CHICAGO | General Developments

[honte]

^ Do you know who the architects were on that project? Did they do anything with the interiors to make it more comfortable according to "modern" standards - sound insulation, light, reworking floor plans, odors, etc? I'm sure a lot of people here would be curious to learn your experiences living in a modernized 4+1.

Also, is that a slate facade? I wasn't sure what the stone was without inspecting closely.

Thanks.

[wrab]

The University of Chicago Chronicle
November 20, 2008
Vol. 28 No. 5

Architects selected for Lab Schools expansion project

By William Harms
w-harms@uchicago.edu
News Office
Two award-winning architecture firms, which include some of the nation’s top architects, have been selected to guide a major renovation and expansion project at the University’s Laboratory Schools.

The multi-year project will not only help set the course for the Laboratory Schools in coming years, but also will reflect the importance of their relationship with the University and the community. The architects are charged with maintaining and enhancing the architectural traditions of the schools, while promoting the best educational climate and demonstrating environmental sustainability.

“We have hired an outstanding design team for this important project,” said David Greene, Vice President for Strategic Initiatives and chair of architect search committee. “The Lab Schools have a distinguished tradition of providing an exceptional education that is a great source of pride for the University. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that the schools can continue to meet their highest aspirations.”

Valerio Dewalt Train Associates, a Chicago firm, will bring a broad mix of educational, institutional and commercial experience to the design team. Valerio Dewalt Train has received five American Institute of Architects Honor Awards in the past 10 years, putting it among the top 10 firms in the country.

Among the buildings the firm has designed is the Kresge Foundation building in Troy, Mich. The Chicago Chapter of the American Institute of Architecture has awarded the Kresge Foundation with three of its highest honors—the 2006 Distinguished Building Award, the 2006 Interior Architecture Award and the 2007 Sustainable Design Award.

Valerio Dewalt Train also designed the award-winning Garmin Flagship Store, 663 N. Michigan Ave. The Chicago Chapter of the AIA has awarded the building its highest recognition—the Honor Award for Interior Architecture.

The University also selected FGM Architects for the project, citing the firm’s experience on K-12 school buildings and its award-winning design credentials.

Seventy percent of FGM’s business is in educational design. Based in Oak Brook, the firm has designed and completed more than 1,000 public and private school projects in its 63-year history.

“Our entire community is eager to begin a conversation with FGM/Valerio and is excited to begin improving the learning environment for all,” said David Magill, Director of the Laboratory Schools.

The renovation and expansion are intended to make the resources of the Laboratory Schools available to University families as well as families from the community. The project will allow the student body to grow and retain its diversity and quality, while tailoring the facilities to the best educational practices for every age level.

Currently, the Laboratory Schools serve 1,763 students in nursery school through high school. The Laboratory Schools are recognized as some of the nation’s finest schools. Alumni have distinguished themselves in many walks of life.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/081120/lab.shtml

[k1052]

^ Do you know who the architects were on that project? Did they do anything with the interiors to make it more comfortable according to "modern" standards - sound insulation, light, reworking floor plans, odors, etc? I'm sure a lot of people here would be curious to learn your experiences living in a modernized 4+1.

Also, is that a slate facade? I wasn't sure what the stone was without inspecting closely.

Thanks.

Not sure who the architects were off the top of my head. The facade is some sort of sealed sandstone.

The interiors were totally gutted with only the hallway walls left standing. Insulation was added to the walls and floors (bedrooms in particular). There is still some sound transmission through the ceilings and floors but between units on the same floor it is pretty minimal. Travertine bathrooms, Toto toilets, decent stainless steel/black appliances, new HVAC units, Bosch washer and dryer in unit (my friends who live in apts quite literally lust for these), original hardwood floors, nice builder installed lighting (pendant lights over counter top space), etc.

They were pretty much stuck with the window sizes in much of the building, except the front which has the huge windows facing Melrose. Balconies with sliding glass doors were added to many of the units not on the front as well. They went through considerable trouble to add these in the rear since they needed long I-beams to support them to leave the parking area as obstruction free as possible.

Odors don't seem to be much of a problem. If people are cooking you can smell it in the hallway but not in the units themselves.

All in all they are very livable units and FAR nicer in exterior and interior appearance than the other two 4+1 condo conversions on the street.

[honte]

^ Thanks a lot. Great info.

____

Very good news on the selection of VDTA. I think they're one of the best firms in the city.

But best firms in the country? Sounds like PR boosterism to me... Aren't the AIA Awards still self-nominated? I mean, I don't expect Valerio to win the Pritzker prize any time soon.

[OhioGuy]

I live in a 4+1 (I didn't know they were called that). I don't know if this is typical or not, but mine is a condo building as opposed to an apartment building. As a result, it's actually very nice inside the common areas of the building. Ceramic tile floors, craftsman style wall sconces, earth-tone walls, indoor pool, sauna, and all areas are kept very clean. Plus I have satellite television included in my rent (it's part of the HOA fees). I'm renting my studio from a lawyer who owns this unit. The location in East Lakeview is great for me. I'm a block away from Lake Shore Drive & the lakefront and I'm also just a 10 minute walk from the el. I'm also just a few blocks away from the bars in Boystown, the restaurants on Broadway, Jewel, Whole Foods, etc... all of that for a monthly rent that is lower than probably 98% of comparable studios in this area. The only negatives are that the windows in these buildings tend to be older and as a result aren't energy efficient at all - a big negative in the cold winters here. The other negative is that the walls are a little thin, but I only occasionally can hear one of my neighbors. I don't know if I'd be interested in buying a unit in one of these types of buildings because I'm not confident I'll get much additional money back in the future (I'm doubting their values will rise significantly from where they're at right now), but I'm happy to be renting a studio in a 4+1 for the time being.

[Chicago Shawn]

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.

My gut tells me the Evanston Project is dead too, but who knows. Perhaps if the slumping economy takes a hit on Evanston's city budget, approval might happen a little easier.

BTW, I really appreciate your updates on the transformation of Palatine's downtown.

---------
TUP: Good luck on the interview, hopefully you will be comming back to your "home" city soon. :)

[Chicago Shawn]

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?

Attaching density requirements to transportation funds is only way to revise zoning for density increases on a large scale. There is just too much opposition otherwise coming from people who haven't a clue about how cities really function; they just selfishly want to keep thier views, ample sunlight, and free on-street parking in the middle of a dense 120 year old urban neighborhood. The city should start an a pro-active educational approach and outreach to varrious community groups as to why density is a good thing and why zoning is often more restrictive today than ever in our neighborhoods, and thus certian areas should be upzoned for reasons x,y,z; whatever the case for it might be. I don't how effective it would be though. SOAR on average has turned a new leaf and to a lesser extant so has that group representing the area around Noble Square, so it is possible to gennerate some community support for it.

[Steely Dan]

My gut tells me the Evanston Project is dead too, but who knows. Perhaps if the slumping economy takes a hit on Evanston's city budget, approval might happen a little easier.

for all practical purposes, the Focus project in evanston is dead. no official announcement has been made, but given the state of the economy, and the absolute nightmare the evanston NIMBYs created for the project in the first go-round, i think it's safe to say that it's gone for good.

add to that the fact that the new proposed downtown plan for evanston would now place a hard height limit cap of 25 stories which no building would be allowed to surpass under any circumstances. the new plan has yet to be formally approved by the city council, but i think it will most likely go through, so don't expect anything taller than the existing chase bank building to ever rise in evanston.

[Jibba]

...The city should start an a pro-active educational approach and outreach to varrious community groups as to why density is a good thing and why zoning is often more restrictive today than ever in our neighborhoods, and thus certian areas should be upzoned for reasons x,y,z; whatever the case for it might be. I don't how effective it would be though. SOAR on average has turned a new leaf and to a lesser extant so has that group representing the area around Noble Square, so it is possible to gennerate some community support for it.

Unfortunately many of these groups care absolutely nothing for anyone's views but their own. GGNA (the Great Goethe Neighborhood Association) expressed opposition to Alderman Flores's plans for additional density around the Western and California El stops, saying that the neighborhood doesn't need anything above three stories. After numerous attempts by myself to present the group with a researched and organized piece asking for them to support the measure, while offering them countless rational reasons on why they should, they wouldn't do so much as to even consider what I had to say. They basically responded with "we are doing what we consider to be in the best interests of the community." And, of course, the "best interests of the community" was to oppose the plan assembled under input from the utmost considerate, rigorous, and objective assessment of the interests of the community that was conducted by Alderman Flores.

It's quite simple, really: more density begets more consumers per area, more consumers per area begets more retailers per area, more retailers per area reduces the distance between any two given retailers of the same economic function, and accordingly any functional business within the city is easier to get to. This leads to more walking, less traffic, less parking issues, etc.

But, of course, the logical statement presented above is predicated on the fact that people can walk two city blocks without incurring insufferable bodily harm or dying.

[ardecila]

^^ Well, Flores is in favor of increased density, and in this town, that's all that matters...

[cbotnyse]

add to that the fact that the new proposed downtown plan for evanston would now place a hard height limit cap of 25 stories which no building would be allowed to surpass under any circumstances. the new plan has yet to be formally approved by the city council, but i think it will most likely go through, so don't expect anything taller than the existing chase bank building to ever rise in evanston.wow I didn't know that. that sucks.

Can you imagine if anything like this was enforced in the city? Oh yeah, its called the west loop. :hell:

[Chicago Shawn]

Unfortunately many of these groups care absolutely nothing for anyone's views but their own. GGNA (the Great Goethe Neighborhood Association) expressed opposition to Alderman Flores's plans for additional density around the Western and California El stops, saying that the neighborhood doesn't need anything above three stories. After numerous attempts by myself to present the group with a researched and organized piece asking for them to support the measure, while offering them countless rational reasons on why they should, they wouldn't do so much as to even consider what I had to say. They basically responded with "we are doing what we consider to be in the best interests of the community." And, of course, the "best interests of the community" was to oppose the plan assembled under input from the utmost considerate, rigorous, and objective assessment of the interests of the community that was conducted by Alderman Flores.

It's quite simple, really: more density begets more consumers per area, more consumers per area begets more retailers per area, more retailers per area reduces the distance between any two given retailers of the same economic function, and accordingly any functional business within the city is easier to get to. This leads to more walking, less traffic, less parking issues, etc.

But, of course, the logical statement presented above is predicated on the fact that people can walk two city blocks without incurring insufferable bodily harm or dying.

Yeah, I know, I am just trying to see the glass as half full. I am so tired of all the NIMBY assholes ruining the future of our city because they tolerate urbanity rather than embrace it. I would really love nothing more than having a elected official with the balls to say to these people "if we are going to get serious about environmental sustainability, then we have to increase density. If you want better transit service or even keep it in your neighborhood, it will not come without density."

keep at though with your support. Send a letter to the alderman so they know supporting TOD will win them votes and counteract the fallout from pissed off yuppies upset over the perceived loss of their constitutional right for free street parking.

[Chicago Shawn]

for all practical purposes, the Focus project in evanston is dead. no official announcement has been made, but given the state of the economy, and the absolute nightmare the evanston NIMBYs created for the project in the first go-round, i think it's safe to say that it's gone for good.

add to that the fact that the new proposed downtown plan for evanston would now place a hard height limit cap of 25 stories which no building would be allowed to surpass under any circumstances. the new plan has yet to be formally approved by the city council, but i think it will most likely go through, so don't expect anything taller than the existing chase bank building to ever rise in evanston.

That might be precisely why the application for it has not been officially withdrawn, as Focus has a foot in the door and can always claim that their proposal was in before the height limit took effect. And in the meantime, they can wait out the market. Whether or not Evanston will approve it, or a shorter design is another story.

[Jibba]

Yeah, I know, I am just trying to see the glass as half full. I am so tired of all the NIMBY assholes ruining the future of our city because they tolerate urbanity rather than embrace it. I would really love nothing more than having a elected official with the balls to say to these people "if we are going to get serious about environmental sustainability, then we have to increase density. If you want better transit service or even keep it in your neighborhood, it will not come without density."

keep at though with your support. Send a letter to the alderman so they know supporting TOD will win them votes and counteract the fallout from pissed off yuppies upset over the perceived loss of their constitutional right for free street parking.

Sorry, I didn't intend for it to sound like you are being overly optimistic or anything like that, and I definitely agree that certain community organizations are taking steps in the right direction. And yes, the city definitely needs to stand up to NIMBYs: more often than not, NIMBYs represent the minority, but they are catered to simply because they are the most vocal. In fact, if the city personnel and/or the aldermen responsible for determining the character of developments actually took the time to determine what the real desires of the neighborhood were, they would likely find out that, on the whole, density is a supported characteristic. That is exactly what the study conducted by Alderman Flores found--almost every person surveyed said that they didn't like strip-malls, Walgreen's, fast food chains, ugly parking lots, etc., and they said that they liked dense street frontage and intact urban fabric. After attending the study a lot of the participants said that they would support the additional density around transit stops that the study concluded would benefit the area.

It's unfortunate that a guy like Manny Flores is the exception. It seems as if most Aldermen just treat their positions as just another rung on the political ladder. And speaking of which, their was an article in the Chicago Journal just the other day that mentioned that Flores is considering a run for Congress.

I have sent him letters congratulating and encouraging his efforts, and I hope that if his zoning plans go through it will set an enlightening precedent.

[ardecila]

Renaissance Village, Jefferson/21st

These towers definitely don't look very good, but at least they're density! The short, red-brick ones are Phase I, and the taller grey ones are Phase II. 28 stories in a weird area between Chinatown and Pilsen? I'll take it! (I seriously doubt this will even get to Phase II, though).

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/6730/picture3pu3.png

[Jibba]

^I'll take it, too, please.

[BWChicago]

Not sure who the architects were off the top of my head. The facade is some sort of sealed sandstone.

"Although two local architecture firms worked on the interior remodeling, Rick Sundberg of Seattle’s Olson Sundberg Kundig Allen Architects designed its facade. (The project developer hired him based on photos of a single-family house in Denver his firm had designed.)" -from an article at http://www.timeout.com/chicago/articles/art-design/18849/notes-on-the-built-environment

I do really like this building, and I didn't mean to imply that ALL four-plus-ones were awful - there certainly were those who built to a higher standard anyway, and obviously they can be made nicer.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Excerpt on four-plus-ones from The Politics of Place: A History of Zoning in Chicago (http://books.google.com/books?id=TOjJhIomlNEC&pg=PT73&lpg=PT73&dq=four-plus-ones+chicago&source=web&ots=jGPSPH5RUs&sig=K9-XbaKd8XmvdZOB8gPFzmUh6sY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result)

I live in east Lincoln Park near Diversey and have always despised these structures. A big thanks to the extremely intelligent and well-informed people we have at this forum for finally putting a name on them and explaining their history. I was even tempted, a few months back, to photograph the ones around my neighborhood and ask what they are and why they are so ubiquitous in east Lakeview and extreme northeastern Lincoln Park.

[wrab]

^ Very good link - thank you.

That is the first time that I've used Google's Book Search. They have really expanded their game. What's left for them to catalogue - Google Human Genomes? Amazing.

[BVictor1]

Excerpt on four-plus-ones from The Politics of Place: A History of Zoning in Chicago (http://books.google.com/books?id=TOjJhIomlNEC&pg=PT73&lpg=PT73&dq=four-plus-ones+chicago&source=web&ots=jGPSPH5RUs&sig=K9-XbaKd8XmvdZOB8gPFzmUh6sY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result)

I live in east Lincoln Park near Diversey and have always despised these structures. A big thanks to the extremely intelligent and well-informed people we have at this forum for finally putting a name on them and explaining their history. I was even tempted, a few months back, to photograph the ones around my neighborhood and ask what they are and why they are so ubiquitous in east Lakeview and extreme northeastern Lincoln Park.

I abhore 4 + 1's. Wouldn't mind seeing the lot of them torn down and replaced with decent architecture and the same to slightly more dense.

[BVictor1]

Renaissance Village, Jefferson/21st

These towers definitely don't look very good, but at least they're density! The short, red-brick ones are Phase I, and the taller grey ones are Phase II. 28 stories in a weird area between Chinatown and Pilsen? I'll take it! (I seriously doubt this will even get to Phase II, though).

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/6730/picture3pu3.png

Like the density.

The design/architecture needs a do-over

Is there a link to this proposal.

[VivaLFuego]

I abhore 4 + 1's. Wouldn't mind seeing the lot of them torn down and replaced with decent architecture and the same to slightly more dense.

But if the alternatives are:
1) renovation of various levels of quality, maintaining the same unit density
vs.
2) the possibility of better architecture at much lower densities but conforming to current zoning codes

Which would you take? I'll take (1) in under a heartbeat - and that's even ignoring the fact that (2) is, at best, a gamble given the poor taste and quality of most residential construction throughout the city. The urban density of the 4+1 can not be built anymore. So in their own way, like the bulk of Chicago's oft-beloved built environment existing under our current zoning code, they are irreplaceable. Are they so irreparably awful in aesthetic that it's worth tearing them down?

[k1052]

The biggest problem I see with many of the 4+1s in Lakeview is how poorly the majority of their owners care for them. Most are long overdue for major renovations of the units and exteriors.

Unfortunately they are rental cash cows so there is little incentive to sell them off, turn them condo (especially now), or do any work on them above the bare minimum to keep them habitable.

[ChicagoChicago]

Curious to know, what is the deal with the building on the NE corner of Randolph and Wells? This building has been boarded up for years.

[VivaLFuego]

Curious to know, what is the deal with the building on the NE corner of Randolph and Wells? This building has been boarded up for years.

Owned by Forest City Village Green (EDITED: oops, -vfl) , received substantial TIF money in support of a conversion to approx. 200 rental apartments with 0 off-street parking spaces. The project was first announced around 2005. A few historic buildings next door (to the east) were razed to provide room for construction staging. This was the building whose terra cotta was falling off onto the street some years ago and thus needed emergency scaffolding on the tower portion.

What's happening to it now? Good question. I wish we were seeing more progress - I'm not sure if they are doing interior demolition or nothing at all. Hopefully someone else has better or more recent news.

[ChicagoChicago]

^^^
Awesome…So the company received taxpayer dollars to renovate the building, and then hasn’t done squat. I work about a block away and walk by it every day. I’ve never seen a sole working in or at the building. I’ll take some pictures of the eyesore tomorrow.

[a chicago bearcat]

^^^
I’ve never seen a sole working in or at the building.

I like the term "sole" for boots on the ground in a construction sense. Although I'm not implying construction workers are without souls.

that distinction is left to mortgage backed security bundlers.

[honte]

^^^
Awesome…So the company received taxpayer dollars to renovate the building, and then hasn’t done squat. I work about a block away and walk by it every day. I’ve never seen a sole working in or at the building. I’ll take some pictures of the eyesore tomorrow.

Over the last 10 years, XXX has done some of the most excellent work in the entire City of Chicago. I'll be glad to wait for them to do whatever they need to do.

If you want to get angry about money thrown in to the wind, look no further than Block 37 or any of the countless insider deals that continue to get done at an alarming rate...

[VivaLFuego]

Over the last 10 years, Forest City has done some of the most excellent work in the entire City of Chicago. I'll be glad to wait for them to do whatever they need to do.

If you want to get angry about money thrown in to the wind, look no further than Block 37 or any of the countless insider deals that continue to get done at an alarming rate...

Agreed. And further, ensuring the successful reuse of this gem of a building is one use of TIF funds in a non-blighted area that I'll support - in contrast to for example, as honte points out, an extra $12 million here and there for a wizbang teleconference center at the Block 37 hotel.

[ChicagoChicago]

I like the term "sole" for boots on the ground in a construction sense..lol. I guess it could be used as a metaphor. I always figured the "not a sole (soul?)" phrase was spelled that way and suggested 'sole' as in single person. But then what the hell do I know, I deal with numbers all day. :shrug:

But I digress.

[ChicagoChicago]

Over the last 10 years, Forest City has done some of the most excellent work in the entire City of Chicago. I'll be glad to wait for them to do whatever they need to do.

If you want to get angry about money thrown in to the wind, look no further than Block 37 or any of the countless insider deals that continue to get done at an alarming rate...
Don't get me started about Block 37. What a disaster that has been. At least that money was spread around the 4 developers that have squandered it...:hell:

And I must admit I am not familiar with Forest City, but I hate to see buildings sit in disrepair, and it's especially annoying when it's got my tax dollars tied to it.

[honte]

^ I think it's good your tax dollars are there, because without them the city would have far less leverage in the development. I'd hate to see that thing end up in demo court.

It's not a very likely scenario, but you get my drift - prior to landmarking and City involvement, the City was threatening to force the previous owner to lop off the tower portion altogether...

XXX has done some great work - including conversions of the Fisher Building and what is now the MDA City Apartments. These have been quite excellent historic renovations and I think we'll be very proud of Randolph Tower when all is said and done.

[wrab]

.....Forest has done some great work - including conversions of the Fisher Building and what is now the MDA City Apartments. These have been quite excellent historic renovations and I think we'll be very proud of Randolph Tower when all is said and done.

Didn't realize that FC did the Fisher. Good for them.

-----

Trivia: the "Forest City" moniker refers to Cleveland OH, which is where the Ratner family is located. Apparently, the city once had quite a tree canopy (much of it since lost through disease & neglect; unlike Chicago, Cleveland has not been very aggressive about replanting).

[honte]

Didn't realize that FC did the Fisher. Good for them.

-----

Trivia: the "Forest City" moniker refers to Cleveland OH, which is where the Ratner family is located. Apparently, the city once had quite a tree canopy (much of it since lost through disease & neglect; unlike Chicago, Cleveland has not been very aggressive about replanting).


Wrabbit, you are absolutely right - I was mistaking in my head Forest City for Village Green. VG did the Fisher building and the other projects I mentioned, not Forest City (who are the big players on the Central Station Development). I apologize. Too many "planty" names for my tired brain, I guess. I haven't been sleeping much lately.

So, VivaL, refresh us please - were you making the same mix-up, or is Village Green not involved with Randolph Tower / Steuben Club? My memory is that they were, not Forest City. Seems I need to review my (nonexistent) notes...

_______

Edit: Here is the link to Village Green's Randolph Tower stuff. Again, my aplogies for the confusion. http://www.villagegreen.com/content/index.cfm?fuseaction=showContent&contentID=272&navID=225

[VivaLFuego]

So, VivaL, refresh us please - were you making the same mix-up, or is Village Green not involved with Randolph Tower / Steuben Club? My memory is that they were, not Forest City. Seems I need to review my (nonexistent) notes...
_______
Edit: Here is the link to Village Green's Randolph Tower stuff. Again, my aplogies for the confusion. http://www.villagegreen.com/content/index.cfm?fuseaction=showContent&contentID=272&navID=225

Good catch... I guess my dyslexic brain mixed up our various residential developers who name themselves by combining an arboreal term and a form of municipality. Previous post edited...

[wrab]

Wrabbit, you are absolutely right - I was mistaking in my head Forest City for Village Green.....

I didn't catch it either LOL - I was just spouting trivia.

[jjk1103]

ok.....so which is the correct answer ? .........also, I thought that tower had some sort of landmark status ?

[wrab]

^Village Green - they did the recent restoration of the Fisher. And you are correct that the Fisher is landmarked.

[honte]

^ Yes, Village Green is the developer.

Yes, Village Green does great work.

Yes, all of Village Green's big downtown projects to my memory have landmark status - MDA, Fisher, Randolph Tower.

No, Forest City is not involved with this project.

Yes, Forest City does some good work, but not as great IMO as Village Green (I'm still annoyed with them a bit because Central Station isn't as bold as their other urban partnerships).

Yes, there are way too many "Plant + Random Other Object" monikers.

Yes, Honte is so stupid, he can't cross out his mistakes like VivaLFuego. ;)

Phew.

[BVictor1]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/

New WTTW11 documentary revisits 10 years of drama on Chicago's lakefront

I haven't had a chance yet to look at the DVD for WTTW11's upcoming documentary, "Chicago's Lakefront," but I'm looking forward to it. The host, Geoffrey Baer, has a track record of skillfully weaving together architectural analysis, cultural history and memorable anecdotes. So the expectations for this show, which covers the recent history of the lakefront, are high.

Nearly 10 years ago, Baer did a fine documentary on the lakefront for WTTW11, and this all-new. 90-minute program, which will be shown Monday, Dec. 1 at 7:30 p.m., covers the dramatic developments since then. They range from the triumph of Millennium Park to Mayor Richard M. Daley's infamous midnight raid on Meigs Field to Barack Obama's stirring Election Night rally in Grant Park. The show also promises to be timely, coming just before next year's 100th anniversary of the Burnham Plan, which helped establish Chicago's nearly continuous chain of lakefront parks.

The show will be broadcast on both WTTW11 and WTTWD. It will be rebroadcast on Tuesday, Dec. 9 at 7:30 p.m. and on Sunday, Dec. 14, at 12:30 p.m. and 7 p.m.

[spyguy]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1300123,CST-NWS-game26.article

Showing their hands
HIGH-STAKES RACE | Firms unveil plans as battle for state's last casino license heats up

November 26, 2008
BY CHRIS FUSCO

The company headed by a Las Vegas-tested veteran is offering a staggering $435 million for the state's last-available casino license, but organized-crime questions about its location -- Rosemont -- might linger.

There's an alternative casino site just up the road in Des Plaines, but its owners have offered only $200 million for the license so far.

And then there's the clout-heavy firm that wants to put a casino in Waukegan. Its opening bid is $225 million. But can it really build a casino for the seemingly low amount it says it can?
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8738/game4jpg200811252249159pe8.jpg

[ardecila]

I hope Waukegan gets it. It should provide the most revenue out of any of the proposals, since it's the farthest away from the other Chicagoland casinos and would avoid cannibalizing their traffic.

Also, the Des Plaines and Rosemont proposals are within a mile of each other. In fact, the site for the Des Plaines proposal is an area I always thought of as part of Rosemont. Obviously, both proposals rely on O'Hare traffic and luring tourists in, as well as business travelers... but who flies to Chicago to gamble? The people who want to gamble in Chicago are Chicagoans or people from the surrounding areas, who drive to get to the casinos. I doubt the O'Hare factor is nearly as big as these developers seem to think.

[nomarandlee]

Why again isn't Chicago a candidate to get the casino? Would this preclude the city from getting one down the road or is a possible Chicago casino a separate matter from these licenses?

[ardecila]

Under the old agreement, there are 10 licenses for casinos in Illinois. 3 are currently in the Chicago area (Aurora, Joliet, Elgin), 6 are downstate, and 1 is unused. The unused one is supposed to go to a Chicagoland casino, but politics always pretty much ensured it would end up in the suburbs.

There's no reason Chicago can't submit a bid, but the city does not have any specific plans for a casino yet, and an urban casino would likely require years of planning to make it mesh with the city's urban fabric in a positive way. A rushed bid would be unlikely to win the license and would probably harm the city if it did happen to win. Since I've come to New Orleans for college, I've become well-aware of what a nightmare an urban casino can be from an architectural and pedestrian point of view. However, suburban areas are already so haphazardly-planned that throwing a casino in the mix wouldn't be very detrimental.

[ardecila]

This is a recent article in Chicago Journal. Jones School on State Street in the South Loop is planning to build a 7-story building on the parking lot to the south of its current location. It will move completely into the new building and then tear down their old buildings and sell the land to developers. Hopefully this will allow for Harrison to be re-aligned so it forms a standard intersection at State Street, instead of the jog it currently makes that snarls up traffic.

The previous plan for the parking lot included more low-rise structures like the current school, but because of this new plan, that stretch of State Street could become a LOT denser and more urban, between a new 7-story school and a new residential or office tower. The new school will double its capacity and start an open-enrollment, local high school for the South Loop alongside its selective-enrollment program. Funding will be $90 million from TIF and $40 million from CPS.

Although it's not mentioned in the article, the new building will likely be designed by SCB, who was previously tapped to design the low-rise addition for the site and will probably be retained for the new plan.

Link to article:
http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=6496&TM=2327.319

[the urban politician]

^ Great news.

I hope the NIMBY moron mini-tyrants living down there don't get too hissy-fittish about it

[the urban politician]

NIMBY's are about as dull and predictable as they get. I'll give you a preview into the next community meeting's complaints (you know, so that you don't have to waste your time reading about them as they pan out later):

1. 75 parking spaces? NOT ENOUGH! We need more, a LOT more! At least 200!

2. 7 stories? Too tall! This isn't downtown, get real!

3. Only 75 parking spaces? Wait a minute, we already talked about that..

4. It's too tall! Oh wait a minute, we already talked about that too..

5. We'd like you to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a bullshit traffic study that will accomplish nothing but make us feel better about the fact that we made you waste money on something that is completely irrelevant

6. Can we talk about parking again?

Mark my words, guys..

[Jibba]

^I hate that imagining the most ridiculous parody of these people is not even as ridiculous as the truth sometimes is. I really hope there aren't problems with this one; the South Loop needs to be steered in the urban direction at every possible chance.

[Chicago Shawn]

Yes, that is exactly how many of these meetings go, but you forgot one thing; before number 1 comes "WE CAN"T HEAR YOU, SPEAK UP!"


I predict South Loop Neighbors will demand nothing taller than University Center and Library Tower to be "in context".

[denizen467]

Hopefully this will allow for Harrison to be re-aligned so it forms a standard intersection at State Street, instead of the jog it currently makes that snarls up traffic.
Just wishful speculation or has this been considered at city hall at any time in the past?

This is an interesting idea because there is a little bit of unused land between Library Tower and Harrison, so if you realigned the street southwards, this plot would grow enough to be developable.

[honte]

This is a recent article in Chicago Journal. Jones School on State Street in the South Loop is planning to build a 7-story building on the parking lot to the south of its current location. It will move completely into the new building and then tear down their old buildings and sell the land to developers. Hopefully this will allow for Harrison to be re-aligned so it forms a standard intersection at State Street, instead of the jog it currently makes that snarls up traffic.

The previous plan for the parking lot included more low-rise structures like the current school, but because of this new plan, that stretch of State Street could become a LOT denser and more urban, between a new 7-story school and a new residential or office tower. The new school will double its capacity and start an open-enrollment, local high school for the South Loop alongside its selective-enrollment program. Funding will be $90 million from TIF and $40 million from CPS.

Although it's not mentioned in the article, the new building will likely be designed by SCB, who was previously tapped to design the low-rise addition for the site and will probably be retained for the new plan.

Link to article:
http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=6496&TM=2327.319

I think this is absolutely disgusting. Repulsive. :hell: :hell: :hell:

Basically, it proves that the real reason behind the "Expansion project" was to kick the Pacific Garden Mission out of the neighborhood. Many predicted this.

Recall, the existing building is a high-rise without its top, just like BCBS. This has largely been forgotten to time, but it can accommodate at least 16 stories, probably more with good engineering. This is a documented fact. Tearing it down is just another pathetic waste of our resources (tax dollars, existing environmental resources, and the rest of it).

The school recently had an expensive addition. The existing school is perfectly usable - one of the better from its era - and it is beautifully designed. By hemming the school in yet again, they will have to tear down something else to expand it later - but there's nothing left around there.

I hope the "NIMBIES" destroy this pathetic proposal.

[ardecila]

^^ I totally forgot about the Pacific Garden Mission - but I'm sure that was the intent. With that in mind, CPS' actions now seem rather cruel and conniving.

I will wait to see the new design before I condemn the current plan, however. If SCB can somehow pack a gym, library, cafeteria, and enough classroom space for 1200 students into a 7-story building in an attractive, functional, and unique manner, I will be very impressed. From a green standpoint, the intensity of land use on this block is only going to increase in the long run through this plan. Doesn't that make up for the losses of demolition?

denizen467 - the land south of Library Tower is set aside as a veterans' memorial. Perhaps that could be expanded. The South Loop does not have much in the way of plaza space, unless you count the semi-private spaces of Dearborn Park.

[honte]

^^ From a green standpoint, the intensity of land use on this block is only going to increase in the long run through this plan. Doesn't that make up for the losses of demolition?

No, because if they're going to go through with a plan like that, they can expand the school on top of the existing building and build something like the highrise you all are imagining on the site of the old Mission. If they don't have room for their gym or whatever, it can be inside a mixed-use tower. Plus, your scenario ignores the value of historic architecture (yes, I am prepared to say the Jones school is fine architecture and historic).

But of course, if they directly sell that land to a developer it will be construed as a "land grab, taking the poor people's land for the rich" (which it is, more or less). Instead, somehow this minor game of parcel checkers is supposed to come off differently? They must really take the public for fools.

My gym scenario could be massaged in a PR manner into something much easier to stomach: "Oh, we are subsidizing the expansion of the school by putting condos over the gym and getting the gym for free." Etc.

[Nowhereman1280]

But honte, this is a school we are talking about, as has been learned countless times in the past, schools do not work very well in tall buildings. You can't expect a school in need of classrooms to expand up, it just doesn't work.

Yes, I agree about the mission and the tearing down buildings, and the hemming themselves in again, but to expect them to stay where they are makes no sense.

I would rather they move somewhere down the street where there are open parking lots to build on and develop the original building to its maximum possible height.

[VivaLFuego]

^I hate that imagining the most ridiculous parody of these people is not even as ridiculous as the truth sometimes is. I really hope there aren't problems with this one; the South Loop needs to be steered in the urban direction at every possible chance.

Yes, you couldn't make up the NIMBY meetings in Hyde Park (complaining about the potential for rowdy drunken Bar Mitzvahs at the now-dead hotel on Stony Island) if you tried.

[VivaLFuego]

Basically, it proves that the real reason behind the "Expansion project" was to kick the Pacific Garden Mission out of the neighborhood. Many predicted this.

Recall, the existing building is a high-rise without its top, just like BCBS. This has largely been forgotten to time, but it can accommodate at least 16 stories, probably more with good engineering. This is a documented fact. Tearing it down is just another pathetic waste of our resources (tax dollars, existing environmental resources, and the rest of it).

The school recently had an expensive addition. The existing school is perfectly usable - one of the better from its era - and it is beautifully designed.

Good points - can't argue in the slightest with their veracity (and I'm partial to the Jones building architecturally, too). But I wouldn't wish the NIMBYs well from your viewpoint. After all, they were probably the strongest drivers in getting government force applied to remove the Pacific Garden Mission in the first place, and if/when they bring up preservation in the context of the Jones school it will be in a dishonest and ulterior manner as part of a scattergun approach, much like the Dr.'s Hospital in Hyde Park.

[Tom In Chicago]

Basically, it proves that the real reason behind the "Expansion project" was to kick the Pacific Garden Mission out of the neighborhood. Many predicted this.

Recall, the existing building is a high-rise without its top, just like BCBS. This has largely been forgotten to time, but it can accommodate at least 16 stories, probably more with good engineering. This is a documented fact. Tearing it down is just another pathetic waste of our resources (tax dollars, existing environmental resources, and the rest of it).

The school recently had an expensive addition. The existing school is perfectly usable - one of the better from its era - and it is beautifully designed. By hemming the school in yet again, they will have to tear down something else to expand it later - but there's nothing left around there.

I hope the "NIMBIES" destroy this pathetic proposal.

I was not aware of this (16 stories?), but isn't the 7 storey height for the new building on the south end of that lot is what they've been planning all along? Seems to me it might have even been something in the 5 storey range. . . but either way this doesn't appear to me to be new news. . .

. . .

[Mr Downtown]

South Loop Neighbors tried to get the universities to make University Center a little taller so that Harrison Street could be realigned, viewing that as the one chance this century to do so. But the universities claimed, in that post–9/11 time, that parents would be willing to allow their kids to live in an 18-story dorm but never ever a 20-story one.

As for Pacific Garden Mission, though I occasionally heard complaints about specific hassles from specific patrons, in 26 years of South Loop residency I never heard anyone offer the opinion that it should be moved. At least in the circles I travel in, there was no question about who was there first. Nonetheless, it was apparent from the first proposal that the Jones expansion was merely a way for the City to get rid of the Mission.

[honte]

But honte, this is a school we are talking about, as has been learned countless times in the past, schools do not work very well in tall buildings. You can't expect a school in need of classrooms to expand up, it just doesn't work.

Yes, I agree about the mission and the tearing down buildings, and the hemming themselves in again, but to expect them to stay where they are makes no sense.

I would rather they move somewhere down the street where there are open parking lots to build on and develop the original building to its maximum possible height.


I don't understand your point. The "new" plan is for a 7-story building. You wouldn't call that a vertical school? I don't see the difference. Once you put in an elevator and expect kids to travel that way, what's a few additional stories?

Chicago and NYC have other examples of vertically-circulating schools anyway. They seem to do ok, although I'm not an education facilities specialist. Obviously the ideal way is to have a campus setting...

If you want a low-rise school to come out of this, the only solution is to preserve / reuse the existing building, and build on the newly cleared land, as we were told would happen. So, again, I don't see why you're arguing in favor of their plan.

[honte]

I was not aware of this (16 stories?), but isn't the 7 storey height for the new building on the south end of that lot is what they've been planning all along? Seems to me it might have even been something in the 5 storey range. . . but either way this doesn't appear to me to be new news. . .

. . .

Well, to be fair it might be old news, but I hadn't heard anything about this before. I've been following it loosely of course, not living in the South Loop and not being a parent. But, I've never heard anything except "expansion" plans, not "replacement" plans, etc. Regardless, I'd still be just as ticked, then or now.

When was the addition put on? 2002? That's not the kind of thing one usually does when the whole school is going to get imploded - but then again, in the City that Makes No Little Waste, I wouldn't be surprised.

I have different sources on the school - some of them say 12-13 stories, I believe, others taller. Mr. Downtown might know for sure what the final count / anticipated future load was when they built it.

[Loopy]

.

[jvalente]

Does anyone have any news or pictures of the Buckingham Fountain renovation?

[Nowhereman1280]

I don't understand your point. The "new" plan is for a 7-story building. You wouldn't call that a vertical school? I don't see the difference. Once you put in an elevator and expect kids to travel that way, what's a few additional stories?

Chicago and NYC have other examples of vertically-circulating schools anyway. They seem to do ok, although I'm not an education facilities specialist. Obviously the ideal way is to have a campus setting...

If you want a low-rise school to come out of this, the only solution is to preserve / reuse the existing building, and build on the newly cleared land, as we were told would happen. So, again, I don't see why you're arguing in favor of their plan.

Well 7 stories is low rise for a school since more than 50% of space required for schools is administrative. Generally the ideal range for classrooms is +/- 2 floors from grade, though up to 3 stories from grade can work well too (got this from the guys over in the Capital planning department at Loyola). So if it were 7 stories and 1 basement, then you could have 4 floors of classrooms and cafeteria and other high traffic spaces, and 4 floors of low traffic use like offices and meeting rooms. That is what they are currently doing to Mudelein (Skyscraper Building) at Lakeshore campus. The bottom 3 floors plus basement are classrooms, floors 4 to 9 are medium use like practice rooms and other studio space, and floors 10 to 14 are purely office.

I'm not familiar with any vertically circulating school buildings in Chicago that are successful, which ones are you referring to? The only ones I am familiar with are 25 E. Pearson (often have to wait 10-15 min for an elevator) and Damen Hall (always standing in slow moving lines on escalators that back up on every floor where you switch direction) neither of which work well at all.

Well I'm not really arguing in favor of the plan since I don't know enough about the specifics of this site and building. Just merely pointing out that this may be their thinking on this project. I'll have to go down there and see it for myself before I can really have an opinion...

[honte]

^ Well, Clemente High is the first thing that comes to mind. It's 8 stories, so probably not exactly a high rise. Not sure how the breakdown works out for classrooms vs. office in the tower part. But if your formula is correct, then a 12 story high school isn't that much of a stretch beyond a 4 story one, nothing proper circulation planning couldn't handle.

If you want to expand to colleges, there are countless examples here such as facilities for Harold Washington, IIT Research Tower (which is a bona fide office building but I think there are some classes in there - perhaps not IIT's), numerous downtown higher education institutions, etc.

[wrab]

^ Also John Marshall Law on Plymouth.

[VivaLFuego]

Well 7 stories is low rise for a school since more than 50% of space required for schools is administrative.

Speaking as someone who attended a Chicago public high school, this doesn't sound right. Administrative space (including the front office, the department/faculty offices, and maintenance) was no more than 25% of total space. Maybe that's the case at universities, but not high schools.

I'm not familiar with any vertically circulating school buildings in Chicago that are successful, which ones are you referring to? The only ones I am familiar with are 25 E. Pearson (often have to wait 10-15 min for an elevator) and Damen Hall (always standing in slow moving lines on escalators that back up on every floor where you switch direction) neither of which work well at all.

Harold Washington College. Combination of an escalator atrium (up to the 8th floor out of 11 total, if memory serves) and elevator bank. Would benefit from one extra elevator (though it's not bad when all elevators are actually functioning - not a design issue, but maintenance). It's definitely doable, though.

honte brought up Clemente as well. I haven't been inside, but I haven't heard anything about it being a nightmare of circulation, either.

[BWChicago]

DePaul's loop campus works reasonably well for older buildings. I think the problem with Lewis Center is mainly the slow elevators.

[Nowhereman1280]

Speaking as someone who attended a Chicago public high school, this doesn't sound right. Administrative space (including the front office, the department/faculty offices, and maintenance) was no more than 25% of total space. Maybe that's the case at universities, but not high schools.


Oh are we talking about a high school here? Oh yeah I wasn't thinking, I was assuming this was just another university building in the South Loop Campus area. In that case, the office ratio is probably much much lower. My points only apply to University and College buildings where you need a lot more space for professors and research and library type functions...

[VivaLFuego]

The large irregular site bounded by Ashland, Howard, Rogers, and uh, Ashland again (like I said, weird site...) is cleared/demo'd and fenced off. Anyone know what's going here? Nice location for some TOD... on the zoning map it's listed as PD 950, and I think the underlying zoning is B3-3 which is fairly permissive in allowed uses and the FAR of 3.0 on a large site could be some nice density....

Or, it could be a big parking lot. Anyone know the story?

EDIT: I think this might be it, but I'm not sure - I think the address in the article might be off, because otherwise the description seems to fit: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=6185403&postcount=18

EDIT2: Browsing some of the Rogers Park blogs linked from the SSC thread, Rogers Park is a real cesspool of narrow-minded developer-hostile NIMBYism. Anything of any density or transit-friendliness that happens in Rogers Park is the result of it being rammed through by either Loyola or Ald. Moore, and I now have some more respect for both of them (with some potential caveats/concerns regarding preservation, but neither have been too destructive in that regard yet).

[the urban politician]

^ I once applauded Ald Moore for supporting density at the expense of NIMBY whining. I was quickly rebuked by one of the forumers here for doing so, perhaps because there are some negative aspects about him that leave much to be desired.

But at this point, an Alderman can murder babies, wrap them in tin foil and store them in a freezer and I don't care. Support density and as far as I'm concerned, you're an angel :tup:

[VivaLFuego]

^ I once applauded Ald Moore for supporting density at the expense of NIMBY whining. I was quickly rebuked by one of the forumers here for doing so, perhaps because there are some negative aspects about him that leave much to be desired.

But at this point, an Alderman can murder babies, wrap them in tin foil and store them in a freezer and I don't care. Support density and as far as I'm concerned, you're an angel :tup:

He's occasionally a bit of a crackpot, but like you I'll overlook a decent amount for someone who supports densifying the city - Natarus v. Reilly is a decent example, one a screwball with little sympathy for architectural preservation, the other seeking maximum open space and parking ratios and minimum unit density downtown. I have to throw my hat in with the former, as hare-brained as his shenanigans often were.

In related thoughts, the similarities and parallels between Rogers Park and Hyde Park from a socio-political and neighborhood development standpoint are kinda interesting. Some key distinctions too; the Hyde Park NIMBYs (and the Hyde Park university) have each historically been much more successful in their development aims than either comparable force in Rogers Park. And in related news, there is no frickin' private development of any size anywhere in Hyde Park, nor has there been in years; only demolition of existing housing stock in one corner for the expansion of University facilities. At least Rogers Park manages to attract the interest of private development investment from multiple sources, while in HP there is but one equity source investment an almost creepy amount into obtaining full ownership of all non-University-owned rental stock.

[the urban politician]

^ According to HP Progress, Antheus Capital has actually added hundreds of rental units to Hyde Park by rehabbing several older buildings and bringing older, underutilized spaces back to use.

So in a sense, there has been some development.

[Chicago Shawn]

Didn't know about the vertical expansion design at Jones, tearing it down really would be pretty wasteful. Architecturally speaking, I couldn't see a expansion taking on the same awesome brutalist finish that Jones has, but rather probably a glass box plopped on top. I suppose the courtyard to the south could have a circulation tower built into it, ala Inland Steel to aid in the movement of extra students, while not having to tear out floors during expansion for extra elevators.



Viva, that parcel on Howard you mentioned is indeed planned for that low-rise condo and courtyard townhouse development; a major wasted opportunity. Good news is, that the site has been cleared and vacant for a while now, so perhaps the ailing market will kill it. That site should be a high density and mixed use, period. Thank god Evanston was able ram some appropriate TOD onto Howard Street, that high-rise would have been killed by Rogers Park NIMBYs long ago if that wedge of land was inside city limits.

[jjk1103]

Does anyone have any news or pictures of the Buckingham Fountain renovation?

..the fountain is being completely re-built and is scheduled to re-open next April..(and it probably will) since the IOC is scheduled to make it's final walk thru Chicago prior to making decision about the Olympics.....it is going to be a really spectacular upgrade with a laser light show and a "dancing waters" feature like Bellagio in Las Vegas.........

[spyguy]

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@2022111470.1228075494@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccdadefldhddfecefecelldffhdfho.0&contentOID=537019375&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&blockName=Planning+And+Development%2FI+Want+To&context=dept&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Planning+And+Development&deptMainCategoryOID=

TIF to help create new West Loop plaza
Open space project set for Franklin and Randolph

The City Council approved a plan today to create a new downtown public plaza space at the corner of Franklin and Randolph Streets as part of the development of a neighboring office tower.

"The new plaza will create a new place to rest and relax for downtown workers and visitors," said Mayor Richard M. Daley. "This is a great opportunity to further the goal of the CitySpace Plan to create more open space in every Chicago neighborhood, including the West Loop."

The 9,600-square-foot plaza will replace three commercial buildings on the northwest corner of Randolph and Franklin, adjacent to a 48-story commercial office tower under construction at 155 N. Wacker Dr. The tower's developer, John Buck Co., will acquire the three buildings at 300-308 W. Randolph St., and build out the new public plaza space.

The $19.7 million project will incorporate sustainable design elements, seating and landscaping. The plaza will then be conveyed to the City, but maintained in perpetuity by the developer in accordance with a development and management agreement.

In turn, the developer will be reimbursed $7 million in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds for a portion of the acquisition and site-preparation costs. The remainder of the project's costs, $12.7 million, will be financed by the developer.

[left of center]

^ shitty. the buildings, while not all that spectacular, are still some of the few historic human-scaled buildings left in that part of the Loop. Why would the city foot the bill for this anyway? Its taking property off the tax rolls. Seems like a stupid investment to me. A quarter block plaza is nothing to get all excited about...

[denizen467]

^ I know there are problems with this but at least let's recognize 2 positives:
First, one or two of the Franklin buildings will remain.
Second, if the city is sacrificing tax rolls in order to gain a park, that's a rather benevolent thing. The public can't consume tax dollars directly; they need to be spent on something before they benefit the public. A plaza does benefit the public directly. And the sacrificed tax dollars could well be re-couped if the area becomes more desirable for future offices, thereby encouraging more density along Franklin and leading to higher tax rolls. After all, there is something a bit suffocating about that Franklin-Randolph (e.g. that AT&T building) area and it could use some "softness".

(Of course, future positive developments on the 3 other corners of that intersection, such as plazas or greenery, could moot my 2nd point.)

[the urban politician]

encouraging more density along Franklin and leading to higher tax rolls. After all, there is something a bit suffocating about that Franklin-Randolph (e.g. that AT&T building) area and it could use some "softness".

^ Oh yeah, that parking lot where there used to be the historic Chicago Mercantile Exchange building really contributes to "suffocating" that intersection :rolleyes: That place being razed for a plaza makes damn good hot dogs, and since there are no street vendors in Chicago for some silly reason, where the hell is one gonna get some good Vienna Beef?

Seriously, though, doesn't Buck plan another plaza across Franklin? Too many plazas--reminds one of 6th Avenue north of Bryant Park in Manhattan.

[ardecila]

Seriously, though, doesn't Buck plan another plaza across Franklin? Too many plazas--reminds one of 6th Avenue north of Bryant Park in Manhattan.

The lot south of Franklin is owned by the Pritzker family, not Buck, and there are no current proposals for it.

Buck plans another office building at the NE corner of Franklin/Randolph, where the Walgreens is, and the Chinese takeout stand. There won't be a plaza per se, but the building has generous setbacks in all renderings that I've seen.

[the urban politician]

^ Well, I wasn't referring to the Crown lot as being owned by Buck. The second Buck project is across Franklin. The lot that used to hold the CME Building is owned by the Crown family, but perhaps I'm mistaken?

[ardecila]

Sorry, my bad - I switched Franklin and Randolph in my mind.

[denizen467]

^ Oh yeah, that parking lot where there used to be the historic Chicago Mercantile Exchange building really contributes to "suffocating" that intersection :rolleyes: That place being razed for a plaza makes damn good hot dogs, and since there are no street vendors in Chicago for some silly reason, where the hell is one gonna get some good Vienna Beef?
Well I guess I meant it was so sterile as to be suffocating. From Jackson to Randolph there's almost nothing along Franklin that is aimed at anyone other than office workers. There are a bunch of banks, a cellphone store that closes early, some eateries that close early, but no casual retail; Franklin ends up kind of an alley that people just cross heading to the train stations, and especially near Randolph. Anyhow I shouldn't attempt to (over-) analyze the character of one street versus another here; I just wanted to say it needed some life. The upcoming 1 or 2 hotels at Madison will help, and I trust, or at least hope, the CME successor and Buck sites will too. Come to think of it, the NW loop is underserved by hotels and another one here, being a block from the Cadillac Theatre, would be great in many ways.

[denizen467]

I know they're re-doing the park and everything, but was there really ever someone named "Pritzger" ?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=350+south+state+st,+chicago,+il&sll=41.877084,-87.627868&sspn=0.000949,0.001717&ie=UTF8&ll=41.877372,-87.628235&spn=0.000949,0.002736&z=19

[ardecila]

Well I guess I meant it was so sterile as to be suffocating. From Jackson to Randolph there's almost nothing along Franklin that is aimed at anyone other than office workers. There are a bunch of banks, a cellphone store that closes early, some eateries that close early, but no casual retail; Franklin ends up kind of an alley that people just cross heading to the train stations, and especially near Randolph. Anyhow I shouldn't attempt to (over-) analyze the character of one street versus another here; I just wanted to say it needed some life. The upcoming 1 or 2 hotels at Madison will help, and I trust, or at least hope, the CME successor and Buck sites will too. Come to think of it, the NW loop is underserved by hotels and another one here, being a block from the Cadillac Theatre, would be great in many ways.

There's an idea in New Urbanism that there should be "A" streets and "B" streets. Not everything in a city is desirable. Organizing into two different kinds of streets allows undesirables like garage entrances, lunch joints, parking lots, etc. to line the B streets while desirable features like main entrances to buildings, prominent retail, and well-planned open space line the A streets. Franklin is definitely a B street in the Loop, while Wacker and LaSalle are A streets.

About the Pritzkers - of course they're real people... they're a very wealthy and large family in Chicago that tends to avoid publicity, although they have several places in the city named after them. They own Hyatt, Royal Caribbean, and many other industrial firms.

[aic4ever]

There's an idea in New Urbanism that there should be "A" streets and "B" streets. Not everything in a city is desirable. Organizing into two different kinds of streets allows undesirables like garage entrances, lunch joints, parking lots, etc. to line the B streets while desirable features like main entrances to buildings, prominent retail, and well-planned open space line the A streets. Franklin is definitely a B street in the Loop, while Wacker and LaSalle are A streets.

About the Pritzkers - of course they're real people... they're a very wealthy and large family in Chicago that tends to avoid publicity, although they have several places in the city named after them. They own Hyatt, Royal Caribbean, and many other industrial firms.

Check the link he posted. Misspelled on Google. Supposed to have been funny...

[emathias]

Well I guess I meant it was so sterile as to be suffocating. From Jackson to Randolph there's almost nothing along Franklin that is aimed at anyone other than office workers.
...

Wonder how different it would be if they'd built the subway under it as planned in the 70s:
1976 planning map (http://chicago-l.org/plans/images/CUTD/CUTD-1976map.jpg)

[aaron38]

There's an idea in New Urbanism that there should be "A" streets and "B" streets. Not everything in a city is desirable. Organizing into two different kinds of streets allows undesirables like garage entrances, lunch joints, parking lots, etc. to line the B streets while desirable features like main entrances to buildings, prominent retail, and well-planned open space line the A streets.

Is that really a new idea? That's how midtown Manhattan is laid out. The avenues are the A streets and the cross streets have the garages and such. Even Broadway south of Times Square is basically a back alley for the avenues.
I agree with that approach - you always need to have a front yard and a back yard.

[emathias]

Is that really a new idea? That's how midtown Manhattan is laid out. The avenues are the A streets and the cross streets have the garages and such. Even Broadway south of Times Square is basically a back alley for the avenues.
I agree with that approach - you always need to have a front yard and a back yard.

Well, one significant difference between downtown Chicago and Manhattan is that we have an extensive alley network that is really supposed to be where most of the utility functions are directed. Franklin suffers, I think, from only recently being an integral part of the business district. Its proximity to the Loop has been mostly leveraged for parking.

Now that Wacker is more or less fully built out, I think that whenever the next round of office building construction comes up, Franklin will be filled out. The block between Washington and Randolph will get built on then, as will that corner with the Walgreens. It's possible, even, that the surface parking on the south side of 311 S Wacker will get something, or that the 4-story garage across from the Sears Tower will be replaced with either a bigger garage or a building+garage.

It would be nice if some of those lots were used for other functions, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that. Frankly, I'd rather see Wacker and Franklin remain as monuments to office towers, and Clinton get the more balanced mix of retail, residential and office and with all those, a subway.

[ardecila]

Is that really a new idea? That's how midtown Manhattan is laid out. The avenues are the A streets and the cross streets have the garages and such. Even Broadway south of Times Square is basically a back alley for the avenues.
I agree with that approach - you always need to have a front yard and a back yard.

No, it's not a new idea. "New Urbanism" is sort of a misnomer - it's basically a codified set of planning principles drawn from traditional (pre-WWII) town planning.

However, it's been adapted slightly - New Urbanist planners have recognized that buildings, spaces, and features that serve autos cannot feasibly be evicted from the core areas of American cities. Therefore, they decide to shift them onto B streets where they do not adversely affect the streetscape of the pedestrian-friendly A streets.

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ice-bridge-02-dec02,0,6313295.story

Slippery when wet—but ever so pretty
Michigan Avenue Bridge all the more frightening on a wintry white day

By James Janega | Tribune reporter
December 2, 2008

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-12/43675580.jpg


There are few better places in Chicago to experience the city's austere beauty or wintry lack of friction than from the Michigan Avenue Bridge, where unchecked winds blast cheeks pink, where salt crystals crackle like gravel underfoot, and where every exposed inch of unsalted rubberized decking menaces pedestrian footing.

Venice may have its Bridge of Sighs, but grant Chicago its Bridge of Muttered Curses, a beautiful and treacherous 325-foot span that shortens Chicagoans' strides in winter and provides a memorable icy anecdote for visitors—the place where they almost fell in the Midwest's snowy metropolis.

"I'm used to snow and ice, but I still slip and slide," said Sue Heckel, 64, of Racine, Wis., after nearly falling as she crossed the bridge Monday afternoon. She and her friend Cathy Sorensen, 43, had nearly fallen twice on their annual shopping pilgrimage to Chicago.

"On my way over and on my way back," Sorensen said.

Chicago has 37 movable bridges, most of them sharing a common design with the Michigan Avenue bridge, built in 1920. They rise and fall on hinges at the banks of the Chicago River, counterbalanced by weights hidden beneath the streets at their ends.

Their sidewalks may be concrete or made of wood planks (Wabash Avenue), metal grating (Columbus Drive) or, at Michigan Avenue, a rubberized applique glued to bare metal sheets. When hot, this non-skid surface bubbles off the deck, delighting children who step on it like an air mattress. When wet, it offers little more traction than bare ice. In January, it will be replaced with fiberglass panels, Chicago Department of Transportation spokeswoman Maria Casteneda said.

But it did little to help on Monday.

There is a reason why Chicago's architectural boat tours set off from below the bridge. It has a commanding view of the Wrigley Building, the neo-classical 333 N. Michigan Ave. and London Guarantee buildings and the Tribune and Trump Towers—along with spectacular vistas of the lake on one side and an urban canyon on the other.

"Fantastic," Giovanni Troilo said of the view.

But slippery?

"Just maybe," he said.

[honte]

The lot that used to hold the CME Building is owned by the Crown family, but perhaps I'm mistaken?

This is correct.

[Jibba]

Modern Wing expansion (tonight):
http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/791/dsc05606a7363079iv1.jpg

[Haworthia]

^^ Is that rust on the pedestrian bridge?

[Jibba]

^That's definitely what it looks like. I honestly hadn't even noticed it until I posted that picture here.

[woodrow]

^^ I believe a little rust, a lot scorching from torches. Remember, the bridge is not complete. Not by a long shot. Not the finished product.

[ethereal_reality]

Jibba, that photo is VERY cool.

[BVictor1]

^^ Is that rust on the pedestrian bridge?

Yes, it's rusted where the welds are located. The bridge uit to be painted.

This is the same rust that you saw in images of the Crown Fountain. The metal particles landed in the fountain after the erection of the bridge and it caused the rust in the water and on the backside of the glass block in the fountain.

[HowardL]

This is the same rust that you saw in images of the Crown Fountain. The metal particles landed in the fountain after the erection of the bridge and it caused the rust in the water and on the backside of the glass block in the fountain.
Get out ... that is interesting.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Yes, it's rusted where the welds are located. The bridge uit to be painted.

This is the same rust that you saw in images of the Crown Fountain. The metal particles landed in the fountain after the erection of the bridge and it caused the rust in the water and on the backside of the glass block in the fountain.

Sorry if I'm not keeping up, but I thought someone said that was algae on the fountain?

[Jibba]

Jibba, that photo is VERY cool.

Thanks dude. The bus certainly helped with the "gee whiz" factor. Also, streaky lights captured with an open shutter are so...Renzo Piano. Just kidding.