' Fashion & Style section, what's quickly becoming a cliché. It's ill-informed, hackneyed and totally disjointed, but... it's... the New York Times... so...?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/fashion/20chicago.html?_r=1&hp

A New Wind Is Blowing in Chicago
By Jeff Zeleny

SO long, Crawford, Tex. Even before President-elect Barack Obama takes office in 61 days, effectively crowning Chicago as the site of the Western White House, the city is basking in a moment of triumph that is spilling well beyond the confines of politics.

A bid for the summer Olympics in 2016, which once seemed like a fanciful pitch, suddenly feels far closer to a sure thing. (No, the ban on lobbyists at the White House does not apply to a little presidential persuasion on the International Olympic Committee.)

A spire is finally poised to be placed atop the Trump Tower here, bringing the skyscraper to 1,361 feet, the tallest American building since the Sears Tower was built three decades ago.

A new Modern Wing for the fabled Art Institute is set to open next spring, including a Renzo Piano bridge to Millennium Park, which sat in the distance of Mr. Obama’s election night victory speech here.

Yet this moment of renaissance for Chicago is about much more than architecture and athletics. For the first time in the country’s history, an American president will call this city home. And as he moves to Washington, a dose of the Chicago mood is sure to follow.

“We’re not Little Rock and we’re not Texas,” said Rick Bayless, a friend of the Obama family, who owns Frontera Grill and is among the city’s celebrity chefs. “It’s easy to put on your cowboy boots and eat all that barbecue. You can’t do that from Chicago. We’ve got a lot of muscle and it’s far too complex of a place for that.”

The complexity of Chicago, a city that is multiplying in its new diversity even as it clings to a segregated past, is rooted in the 200 neighborhoods that make up the nation’s third-largest city. America may well know Oprah Winfrey, who became a billion-dollar name through her rise to fame here, but the city holds a far broader identity.

One sign that the Obama brand is replacing the Oprah brand? The talk show tycoon is not mentioned in the city’s new tourism campaign, which invites visitors to “Experience the city the Obamas enjoy.” Ms. Winfrey’s studio is not mentioned along the list of stops, which range from Mr. Bayless’s restaurants to a bookstore in the Obamas’ Hyde Park neighborhood to Promontory Point along Lake Michigan. And souvenirs are on sale across town, with Obama shirts, hats and knickknacks arriving just in time for holiday shopping.

“It seems like there are eight million people walking around here congratulating each other,” said Scott Turow, the best-selling novelist who was born in the city. “Chicagoans are unbelievably proud of Barack and feel of course that he’s ours, because he is.”

Catching himself, he added: “I guess I should get out of the habit of calling him Barack.”

The marketing pitch, in the wake of Mr. Obama’s victory, offers a window into the two-fold psyche of the city: It is a big enough metropolis not to be easily fazed by events, though the fabric of the community is stitched just tight enough to burst in a rare moment of giddiness.

Chicago has long been a place that seems comfortable — or, at least, well adjusted — to losing, a place where you put your head down and shoulder through whatever hand is dealt you. (How could it be otherwise, considering all the practice that the cursed Chicago Cubs have provided over the years?)

In 1952, when an article in The New Yorker derisively referred to Chicago as the Second City, little offense was taken. It became a marketing pitch, with the thinking that second fiddle was far better than no fiddle at all.

But that gawking, out-of-town amazement — gee, there really is a city here! — has long outlived its currency. Well before Mr. Obama was elected as the nation’s 44th president — a fact that was proudly amplified by Mayor Richard M. Daley, who ordered up banners with a sketch of the president-elect to hang throughout the city — Chicago was experiencing one of its most blossoming periods in food, fashion and the arts.

Now, people around the country and the world are simply noticing.

Jeff Tweedy, the leader of the band Wilco who grew up in downstate Illinois and lives in Chicago, said the city never felt the inferiority complex that outsiders spend so much time musing about. Still, he said, the election of Mr. Obama, a friend for years, has given an unusual boost of confidence in a city that is usually nonplussed.

“I think people really do enjoy the idea that we’re living in the center of the world all of the sudden,” Mr. Tweedy said. “There have been all these prevailing stereotypes, and people don’t know how big and urban Chicago actually is. People think of it as being in a cornfield.”

If the country is set to see more of Chicago over the next four years — many people across the city here are too humble, nervous and practical to automatically assume Mr. Obama will be in office for eight years — at least one introductory lesson is in order.

If you had always assumed that Chicago earned its nickname as the Windy City from the chilly gusts coming off Lake Michigan, you would be wrong. The city is windy, according to most local legends, because of the hot air bellowing from politicians.

That was among the early lessons about Chicago that scores of young political operatives may have picked up when they moved to the city nearly two years ago to work in Mr. Obama’s headquarters. But while his campaign was located here — largely to escape the tentacles of Washington — the around-the-clock hours kept few of his young aides from truly experiencing the place that helped shape the next president.

“There is a really strong sense of self in Chicago: People aren’t defined by wealth or by work or accomplishments, but rather who they are,” said Alex Kotlowitz, an author who makes his home in Chicago because he believes it is a place to peer into America’s heart. “Obama seems so comfortable in his skin and with who he is. That’s so Chicago.”

It remains an open question just how much, if any, of Chicago will rub off on Washington. For starters, perhaps the president may be less inclined to shut down his government when a few flurries of snow are spotted. Mr. Obama has already lived in the capital — for a few nights a week, anyway — since arriving in the Senate four years ago.

The Obamas are, however, taking a bit of Chicago with them.

Michelle Obama’s mother is moving to Washington. (No, she is not living in the White House.) So Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, aren’t alone, a family that lives near the Obama home in Hyde Park is also moving, so the girls have built-in friends in the new world surrounding them.

And, friends say, look for them to spend at least a bit of time back in Chicago. (There is, after all, no Crawford ranch available to this first presidential family.)

Lois Weisberg, the Commissioner of Cultural Affairs for the city of Chicago, is a bit worried by the entrepreneurial rush surrounding Mr. Obama’s election. She hopes that while the Obamas are away the city remains a dignified tourist destination, not where buses are simply hawking rides around Obama points of interest.

“It’s too much luck for one city,” Ms. Weisberg said. “You get the president, you get the tourists, you get the Olympics. There is a wonderful feeling. I don’t think there was anything wrong with us before, but I think we’re better now.”

[harryc]

wait... you guys think that exposed concrete block looks ugly? what's the difference between it and brick? it's all just coursed masonry... what's the difference? color?
i'd love to see more of it. what you guys think about that mondial building, or whatever it's called?

I can't put my finger on it - but being an alumni of UIC(C) I can tell you that CinderBlock (CMU) is an oppressive material for the exterior, and should be banned from the interior.

[Tom Servo]

right... we've established that opinion... i was asking why...

[wrab]

Nothing inherently wrong with CMUs as building material - I like Jibba's description of it above as the "new Chicago brick" - perhaps more a matter of how it is being used & by whom; the stuff does carry some unfortunate low-rent associations (big-box stores, etc), as did brick in its time, I should add.

The transitions from CMU to veneer are generally more troubling.....they tend to be somewhat...ahem...inartful - better perhaps to use the CMU in a straightforward & direct way and ditch the brick overlays entirely?

BTW, some light-transmitting concrete: there are several varieties out there now, some impregnated with fiberoptics:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/concrete2-1.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/concrete1.jpg

http://optics.org/cws/article/research/19184/1/concrete2

[BVictor1]

Actually, IIT demolished a Mies van der Rohe filling station to make way for the "Koolhaas abomination" (I agree with your title here).

it was a shit, blond brick little structure that had absolutely no architectural value or anything going for it other than the name of the individual who designed it.

The Student Center is "WAY COOLER"

[honte]

^ Oh sure, of course. Absolutely no value. Thanks BVictor, glad you've made that call for us. Now I can sleep at night.

________

Adrian, I can't stand CMU in 95% of its applications. Here's why: 1) Too mechanical in the manufacturing process, 2) ugly rough finish on all but the nicest blocks, 3) the nicer versions are too expensive and rarely get used, 4) most uses attempt to impersonate other materials, 5) crude size makes it difficult to achieve anything interesting with the texture of the wall vs. brick, 6) typically it's used for its cheapness and that's it. The only way to go is a smooth wall where the block ends up looking like tile (like the block at UIC, which I love), but this almost never happens.

There is no comparing it to real brick - the process is entirely different and the quality and texture and variation just aren't there. I avoid it like the plague. It does, on the other hand, have potential to be something else entirely, such as the link I posted a long while back.

[a chicago bearcat]

right... we've established that opinion... i was asking why...

CMU is not a bad material, it is simply rarely used in inventive or artistic ways by architects. It has two characteristic that make this difficult for architetcs:

It has no inherent textural variation like brick, or poured concrete.
It doesn't withstand weathering without a glaze, paint or coating.

To deal with the first, vary something about how it is produced a la the LitraCon example from above (translucent CMU), or do what Loom Studio (http://www.loomstudio.com/12blocks/) did and make CMU artistic

To deal with the second, you can apply stucco or other beautiful sealant applications you want, or thick transparent glazes that aren't smoothed out, but lathered on and left to act as a tactile activator.

No building material is bad until it is used out of context or without creativity and care.

[BVictor1]

^ Oh sure, of course. Absolutely no value. Thanks BVictor, glad you've made that call for us. Now I can sleep at night.

Glad to be of service :tup:

[wrab]

....No building material is bad until it is used out of context or without creativity and care.

Bingo!

(Although "out-of-context" uses can be awfully fun - like orange shag on the roof (Goff).

[honte]

^ I don't agree, but I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss.

[jjk1103]

^^ Sad but true. CMUs are so goddam ugly, too, forcing people to rely on dishonest veneer solutions.

I believe honte once linked to a project designed to give CMUs an interesting shape, so that they would form patterns when used en masse.

.......what is a "CMU" ?

[Jibba]

^Concrete Masonry Unit

[jboy560]

Does anybody have any pictures of a 4+1? That sounds pretty ugly, but i want to see what they look like for myself. I can't find any pictures or anything.

[honte]

http://bp1.blogger.com/_NYpMerQgcHU/RtF4FFLSyBI/AAAAAAAABKk/iWc2yyLt0UU/s320/6610f.jpg

[denizen467]

^ Although often a first floor open-air parking garage is visible as well, contributing to their poor reputation

[VivaLFuego]

Does anybody have any pictures of a 4+1? That sounds pretty ugly, but i want to see what they look like for myself. I can't find any pictures or anything.

Also, you can cruise around on Google streetview... in particular check out East Lakeview and Edgewater, which probably have the highest concentration (though examples are scattered far and wide, including Lincoln Park, Rogers Park, Hyde Park...).

Some of them have some seriously funky cool early-1960s motifs going on, in terms of materials (glazed brick, stones as in honte's pic) and quasi-space-agey cast concrete entryways (I'm not an architect so I'm probably not using all the correct terminology, here).

A few random examples:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=6200+n.+kenmore,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=58.858685,88.59375&ie=UTF8&ll=41.996586,-87.656946&spn=0.003425,0.005407&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.996192,-87.656975&panoid=JipTullQdr3vQpfuwrkOEg&cbp=1,270.57522481569725,,0,-16.143879751378932

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=6200+n.+kenmore,+chicago+il&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=58.858685,88.59375&ie=UTF8&ll=41.992579,-87.656345&spn=0.003425,0.005407&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.991837,-87.656866&panoid=xj-2Ady6KB4ZaM5jIOxYdQ&cbp=1,272.5717353137425,,0,-15.64045404301277

[honte]

^ :) That second one is pretty heinous. I like how the random roof element doesn't even align with the other facade elements. Classic.

[Chicago Shawn]

^yeah, that one drew out the ewww reaction. :)

I am a fan of the 4+1s though, as they are extremely dense. Check the number of mailboxes in the lobby next time anyone should walk past this one. These are so dense and have such a low parking ratio that they are today illegal in all city zoning classifications outside of downtown; but in reality is exactly the type of housing stock that really should be promoted as a minimum for TOD applications. They also provide market-rate affordable housing in neighborhoods that would not have it otherwise. I knew someone who lived in a Lincoln Park studio two years ago for $560 a month, ONE block in from the friggin' park. The 4+1 is also a unique Chicago vernacular, sure other cities may have some type of housing stock like this, but Chicago's are pretty unique.

[Taft]

I am a fan of the 4+1s though, as they are extremely dense. Check the number of mailboxes in the lobby next time anyone should walk past this one. These are so dense and have such a low parking ratio that they are today illegal in all city zoning classifications outside of downtown; but in reality is exactly the type of housing stock that really should be promoted as a minimum for TOD applications. They also provide market-rate affordable housing in neighborhoods that would not have it otherwise. I knew someone who lived in a Lincoln Park studio two years ago for $560 a month, ONE block in from the friggin' park. The 4+1 is also a unique Chicago vernacular, sure other cities may have some type of housing stock like this, but Chicago's are pretty unique.

Another bright side to them: they are a perfect backdrop for a 70's period movie set in the city. Just slap a few 15' banana boat cars on the street and voila! Instant time travel!

I live in east Lake View and sometimes get a feeling of being in a different time when walking past a block with several of these buildings on it. They may not be beautiful, but the neighborhood wouldn't feel the same without them.

Taft

[wrab]

.....bizarre "kitsch" decorative elements inspired by the best architects of the day (Frank Lloyd Wright flagstone, colored tiles somewhat like Le Corbusier, little concrete shell arches for canopies, etc)....

I was driving around a neighborhood in the extreme SE side of the city recently, down by Calumet/Hammond - block after block of 1950s/1960s bungalow-sized single-family homes - and all of them were decorated with stone insets like the ones you mention above. Mostly igneous rock (lava stone) as well as some flagstone. I'll try to dig up some pics. Now that I'm attuned to it, I'm seeing this aesthetic all over Chicagoland. Nowhere else in the country have I seen it in such profusion, although maybe I've just not been tuned in to it. But now I'm intrigued. Where did this start and how/why did it become so very popular.

[honte]

^ It's always baffled me too - you'll see tons of it if you head southwest ... there are small pockets in Bridgeport and then it just explodes by the time you get down by Midway.

But the 4+1s seem to be in a class by themselves - a higher class, actually. The stone seems rather common, but the other flourishes, such as the entry canopy in Viva's first photo, seem more "aware" of the overall architectural developments of the time than just the applique rocks - despite the fact that these "flourishes" are almost always misinterpretations of something great.

4+1s are more colorful too. :shrug:

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

in a class by themselves - a higher class, actually. The stone seems rather common, but the other flourishes, such as the entry canopy in Viva's first photo, seem more "aware" of the overall architectural developments of the time than just the applique rocks - despite the fact that these "flourishes" are almost always misinterpretations of something great.

To climb aboard the 4+1 love train: I think those gestures are great! They're like front yard sculptures or something.

Chicago Shawn commented on their affordability. He's absolutely right. In East Lakeview, were it not for these units, there'd be little left of the young gay community.

[woodrow]

Ugghhh to the 4+1. When I first moved to Chicago, I went with an apartment finding company and the agent kept taking me to them even though I repeatedly said NO!!! They are awful inside with horrible little air court/shafts. They had paper thin walls. Dark. They may be great for city density, but I they can't be great for living.

Plus - they replaced tons of great stuff. At least in SE Lakeview (between B'way & Sheridan, Diversey & Addison). I know that the big old single family homes and turn of the century apartment buildings were in sad shape in the 1960's, but what replaced them are crap.

I do kinda like the rehabbed, reclad, enlarged unit, condo conversions that some 4+1's are undergoing.

[BWChicago]

The other important issue to consider with 4+1s is that they arose from exploitation of a zoning loophole. In 1957 he zoning code was amended; you find 4+1s in areas zoned R5-R7. Under fire codes, you would have to have an elevator and use better construction than masonry over frame for dwellings over 4 floors or 45 feet, so your lobby and parking are partially sunken and you have low ceiling heights to fit into that box. It's an exploitation of rules intended to allow single-family. And they stretch from lot line to lot line to maximize their FAR, since the parking wasn't included in calculations. So since these were studio and 1 BR units, they caused a huge spike in density in residential neighborhoods, and since they just had that one floor of parking they caused street parking to get way worse. The backlash against 4+1s is where we got the 1:1 parking ratio rule for low-rises and the requirements for side setbacks, since units on the sides and back got little light and they also cut off the light to neighbors.

In summary, four plus ones are a perverse demonstration of form follows function: A building form designed to maximize returns for developers by exploiting every loophole. They're dense, yes, but the way they achieve density is through resource hogging; the density was 2 to 3 times that recommended in the already optimistic 1958 comprehensive plan. There's absolutely no reason to be cheering on buildings constructed to the absolute lowest standards. The only ornament you see on there is banal imitation of real architecture to cynically appeal, like a low-rent Robert Venturi. You know what else would increase density? Dumbell tenements. Let's get some of those!

[VivaLFuego]

Almost everything built in Chicago neighborhoods is "exploiting" zoning loopholes by... uh, following the zoning guidelines to maximize return on investment. You see this constantly with the nearly identical form of all the new 3-flats (R4), 4-flats (R5), and 3 over 1 retail (B-2 and C-2) being built all over the city. I don't see what's nefarious about that, if the result was unintended then it's a deficiency in the zoning and building codes, not ill-will by the developers, whose very job it is to maximize return on the equity invested, be it their equity or someone elses.

Further, it's pretty bizarre to say that R5, R6, and R7 (may the latter rest in peace and some day return) were crafted to guide single family development. These are specifically higher density, multi-family zoning districts. R1, R2, and R3 are intended for single family, with maybe some spilling over to R4 (and recently R3.5) wherein a higher floor area ratio is warranted but not a particularly higher unit count.

Indeed, prior to 4+1s being "outlawed" the parking requirement for studies was much less than any other unit (was it 0 per unit, then raised to .5 as part of killing the 4+1 - I believe the 1957 code already stipulated 1 space per unit for 1-bedroom units and higher) - additionally, I think the maximum percentage of "efficiency" units (studios) was also lowered to force new buildings to have more 1-bedrooms rather than studios and ergo more parking spaces.

In short, the deficiencies of the 4+1 could have been largely cured without prohibiting future unit/population density in construction: specifying modest 4-foot side setbacks in R5/R6 or perhaps modifying the building code to specify a certain setback/clearance for bedroom windows; amending the fire code re: elevators for multi-family vs. single-family buildings rather than based on building height; or, if a specific block was to remain lined with stately single family rowhomes rather than redeveloped as apartments, downzone it rather than neuter the zoning designation; and so on.

I understand that circa 1965, the shortage of free on-street vehicle storage was a crisis of epic proportions, but I think there's a defensible case it's time to move beyond that. Again this problem could have been solved (and can still be solved, looking forward) through other means.

[honte]

BWC has done a very good job of elaborating on what I alluded to in my first post on the subject. I think these buildings were more exploitative than the typical housing development.... many of their worst faults could have been entirely avoided if they were truly what was intended by the regulations, or should I say, if the regulations were loosened such that the developments could have proceeded with a bit more humanity.

There is no denying that these buildings tipped the scales on profit far toward the developers, and they did some reprehensible damage... so there is this evil streak that runs through all the other benefits, and this unfortunately taints the whole picture both from a historic and practical sense.

[Taft]

The other important issue to consider with 4+1s is that they arose from exploitation of a zoning loophole. In 1957 he zoning code was amended; you find 4+1s in areas zoned R5-R7. Under fire codes, you would have to have an elevator and use better construction than masonry over frame for dwellings over 4 floors or 45 feet, so your lobby and parking are partially sunken and you have low ceiling heights to fit into that box. It's an exploitation of rules intended to allow single-family. And they stretch from lot line to lot line to maximize their FAR, since the parking wasn't included in calculations. So since these were studio and 1 BR units, they caused a huge spike in density in residential neighborhoods, and since they just had that one floor of parking they caused street parking to get way worse. The backlash against 4+1s is where we got the 1:1 parking ratio rule for low-rises and the requirements for side setbacks, since units on the sides and back got little light and they also cut off the light to neighbors.

In summary, four plus ones are a perverse demonstration of form follows function: A building form designed to maximize returns for developers by exploiting every loophole. They're dense, yes, but the way they achieve density is through resource hogging; the density was 2 to 3 times that recommended in the already optimistic 1958 comprehensive plan. There's absolutely no reason to be cheering on buildings constructed to the absolute lowest standards. The only ornament you see on there is banal imitation of real architecture to cynically appeal, like a low-rent Robert Venturi. You know what else would increase density? Dumbell tenements. Let's get some of those!

I understand--clinically, factually--the arguments you are making. But I think you miss what these "post-war tenements" offer to the urban fabric. For instance, I would argue the density and vibrancy of east Lake View wouldn't exist without them. I would also argue that they provide something that is in high demand in Chicago: relatively cheap housing in a "hip", vibrant neighborhood.

Sure, college students wanting to move to Chicago could find a 1 bedroom in a graystone up in rogers park, logan square or some other far flung neighborhood with less density and local amenities. But more often than not, they choose to stretch their budget a bit and move into relatively low-quality housing in Lake View or other popular neighborhoods. In other words, these types of buildings offer choices to those who are financially constrained.

You can argue that these buildings reduce the quality of life for established, more affluent residents of these neighborhoods. Vis a vis parking issues, density, etc. they probably do. But in the long run, I think such inconveniences are outweighed by the benefits to the city.

Taft

[BWChicago]

edit: double post

[VivaLFuego]

BWC has done a very good job of elaborating on what I alluded to in my first post on the subject. I think these buildings were more exploitative than the typical housing development.... many of their worst faults could have been entirely avoided if they were truly what was intended by the regulations, or should I say, if the regulations were loosened such that the developments could have proceeded with a bit more humanity.

... so there is this evil streak that runs through all the other benefits, and this unfortunately taints the whole picture both from a historic and practical sense.

Yes, unfortunately the negative impacts of these buildings (I still hesitate to blame the developers, who built them in following the guidelines established by zoning and building codes) was largely responsible for what I would call the over-reaction in preventing them going forward. As Taft alludes to, there is a great deal of value for neighborhood vitality in having affordable dense housing options - options that are pretty simply unbuildable in Chicago now due to both the reaction to 4+1s (preventing them in R5 zones), the removal of almost all R6 zoning (wherein something close to a 4+1 could still be be built), and the complete elimination of the R7 and R8 districts that allowed much of the super-urban north lakeshore to take it's current form.

There is no denying that these buildings tipped the scales on profit far toward the developers, and they did some reprehensible damage
The 1957 zoning ordinance in general was very friendly to developers, as it was largely written by one. I still contest the notion that a 4+1 is exploitative, though: I consider a development to be exploitative if it, say, received a rezoning in order to obtain undue value from it's surrounding at the expense of lessening those surroundings. For example, a spot-zoned Planned Development of a gated insular townhome community in the middle of an urban district (numerous Lincoln Park examples, plus uh, Dearborn Park) obtains it's value via it's relative location and surroundings. But it not only contributes nothing of value to surrounding properties, it actively harms their relative attractiveness by virtue of being so insular. One could make a stretch of an argument that 4+1s did exploit neighborhood value by gobbling up available street parking spaces, but I think that's a stretch especially considering they were built according to the zoning map and ordinance, constituting the de facto plan, in place for the locations in which they were built - and further, they added their own value to the area for the reasons Taft previously discussed. It's nonetheless a sticky issue, as in the context of the late 1950s and early 1960s there was less precedent of neighborhood organization opining on matters of zoning and land use control as there is today, meaning people were blind-sided by the implications of the zoning districts as applied to their property. There's no 100% "right" answer, but I think banning and shunning the general form of the 4+1 was a step backwards for the city.

[BWChicago]

For instance, I would argue the density and vibrancy of east Lake View wouldn't exist without them. I would also argue that they provide something that is in high demand in Chicago: relatively cheap housing in a "hip", vibrant neighborhood.

Incidentally, Taft, I sublet a place just across from Treasure Island at Broadway and Stratford for a few months earlier this year. A 4 bedroom with 3 guys I didn't know. I paid $400/month. The building was built in 1916 or so; East Lakeview is full of old apartment buildings with a diverse array of sizes and demographics. A diverse housing mix is what makes a vibrant neighborhood. In contrast, my girlfriend lived in Edgewater around Thorndale, where you see maybe the greatest bunching of 4+1s. This neighborhood had little vibrancy; a conglomeration of 1 bedrooms, kitchenettes, and studios leaves you with a highly transient populace with little investment in their neighborhood. I'm in my 20s, I went to DePaul. I didn't know anyone who lived in a 4+1. However a number of the young GLBT crowd I knew there lived in subsidized housing in some of the towers built with FHA funds in the same era.

[Chicago Shawn]

Yes, unfortunately the negative impacts of these buildings (I still hesitate to blame the developers, who built them in following the guidelines established by zoning and building codes) was largely responsible for what I would call the over-reaction in preventing them going forward. As Taft alludes to, there is a great deal of value for neighborhood vitality in having affordable dense housing options - options that are pretty simply unbuildable in Chicago now due to both the reaction to 4+1s (preventing them in R5 zones), the removal of almost all R6 zoning (wherein something close to a 4+1 could still be be built), and the complete elimination of the R7 and R8 districts that allowed much of the super-urban north lakeshore to take it's current form.


The 1957 zoning ordinance in general was very friendly to developers, as it was largely written by one. I still contest the notion that a 4+1 is exploitative, though: I consider a development to be exploitative if it, say, received a rezoning in order to obtain undue value from it's surrounding at the expense of lessening those surroundings. For example, a spot-zoned Planned Development of a gated insular townhome community in the middle of an urban district (numerous Lincoln Park examples, plus uh, Dearborn Park) obtains it's value via it's relative location and surroundings. But it not only contributes nothing of value to surrounding properties, it actively harms their relative attractiveness by virtue of being so insular. One could make a stretch of an argument that 4+1s did exploit neighborhood value by gobbling up available street parking spaces, but I think that's a stretch especially considering they were built according to the zoning map and ordinance, constituting the de facto plan, in place for the locations in which they were built - and further, they added their own value to the area for the reasons Taft previously discussed. It's nonetheless a sticky issue, as in the context of the late 1950s and early 1960s there was less precedent of neighborhood organization opining on matters of zoning and land use control as there is today, meaning people were blind-sided by the implications of the zoning districts as applied to their property. There's no 100% "right" answer, but I think banning and shunning the general form of the 4+1 was a step backwards for the city.

Agree 100%. The 4+1 is really just the post war version of the 1910's-1920's courtyard apartment building, which also was a scale and density changer for many neighborhoods as they replaced frame houses from the 1800s. They were filled with cheap apartments, and because of their time frame for construction, have no off-street parking what-so-ever. And yet, these are viewed as being a classic piece of Chicago neighborhoods and provide for housing diversity and affordability. The parking complaints mean nothing to me, sorry but these neighborhoods were built before the car became a mainstay in American culture. If someone is a car whore, then they need to move somewhere else, or put up and shut up.

[EarlyBuyer]

Photo taken by EarlyBuyer


http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/5214/dsc0374fe2.jpg

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer


http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/1574/dsc0398ht7.jpg


http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/2153/dsc0399mw7.jpg

[pyropius]

What would it take for the zoning code to be revised again? Would it help if federal transportation funds were tied to minimum density requirements?

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer


http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/6236/dsc0349fk2.jpg


http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/1307/dsc0378ny9.jpg


http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/2807/dsc0480iq8.jpg


http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/1594/dsc0481zt3.jpg


http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/812/dsc0483ds6.jpg

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer


http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/5617/dsc0475os6.jpg


http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/2730/dsc0470lc3.jpg


http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1171/dsc0468ba4.jpg


http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/7196/dsc0469yf8.jpg


http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/8016/dsc0472xn3.jpg

[Jibba]

Nice shots, EarlyBuyer; very cool perspective on that Modern Wing shot. Too bad about those LSE townhomes...they look laughably cheap.

[EarlyBuyer]

:previous:

Thanks for the compliment Jibba.

[wrab]

Whoa, Early, you are pic-making machine today. Great shots, too.

Hadn't seen that angle on Piano annex before - nice!

[BWChicago]

The 4+1 is really just the post war version of the 1910's-1920's courtyard apartment building, which also was a scale and density changer for many neighborhoods as they replaced frame houses from the 1800s. They were filled with cheap apartments, and because of their time frame for construction, have no off-street parking what-so-ever. ...

The courtyard buildings have amenities like green space, common space, respectful design, pedestrian scale, multiple points of entrance, apartments that could get natural light and a mix of different apartment sizes. These are all pluses. In contrast, 4+1s lack green space, the common space is a vestibule, they have one entrance, apartments are often dark, and they're pretty much all studios or one beds. 4+1s are expressly car-oriented by virtue of their car level; if your neighbor has a car, you're probably going to have one too. Courtyard buildings, by virtue of their time period, had to be transit oriented to be viable, since, as you say, there wasn't widespread car ownership. 4+1s were built irrespective of transit because of the car culture then and now. 4+1s create parking demand more than most buildings.

And yes, they are explicitly an exploitation of the zoning code. The SOLE reason their parking floor is sunken and unoccupied is to subvert the intent of the fire and zoning codes. Nobody was designing these codes with the idea of a sunken parking floor.The problem is not the density, it's that they cut every possible corner to maximize return on investment. Courtyards were built to a pretty high quality standard, and most of them are still really solid. 4+1s are built to the lowest standard acceptable; thin drywall, hardly any trim, ugly, leaky PTAC units for HVAC, cheap metal-frame windows. All in the name of maximizing developer profit, which has left tenants and management to deal with the problems for the last 40 years. I don't have a problem with contemporary 5 or 6 stories, or high rises, (save for their lack of articulation) because they had to be built to a higher standard; this form was expressly designed so they could be built to a lower standard than intended for units like these.

As to "it's a deficiency in the zoning and building codes, not ill-will by the developers, whose very job it is to maximize return on the equity invested, be it their equity or someone elses" - the idea that developers must build to the lowest acceptable standard with profit above all else is exactly what results in so much crap development. That maximizing profit just means putting all that deficiency on follow-up users to correct. It's extracting value from the users, not providing affordable housing. Not to mention that many of the developments did in fact break code and sought variations after-the-fact. The fact that some developers take a little responsibility instead of just taking that attitude is why we actually have some quality development.

4+1s should serve as a lesson that density can't be held above standards, careful planning, and a responsibility to users. That was a big part of the problem with public housing and modernist planning in general.

[ardecila]

Since 4+1s were legal and profitable, then the city is to blame for allowing such developments, not the developers themselves.

It is a primary job of government (among others) to regulate economic activity and minimize the impact of economic activity on disinterested parties (neighbors, in this case). If they fail to do this, then it is government's fault and not the producers'.

There's nothing immoral about 4+1s, either. A moral argument could be made about pollution, for example, but not these. They may be a little unpleasant, but that corresponds to the price the market was willing to pay at the time. Buyers chose to live in these buildings with all their associated issues, but they could have chosen older or better-quality buildings just as easily. Why did they choose the 4+1s? Because they offered low prices and they were in a desirable location near the lake.

Property appreciation along the lake has now filled these 4+1s with people of a higher income level who can afford to complain about the problems these buildings pose.

[aic4ever]

Centaur was awarded the W Hotel City Center project in Chicago. A major plumbing, mechanical and architectural renovation of the existing Hotel which will take place while the Hotel is in operation. Starwood Corporation will spend over 20 million dollars on this very complex project and they picked the Centaur team headed by Jeff Kennedy(Centaur Vice President) and Amanda Gilliam (Centaur Project Manager).

The Centaur sales team is working on landing some very exciting projects in adittion to all of the existing ones but not ready to release any info yet...I'll keep you posted.

I am very proud of our team and feel lucky to be working with the people I'm working with!

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v370/28/95/1228162623/n1228162623_30209694_6138.jpg

The Scene
Formerly the Midland Hotel, the renovated W retains its elegant gilded ceilings and inlaid tile floors. The dark, cushy lobby (nicknamed the Living Room) feels like a hip nightclub, with a resident DJ spinning tunes from the overlooking balcony. It's quite a scene, with more than half the lobby loungers coming from nearby offices for pricey drinks and potential pickups. Black-clad, leggy cocktail waitresses flit from bar to bar--W Cafe, Plateau and Whiskey Blue, all run by Rande Gerber of Whiskey Bar and Grill fame (and Cindy Crawford's hubby). The "whatever you want, whenever you want it" policy is provided with 24-hour concierge service. Meeting rooms include a cozy, loft-like room with fireplace.

The Details
The 390 standard rooms, 11 suites and 38 loft-style rooms combine high-tech amenities (27-inch TVs, high-speed Internet access, cordless phones) with pampering luxuries--chaise lounges in some, cushy robes, Aveda products and goose-down comforters.

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v370/28/95/1228162623/n1228162623_30209695_6114.jpg

[aaron38]

Well I hope the Focus Development project in Evanston has better luck than their Palatine Place project, which looks to be dead. The billboards on site were taken down this week, and the sales center says "closed indefinitely".
The site is vacant and Village owned, so maybe they can mothball and wait for favorable weather. (hadn't broke ground yet)
It was 1st floor retail, underground parking and with 190 units the highest density the zoning would allow. Damn the loss of this one sucks. We're this close to getting critical mass around the Metra station.

[harryc]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer


http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/6236/dsc0349fk2.jpg

...


I didn't even see this one, and I rode over it a couple of times this month.

Thank you EB for the extensive coverage, I still haven't had a good look at the new art wing, and hadn't grasped the amount of damage done to the other one already.

And of course the Aqua sets....

[the urban politician]

I was walking in the middle of the LSE park today and saw Aqua with my own eyes for the first time ever (I was flown into town on a job interview).

LSE is turning out to be a great neighborhood. And I like the parkhomes. Classic, modern, whatever.. I'd live there in a heartbeat

[EarlyBuyer]

Thanks for the compliments harry!

[k1052]

There is a 4+1 on Melrose that was revamped and I'd go so far as to even suggest that it is an interesting work of architecture now.

Metro on Melrose, which happens to be my current residence.

Nobody makes the slightest association of this with the other 4+1s on the block after they recladded the exterior in the red stone, glass, and metal.