CHICAGO | General Developments

[wrab]

^ Thank you.

Seriously, some of you people need to come visit Queens. We have huge malls/shopping centers exactly like the one planned above and they are near transit--and they are designed to be highly accessible to the pedestrian. They generate a lot of auto as well as transit trips.

We need to stop trying to be Berlin or Manhattan and recognize that the Queens model makes the most sense for many of Chicago's south/west side neighborhoods.

I invite many of you urban purists out there to come pay me a visit. I will give you a tour of Queens and show you examples of very successful urban development that isn't the quaint 19th century brick village model.

I'd say that the Chicago model makes the most sense for Chicago.

[museumparktom]

We're looking at 24th and Archer not 79th and State. This is technically Bridgeport which is starts at Canal street on the east. No offense to anyone who lives in those 70s apartments that surround this area but its a no mans land on Archer. The tower will have unbelievable views of the skyline though.

[ardecila]

What I said was "They've just replaced the surface lot with the plaza - same effect on the streetscape." I understand that it isn't a parking lot.

You don't think a nicely-paved plaza with benches, landscaping, and fountains has a better impact on the streetscape than a parking lot? Parking lots have exhaust-spewing cars that generate or absorb lots of heat in the summer and create a bunch of gross dirty sleet in the winter. Plazas have spaces to socialize, to relax, and to sit down - which is a huge thing. When you think about urbanity as a simple figure/ground drawing (the Google Earth perspective), you miss a lot of the things that really matter to people on the ground.

I also think that there's not a lot of plaza space in Chicago outside of downtown. Whenever public space is created in the neighborhoods, it's always green space and not paved space. I'll be excited to see how this development turns out. The large-scale signage is another aspect that Chicago doesn't have enough of.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ That is true about no plaza space outside of downtown. This could become an important center of the neighborhood if it turns out decent. I mean Chinatown doesn't really have a lot of gathering spaces, this could be a place that they start ending or beginning parades at or assembling to protest the saber rattling between China and Taiwan, two of Chinatown's favorite activities. If they start using it like that, it could be extremely successful. And who knows, maybe Westerners don't really know what to do when they encounter a large plaza next to a brightly lit mall, but I'm sure Chinese who have immigrated from Asian Supercities might be more apt to use them.

There is more/less going on here than that. The shell is an eight-story garage. They are fenestrating the bottom 4 floors to enclose a mall/small-office space.

Ok... Where do you draw that conclusion? Can you see the inside of the structure? Someone just said they have interior renders they going to post, ten bucks says the ceiling height in the mall section =/= ceiling height of a parking garage. If that were the case, who cares? I mean the design isn't that horrible that its going to kill all life around it. It takes into account good urban planning like no blank walls and such, so really if it serves its purpose in this case, I'm not too concerned about having cutting edge design here, design isn't everything...

[wrab]

You don't think a nicely-paved plaza with benches, landscaping, and fountains has a better impact on the streetscape than a parking lot? Parking lots have exhaust-spewing cars that generate or absorb lots of heat in the summer and create a bunch of gross dirty sleet in the winter. Plazas have spaces to socialize, to relax, and to sit down - which is a huge thing. When you think about urbanity as a simple figure/ground drawing (the Google Earth perspective), you miss a lot of the things that really matter to people on the ground.

I also think that there's not a lot of plaza space in Chicago outside of downtown. Whenever public space is created in the neighborhoods, it's always green space and not paved space. I'll be excited to see how this development turns out. The large-scale signage is another aspect that Chicago doesn't have enough of.

Yes - I am being unduly harsh - the plaza could turn out nicely.

[wrab]

.....Ok... Where do you draw that conclusion? Can you see the inside of the structure? Someone just said they have interior renders they going to post, ten bucks says the ceiling height in the mall section =/= ceiling height of a parking garage. If that were the case, who cares? I mean the design isn't that horrible that its going to kill all life around it. It takes into account good urban planning like no blank walls and such, so really if it serves its purpose in this case, I'm not too concerned about having cutting edge design here, design isn't everything...

I was responding to your assertion that this is not a garage:

.....(T)hat's not a parking garage, that is 4 floors of retail with 4 floors of parking on top.....

-----

In this, we are both half right and half wrong - the structure is a hybrid - 1/2 mall, 1/2 parking garagage. Gar-Mall? Mall-Rage?

[honte]

^ No disrespect intended, and I didn't expect for our discussion to take this turn.

But yes, I think much of the south side is a shithole. I think what the city has done in the south side has been nothing short of total devastation. Sure there is plenty of good housing stock, but many of the commercial districts are just damn gone. They are either vacant or have unfortunately been replaced by very suburban-style development with massive amounts of streetlife-killing surface parking, and I absolutely think Wong's project is a huge improvement over that.

Yes, Hyde Park is a jewel on the south side, but it really has been stagnating. There has been some development here and there, but a drive on State St from Cermak down to about the 40's is just a lesson in disappointment. It's vacant swaths of land intermixed with some old buildings and some new development, and even IIT does little to create that sense of 'enclosure' that you want to see in a desirable urban neighborhood.

A drive on 79th st is another disappointment--older building stock intermixed with vacant lots and city-spiting strip malls. YUCK!

I can go on and on. Don't even get me started on 63rd St.

I am a huge advocate of the south side--don't get me wrong. I badly want to see it developed into a more vibrant, urban, desirable place to live and shop--and that's why I would love to see more projects like Wong's above. But right now, besides some pockets of promise I think it's in severely bad shape.

So, essentially you are basing your entire analysis of the area on the availability of shopping opportunities and your expectations of a particular urban makeup. That's a shame. You know the history of the South Side is a little more complicated than that.

I agree that the City has done a lot of harm in its laissez-faire attitude to urban development. It also obliterated any semblance of real culture in certain areas when the projects were inserted. We all agree about that. But you will see the trends you are describing all over the place, including the North and West sides too.

The South Side had a tremendous amount of unique pressures over time, and in no way is it fair to blame any particular body or trend for what you see today. It is further absolutely ridiculous to write the whole place off as a result of some myopic and self-centered set of criteria. It’s hardly the worthless place you describe. It has good transit, good parks and recreation, generally great housing stock, a special character, and lots of opportunity. I’m surprised I even have to write that.

People on the South Side have long known that prevailing attitudes and assumptions about the character of the place have caused a lack of retail and commercial investment. Community groups have gone far out of their way in attempts to attract it. It's a vicious cycle. But really, in a neighborhood like South Shore, the retail streets are probably 10% of the makeup, tops. If you just drive 79th Street, you are getting a very improper view of what that neighborhood is really like. If you look closer, you'll see that it's about 2 steps away from being as nice and urban as any neighborhood on the North Side.

And as I said, there are plenty of places that don’t fit your description of the area whatsoever. Maybe you never found them. Are there Queens-style megamalls sitting next to gleaming new elevated stations? No, it’s not like that, and it probably never will as long as attitudes like yours persist.

Now, concerning Wong's development as proposed, you might be surprised to learn that I have no serious objections to it. Do I think the design sucks? Yes. Do I expect that it will come out 50% crappier than what you're seeing in the renders? Yes, from experience, absolutely. Do I think your ideal of pedestrians actually using this place will come true? Not so much. But I'm in favor, because as museumparktom said, that part of Archer is one of most architecturally and urbanistically worthless places in Chicago (Wong is partly culprit). It's obviously an improvement. And I don't mind the dense urban model you are advocating for, which makes obvious sense.

Anyway, I’ve had enough of this topic. Take it or leave it.

[VivaLFuego]

No one's sad about this replacing Connie's huh?

I'm somewhere in the middle - not quite as gung-ho as tup on this, but overall supportive of the density/use concept if not thrilled with the site plan. I'd certainly rather see it built exactly as shown than nothing at all. That said, I give it a 5% chance of being built, so it's likely a moot point anyway.

[TorancisOMP]

Okay here are the renderings of the interior mall space, food court, condo and NW view.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3396259008_b4cdee8145.jpg?v=0

I will stop by sales center for more information.

Stay tuned...

[TorancisOMP]

Just came back from sales center.

If you can visit the sales center, I suggest you to do so. They have a model of the whole surrounding area and guess what? Connie's Pizza is staying. I know the original newspaper renderings seems like its Connie's lot. This will be a massive tower/plaza right next to Connie's. I wish I could have taken photos or the model.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3633/3396496326_212afbcdf3.jpg?v=0
Connie's will be on the right where the tree/grass park is at.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3638/3395684019_9d0e0844b4.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/3396496668_b23f8512f5.jpg?v=0

Here are the floor plans.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3635/3395684325_cb28222018.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3443/3396496902_83f0a71d29.jpg?v=0


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3457/3395684515_bb5039e15c.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3396497068_b6f3b1fa2e.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3433/3395684751_b6f26b87aa.jpg?v=0


For those of you saying this is a massive parking lot, it is not. The sales center lady said its shared with the 300 residential condos. And I mean there's only 1,000 parkings both indoor and outdoor. They say this will be the largest Asia Pacific theme indoor mall in the US.

If you look at the floor plans, there will be lots of large supermarkets, retail, food court and offices space that require those parking spaces.

Retail space values $395 per square feet.

I have the pre-construction price list and let me tell you, the sales price is good value.

[honte]

^ Thanks for posting that.

The render and the floor plans are totally different. Typical. The floor plans seem to be the red volume in the diagram.

Or, is the render showing the green volume - which isn't apparently even in this phase - and there is just some mystery tower in the background?

[TorancisOMP]

^ Thanks for posting that.

The render and the floor plans are totally different. Typical. The floor plans seem to be the red volume in the diagram.

Or, is the render showing the green volume - which isn't apparently even in this phase - and there is just some mystery tower in the background?

Yes the floor plans is of the red renders.

[honte]

^ OK, and that render is of the green building and is disingenuous, or is there another tower proposed that is not shown on the diagram? Something doesn't add up.

Edit: If you look at the render image, there is an overhead perspective below the large graphic that looks down upon the render site. You can see that the render is not the green building, but a different version of the red building - in other words, the floor plans being shown are a crappy, cheap version of the building shown in the render. This is 100% typical of Wong. Don't expect the final product to look anything like those renders.

Instead of the rather grand, rounded corner entry, you have a blind corner and an entrance to the parking structure. Nice. It should be illegal for developers to show different versions of floorplans and renders at the same time. Seriously.

[TorancisOMP]

For clarification....see this render.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3455/3392711407_e224b85d82.jpg?v=0

honte- The 'overhead perspective' image is a NE view and the map view is SE view.

So, if you look at the original newspaper image above in relation to the map diagram. Phase I is the green building. Phase II the red building and Phase III is the teal.

In the map diagram, the white building next to the teal volume is Connie's.

Hope this clarifies the confusion. :)

[the urban politician]

So, essentially you are basing your entire analysis of the area on the availability of shopping opportunities and your expectations of a particular urban makeup. That's a shame. You know the history of the South Side is a little more complicated than that.

I agree that the City has done a lot of harm in its laissez-faire attitude to urban development. It also obliterated any semblance of real culture in certain areas when the projects were inserted. We all agree about that. But you will see the trends you are describing all over the place, including the North and West sides too.

The South Side had a tremendous amount of unique pressures over time, and in no way is it fair to blame any particular body or trend for what you see today. It is further absolutely ridiculous to write the whole place off as a result of some myopic and self-centered set of criteria. It’s hardly the worthless place you describe. It has good transit, good parks and recreation, generally great housing stock, a special character, and lots of opportunity. I’m surprised I even have to write that.

People on the South Side have long known that prevailing attitudes and assumptions about the character of the place have caused a lack of retail and commercial investment. Community groups have gone far out of their way in attempts to attract it. It's a vicious cycle. But really, in a neighborhood like South Shore, the retail streets are probably 10% of the makeup, tops. If you just drive 79th Street, you are getting a very improper view of what that neighborhood is really like. If you look closer, you'll see that it's about 2 steps away from being as nice and urban as any neighborhood on the North Side.

And as I said, there are plenty of places that don’t fit your description of the area whatsoever. Maybe you never found them. Are there Queens-style megamalls sitting next to gleaming new elevated stations? No, it’s not like that, and it probably never will as long as attitudes like yours persist.

Now, concerning Wong's development as proposed, you might be surprised to learn that I have no serious objections to it. Do I think the design sucks? Yes. Do I expect that it will come out 50% crappier than what you're seeing in the renders? Yes, from experience, absolutely. Do I think your ideal of pedestrians actually using this place will come true? Not so much. But I'm in favor, because as museumparktom said, that part of Archer is one of most architecturally and urbanistically worthless places in Chicago (Wong is partly culprit). It's obviously an improvement. And I don't mind the dense urban model you are advocating for, which makes obvious sense.

Anyway, I’ve had enough of this topic. Take it or leave it.

^ I already acknowledged the south side's housing stock in my previous post. Kenwood and South Shore, for example, have some gorgeous examples (and very complete ones)

Unfortunutely, I think you are completely misunderstanding my motives. I am as much of an advocate for the south side as anyone. I think we agree on more things than we disagree on. But there is no denying the large amounts of blight on the south side, especially the areas between downtown and Hyde Park. Anyhow, peace out

[the urban politician]

Just came back from sales center.

^ Thanks for all your effort and info, Toran. I have a few questions:

Did you happen to hear anything about financing, sales, and a groundbreaking date?

Also (this is more of a comment), my only other concern is that Wong seems to be biting off more than he can chew. He still has that development on S Wabash that seems to have defaulted, the Imperial Plaza Hotel, that shopping center on S. Canal, and now this on his plate. Isn't this a bit much for just one guy?

[honte]

honte- The 'overhead perspective' image is a NE view and the map view is SE view.

So, if you look at the original newspaper image above in relation to the map diagram. Phase I is the green building. Phase II the red building and Phase III is the teal.

In the map diagram, the white building next to the teal volume is Connie's.

Hope this clarifies the confusion. :)

Yes, I understand that. What is throwing me off is that the plans you posted do not match the render. I am talking about architectural elements and the floor plates. Do the plans match the renders? Not in the critical areas. Thanks for trying to clear it up though - but I suspect it's beyond our control.

[TorancisOMP]

^ Thanks for all your effort and info, Toran. I have a few questions:

Did you happen to hear anything about financing, sales, and a groundbreaking date?

Also (this is more of a comment), my only other concern is that Wong seems to be biting off more than he can chew. He still has that development on S Wabash that seems to have defaulted, the Imperial Plaza Hotel, that shopping center on S. Canal, and now this on his plate. Isn't this a bit much for just one guy?


Thanks urban politician.

Phase I will be completed 2011. No word in groundbreaking date and the other phases. But this will definitely be completed before the 2016 Olympics.

As far as sales, they already have a 16,000 s.f. supermarket for 6 million sold and many smaller retail spaces.

[harryc]

Put this in the Boon section - looks like the discussion is here - I didn't see the more detailed post above before I went down, the photos are mostly of the northern 1/2 (1/3) of the project.

Couldn't place this location - bribed the Mrs with breakfast on Cermack.

N bound on Archer at Wallace
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sc-2Lb-GATI/AAAAAAABJK0/rSNwJxSl6Zg/s800/P1310202.JPG

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sc-2MoEZFgI/AAAAAAABJLA/h62DJkCtG6M/s800/P1310204.JPG

On Wallace
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sc-2PP45y0I/AAAAAAABJLM/m2WC_IuNd0Y/s800/P1310205.JPG

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sc-2SNW80wI/AAAAAAABJLY/JrBdeyuw6G0/s800/P1310211.JPG

Wallace & 24th
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sc-2U51_aaI/AAAAAAABJLk/H4EpCCkQaC0/s800/P1310213.JPG

Looking E twords the tracks
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sc-2WdEqqhI/AAAAAAABJL0/89aKT7aTkFk/s800/P1310216.JPG

Which are not idle
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sc-2YCr-3hI/AAAAAAABJMA/YXc4MLn7AFk/s800/P1310217.JPG

parting shot
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sc-2ZgQaW_I/AAAAAAABJMM/ku4Kf1v6vHM/s800/P1310224.JPG

[TorancisOMP]

Put this in the Boon section

Yeah, how do I do that

[spyguy]

Such a passionate debate over a proposal that probably won't start for at least a couple years (if at all, considering the state of Wong's other projects) in a rather desolate area where nothing of value will be destroyed. :cool:

If we're OK with a giant pagoda hotel, why not this? Eastern Tower actually looks like highrise buildings you would see in East/SE Asia.

The mall portion sounds interesting - I wonder if it will be like the ones in Canada. Maybe they can attach some huge video screens for visual interest.

[TorancisOMP]

Such a passionate debate over a proposal that probably won't start for at least a couple years

Yeah thats what this forum is about.

The mall portion sounds interesting - I wonder if it will be like the ones in Canada. Maybe they can attach some huge video screens for visual interest.

spyguy-- you are right, they got inspiration from Pacific Mall in Toronto because they attached pictures of the mall at the end of the brochure that gave me.

[Abner]

This could become an important center of the neighborhood if it turns out decent. I mean Chinatown doesn't really have a lot of gathering spaces

This is the part of this plan I don't understand. Chinatown Square already has a plaza on Archer that's located at the center of retail in the neighborhood and actually a pretty good space, aside from being up against Archer. As for this location, nobody is going to be starting parades here because the location is just too bad for it. There is no way to get to this location on foot that does not involve walking through either a block-long spooky viaduct or a nightmarish hellscape. This is a location that will be accessed mostly by drivers. Lots of Chinese people will indeed walk there because they don't really have a choice--in fact you see a lot of people walking from Bridgeport up Wentworth to Chinatown, which has to be one of the least pleasant walks I can think of in the central area.

If the market for Chinese retail and business activity is going to be large enough to support a big development here, I say go for it, but I have no idea why they would bother with a weird plaza in a place that would still be the middle of nowhere even if it were surrounded by 20 story buildings. (I also have no idea who's going to buy eight-story ads facing 24th Place, but whatever.) Unfortunately, geography and existing development mean that Chinatown is going to be a weird, disjointed jumble of ugly places for a long time to come. Since this is never going to be a seamless neighborhood anyway, I wonder why Wong isn't developing some of the lots closer to the Halsted Orange Line stop. Aside from being closer to the train, it would be easily accessible to the fair-sized Asian population at UIC via the Halsted bus. I guess there must be a pretty big price difference.

Honte is right, the recent developments in Chinatown and the 55-90/94 armpit zone are easily among the worst in the city. The bright side is that this ugliness and the generally unpleasant surroundings at least keep things pretty affordable for the community.

[Abner]

Have you seen Archer Courts before? It's right in the heart of Chinatown... a perfectly good adaptive reuse of the old typical housing projects. It's also a first-rate example of a design that successfully updated a building and injected a bit of new life (eg, not 100% preservation) but which did so with care and respect for the old. The end result is a complex better architecturally than the original, but true to its intentions. In fact, many of the gallery-style projects were intended to have glass-enclosed halls, but budget and other concerns prevented this.


Archer Courts is perfectly good (I'm glad you didn't overreach), but I don't think it's exactly comparable. It works fine because it now just looks like a (mostly) ugly, bland apartment complex, and not a very big one at that. I'm probably one of the most zealous people around here about how demolition senselessly wastes materials and displaces people by driving up prices, but I'm still concerned that the place of highrise projects in the collective conscious is so abysmal that it's best to get rid of them or at least make them utterly unrecognizable. The Ickes buildings are much larger scale than Archer Courts and look exactly like the archetypal Chicago projects in terms of architecture and urban design. Is there a way to preserve what it is reasonable to preserve while making them no longer resemble what they currently are? The staggering of the long, tall buildings creates courtyards that are set back, and both enclosed and deeply shadowed by imposing buildings on all sides, making them look like prison yards. The complex looks insular. Can these things be fixed without tearing down at least some of the bulidings?

[BVictor1]

An email I received:

Development in the South Loop is About to Change

By Enrique G. Perez


Change is in the air. The City of Chicago is considering implementing what is probably the most comprehensive and far reaching development action plan regarding the Central Area of Chicago in recent years. Termed the "Central Area Action Plan," the stated purpose of the Plan is to continue the implementation of the 2003 Central Area Plan. The Plan has been in the works for some 18 months, according to the Plan's web site, and its links are listed below. Some 30 business and civic leaders participated in the drafting the Plan, the same being acknowledged in the executive summary.

If approved, the plan will affect the Central Area of Chicago in terms of its economic development & land use, transportation, and urban design, waterfront & open space categories. The Plan will affect each of the 12 sub districts in the Central Area, which are Cabrini, Near North, River North, Streeterville, Near West, West Loop, Central Loop, South Loop, River South, South West Loop, Near South and Chinatown. These sub district areas encompass parts of the 2nd, 3rd, 25th, 27th, 42nd, and 43rd Wards.

To my knowledge, the above meeting on April 2 that is sponsored by 42nd Ward Alderman Brendan Reilly is the only community meeting planned on this all important topic, even though five other wards are affected. I can only hope that other community meetings are immediately scheduled.

A review of the attached documents will reveal some far reaching effects steming from the Plan. To start, the Plan outlines two separate scenarios for growth in the Central Area: a Base Case (less optimistic) and an Opportunity (more optimistic) scenario that could affect development and growth. The executive summary also refers to "annual development benchmarks established in the 2003 Plan [that] were met or exceeded since its publication." The Plan also lists the hope that the 2016 Olympics, if Chicago were to win them, would accelerate the growth benchmarks in the Central Area.

In the area of building heights, the Plan introduces the idea of "Conceptual Principles for Building Heights." Having read through some of the original community-specific plans that were established by the City in 2003, including the Near South Community Plan, this new "Conceptual" approach quite honestly appears to obliterate the height restrictions that were either stated or implied in those plans. For example, in the area of the South Loop bounded by Congress, Roosevelt Rd., the Chicago River, and Wabash, the designation used to describe the area in this new "Conceptual" approach is "Transition Zone," where "Tall and Mid-rise buildings" are allowed (See Chapter 3, Page 7 of the attachment). This contrasts with the Near South Community Plan, where the height limit guidelines are listed as being in accordance with the surrounding existing buildings (i.e. those that existed before some of the current crop of tall buildings were built that have had the effect of raising the average building heights of their respective areas). As a case in point, the Plan specifically states that an 80-story building has been "announced" for the Franklin Pointe area at the southwest corner of Congress and Wells (see Chapter 4, Page 6 of the attachment).

In the area of transportation, the Plan calls for the completion of the Taylor Street Bridge sometime in the 2012 to 2016 time frame at a cost of $50 Million (See Page 19 of the Executive Summary). Phase II of the Wells-Wentworth Connector is supposed to be completed in that time frame as well, with Phase I being done by 2012. As many of you might recall from community meetings of some years ago, Wells Street, which becomes Wentworth somewhere south of Roosevelt Rd., is supposed to become a major traffic arterial on par with State and Clark Streets. Also on the horizon according to the Plan, a second bridge across the Chicago River is supposed to be built at either Polk or 16th Streets sometime in the 2016 to 2020 time frame. All of this is on top of several CTA station modernizations that are also supposed to occur.

Specific to the South Loop under "2020 Visions/Goals," the Plan states that "The South Loop will continue its role as an expansion area for the concentration of high learning institutions..." From this, one can only surmise that the South Loop will continue to see an increase in the number of college students, as well as an increase in student housing. In terms of South Loop parking, the Plan seems to acknowledge that parking is a problem, which is something that any resident or visitor to the South Loop can easily attest to, by saying that "The parking policy in the South Loop merits review..." and that "Minimum parking ratios may not be creating enough spaces for visitors and business customers..." In a seemingly contradictory statement however, the Plan states that "Surface parking lots provide most of the opportunities for current and future infill development...," mentioning the parking lots at 901 S. State St. and 1001 S. State St. as future devel opment sites (See Chapter 4, page 14). These two statements beg the question as to whether the City of Chicago is going to actively encourage more development on the remaining parking lots in the South Loop.

Regarding Congress Parkway, the Plan calls for upgrading Congress to "accommodate high levels of pedestrian mobility while also maintaining its role as a key east/west vehicle arterial." The Plan predicts a "further increase in pedestrian traffic" due to "Development proposals for areas immediately south of Congress along the Chicago River." I just wonder if the Plan might once again be referring to the "announced" 80-story building at Franklin Pointe?

For the Near South Area (south of Roosevelt Rd. down to the Stevenson Expressway), the Plan is going to "Consider a new public school to serve growing number of households." My biggest concern in this regard is that the City will underestimate the amount of both elementary and high school capacity that will be needed in the South Loop/Near South side over the coming years. In the time that I have lived in the South Loop, the second fastest growing segment of the population (as I have perceived it) has been families with school-age children. This "pipeline" is now filled with a growing and possibly unsustainable demographic pressure, absent some quick near-term action by our elected officials. In short, more schools need to be built.

Additionally, the Plan also mentions other waterfront, open space, transportation, and urban-design improvements, such as improvements to the Chicago River waterway, Northerly island, and Grant Park, among many many others. The Plan is truly comprehensive in its scope, and detailed in many of its specifics. It will also be expensive to fulfill.

The greater point however is that the Central Area Action Plan is going to have major ramifications for all development in the 12 sub districts that comprise the Central Area, not just in the South Loop area. The meeting headlined above is a great start at informing the River North/Fulton River District community about something that will affect everything from property values to quality of life, so for this I would like to thank Alderman Reilly for getting the "ball rolling."

By extension, the question must now be asked: When are the other 11 sub districts going to have their community meetings to inform their residents of these community-altering changes that the Plan proposes. Furthermore, who is going to call these meetings? Logic dictates that the aldermen of the affected wards do so. The situation also dictates that they do so immediately.

At a bare minimum, the people have the right to know.



The Central Area Action Plan (DRAFT) Documents:


Central Area Action Plan Executive Summary
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/01-ExSumm20090313.pdf


Chapter 1: Land Use
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/02-Chapt_1_Land_Use.pdf

Chapter 2: Transportation
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/03-Chapt_2_Transport.pdf

Chapter 3: Design
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/04-Chapt_3_Design.pdf

Chapter 4: North Sub Districts
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/06-Chapt_4_North_Subdistricts.pdf

Chapter 4: South Sub Districts
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/07-Chapt_4_South_Subdistricts.pdf

Chapter 4: Central Sub Districts
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/05-Chapt_4_Central_Subdistricts.pdf

[Loopy]

.

[schwerve]

there is some seriously cool stuff in the transportation section, clinton subway, lakefront/carrol/monroe transitways, WLTC; an urbanists dream.

[orulz]

there is some seriously cool stuff in the transportation section, clinton subway, lakefront/carrol/monroe transitways, WLTC; an urbanists dream.

The transportation section is indeed a transit geek's dream. Most significantly they have some eye-poppingly fast timelines in mind for some of these projects. I can believe 2012 for Carrol Ave and phase one of the Clinton transitway, but it calls for the full WLTC, plus phase 1 of the Clinton subway, plus the Monroe transitway, plus the "lakefront transitway" -- all to be done by 2016??

[the urban politician]

Since I"m on vacation and on a slow computer that poorly processes pdf files, can somebody give me a one-liner about what the Monroe transitway is?

[Loopy]

.

[Nowhereman1280]

TUP, all I have to say is, it sucks you can't see that document! DROOL! If only we could just make 13.5 billion appear out of thin air! COUGH OLYMPICS COUGH...

Man that document proves all you Daley haters wrong, it shows the complex and varied transit expansions that Daley will probably ask for funding for if we get the Olympics. The WLTC MUST BE BUILT! a 4 level transit center combining bus, Metra, CTA, Amtrak all into one station! ZOMG I LLLOVE IT...


Too bad we probably won't even get half of that before 2020...

[ChicagoChicago]

Since I"m on vacation and on a slow computer that poorly processes pdf files, can somebody give me a one-liner about what the Monroe transitway is?
"A grade-separated east-west transit way through the heart of the Central Loop beneath Monroe Street, connecting West Loop rail terminals with the Central Business District and Lakefront recreation areas."

Cost estimate is $200mm.

[the urban politician]

^ Blimey! That was my plan!

LOL, actually I think I just arrived at a separate conclusion that a line like that was needed, since it makes total sense. I definitely look forward to viewing the transportation improvements when I get the chance

[orulz]

Since I"m on vacation and on a slow computer that poorly processes pdf files, can somebody give me a one-liner about what the Monroe transitway is?
The document refers to it as the East-West transitway.
Its description:
A grade-separated east-west transitway through the heart of the Central Loop beneath Monroe Street, connecting the West Loop rail terminals with the Central Business District and Lakefront recreation areas.


I think all the "transitways" mentioned in this plan (Monroe, Carroll, Clinton, Lakefront) are being planned as busways. The closest analogies in the US are probably the Seattle transit tunnel and the Boston silver line waterfront segment. They might be guided busways, and I guess they might choose to put tracks in the transitway like Seattle did, but they also might not.

[the urban politician]

^ I figure we should take any further discussion of this to the transit thread.

But I decided to read the transit portion of the pdf file (yeah, it actually worked pretty well). I am as blown away as the rest of you guys. Chicago has a lot of ambitious transportation projects planned. I just hope it can get the funding to complete all of them before I'm a bearded old guy with a cane.

I definitely like the idea of the Clinton subway and the various downtown transitways (Clinton/Carroll Ave, Lakefront) and agree that the Wells-Wentworth connection and additional bridges across the south branch of the River are important investments for the future.

Now lets go get us some $13 billion!

[ardecila]

Recession? What recession?

:cool:

I'm liking the optimism and good vibes coming recently. We're arguing over new building proposals and spiffy new transit plans, just like the good ol' days.

[ardecila]

Found this on Google. Couldn't find anything on Van Berkel's design, but it should be unveiled officially later this week.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8461/stfzaha005jpeg.jpg


Burnham Pavilion, Chicago

Zaha Hadid Architects participation in the Burnham Plan Centennial celebrations is a great opportunity to participate in Chicago’s ongoing tradition of bold plans and big dreams with an architectural design at the scale of a pavilion. Our design will echo Chicago’s cutting edge cultural and architectural landscape by introducing a new Zaha Hadid Pavilion Concept into Millennium Park.

The form of the pavilion is derived from the intersection of ellipsoids creating arching interior spaces that envelope the visitor flow. The structure is expressed via a series of diagonal sections that are in line with the historic axis of the unbuilt Plan of Chicago. These arching structural devices are erected along a gradient and therefore display areas of lesser density towards the centre of the pavilion in order to allow controlled daylight into the structure. The louvers in the ceiling underline the design intent of referring to the historic diagonal that cuts through the site and help to create a vivacious interior space that changes throughout the day according to sun angles and weather conditions. They appear like cuts in a canvas and cohere with the choice of material and construction method.

The pavilion is made from a light weight aluminium structure that is then “dressed” in a tensile fabric. As fabric behaves in specific ways, once tensile forces are applied, the resulting exterior skin undulates in anticlastic curvatures along the guiding rails of the aluminium substructure. The aluminium ribs are deliberately expressed through the external skin.

In the pavilions interior the materiality corresponds with its exterior. The continuity of material allows for a coherent overall look and feel. Since the pavilion will serve as a display for projections layers of fabric are integrated in its interior walls that allow for front and back as well as for double projections taking place throughout the day. Layering of fabric and of images create visual highlights and involve the visitor in a unique overall experience. The superimposition of visual materials and the visitor within the pavilion leads to the integration of the pavilion, the visitor and the display. The pavilion becomes the display and the visitor becomes part of the image.

[Tom Servo]

TUP, all I have to say is, it sucks you can't see that document! DROOL! If only we could just make 13.5 billion appear out of thin air! COUGH OLYMPICS COUGH...

Man that document proves all you Daley haters wrong, it shows the complex and varied transit expansions that Daley will probably ask for funding for if we get the Olympics. The WLTC MUST BE BUILT! a 4 level transit center combining bus, Metra, CTA, Amtrak all into one station! ZOMG I LLLOVE IT...


Too bad we probably won't even get half of that before 2020...

wait... what? why are so many of you guys pro-olympics. among its many other cons, it will do tremendous amounts of economic damage to this city. why do you guys think it'll just magically spawn 13.5 billion. in fact i'd be very worried if we did magically spawn that money and built all this, because the city could never sustain all the over-growth.
it's such flawed thinking.
we need more responsible and realistic planning in this city.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I'm not saying the 13 billion is going to be profit from the games, I'm saying a large chunk of it will come from the Federal government (as has happened with every American city that has gotten the games) if we secure the bid. If you don't believe that we'll get billions in transit funding if we win the game then you are ignoring history.

Also, your assessment about the games doing "economic damage" to this city is just false. If you want to discredit other's opinions on Architecture because you are an architecture student, then I will simply discredit your opinions of Economics being a Economics and Finance major myself... I will say this, looking at past precedent and theoretical predictions, there is almost zero chance of the games having a net negative effect on the economy. I'm sorry but every single summer games that has come to the United States has been profitable, that is fact...

[bnk]

wait... what? why are so many of you guys pro-olympics. .

Why would you think some of us or even I being pro-olympics?:shrug:

But I do have to agree with Nowhereman's point.

[schwerve]

these documents have nothing to do with the olympics.

[Busy Bee]

Found this on Google. Couldn't find anything on Van Berkel's design, but it should be unveiled officially later this week.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8461/stfzaha005jpeg.jpg


Burnham Pavilion, Chicago

Zaha Hadid Architects participation in the Burnham Plan Centennial celebrations is a great opportunity to participate in Chicago’s ongoing tradition of bold plans and big dreams with an architectural design at the scale of a pavilion. Our design will echo Chicago’s cutting edge cultural and architectural landscape by introducing a new Zaha Hadid Pavilion Concept into Millennium Park.

The form of the pavilion is derived from the intersection of ellipsoids creating arching interior spaces that envelope the visitor flow. The structure is expressed via a series of diagonal sections that are in line with the historic axis of the unbuilt Plan of Chicago. These arching structural devices are erected along a gradient and therefore display areas of lesser density towards the centre of the pavilion in order to allow controlled daylight into the structure. The louvers in the ceiling underline the design intent of referring to the historic diagonal that cuts through the site and help to create a vivacious interior space that changes throughout the day according to sun angles and weather conditions. They appear like cuts in a canvas and cohere with the choice of material and construction method.

The pavilion is made from a light weight aluminium structure that is then “dressed” in a tensile fabric. As fabric behaves in specific ways, once tensile forces are applied, the resulting exterior skin undulates in anticlastic curvatures along the guiding rails of the aluminium substructure. The aluminium ribs are deliberately expressed through the external skin.

In the pavilions interior the materiality corresponds with its exterior. The continuity of material allows for a coherent overall look and feel. Since the pavilion will serve as a display for projections layers of fabric are integrated in its interior walls that allow for front and back as well as for double projections taking place throughout the day. Layering of fabric and of images create visual highlights and involve the visitor in a unique overall experience. The superimposition of visual materials and the visitor within the pavilion leads to the integration of the pavilion, the visitor and the display. The pavilion becomes the display and the visitor becomes part of the image.

Alien larva.

[i_am_hydrogen]

City plans $15.5B in downtown projects

March 31, 2009
BY DAVID ROEDER AND FRAN SPIELMAN

A draft of Chicago's plans for the city's central area through 2020 calls for $15.5 billion in public works, mostly for transportation improvements, and asserts the projects are attainable with or without the 2016 Olympics.

The projects include a West Loop transit hub beneath Clinton Street with an estimated price tag of almost $6 billion. The hub would connect Metra and CTA rail and bus lines with a proposed Carroll Street rail line, itself a $260 million item, near the north bank of the Chicago River.

» Click to enlarge image (http://www.suntimes.com/business/1503685,033109action.fullimage)

http://www.suntimes.com/business/1503475,CST-NWS-action31.article

[Nowhereman1280]

Another thing mentioned in the article:

The report will be discussed Thursday at an open meeting. It is scheduled for 6 p.m. at Erie Cafe, 536 W. Erie.

[lawfin]

^^^ I'm not saying the 13 billion is going to be profit from the games, I'm saying a large chunk of it will come from the Federal government (as has happened with every American city that has gotten the games) if we secure the bid. If you don't believe that we'll get billions in transit funding if we win the game then you are ignoring history.

Also, your assessment about the games doing "economic damage" to this city is just false. If you want to discredit other's opinions on Architecture because you are an architecture student, then I will simply discredit your opinions of Economics being a Economics and Finance major myself... I will say this, looking at past precedent and theoretical predictions, there is almost zero chance of the games having a net negative effect on the economy. I'm sorry but every single summer games that has come to the United States has been profitable, that is fact...

^^Just ignore him he routinely spouts out just plain kooky ideas that have little basis in reality other than what is going on between his ears

[Via Chicago]

Another thing mentioned in the article:

The report will be discussed Thursday at an open meeting. It is scheduled for 6 p.m. at Erie Cafe, 536 W. Erie.

Thats right by my office; i might actually go to this...

[Via Chicago]

these documents have nothing to do with the olympics.

So its just coincidence that almost all these documents have 2016 as projected completion dates?

[schwerve]

So its just coincidence that almost all these documents have 2016 as projected completion dates?

no, its not, you don't plan these things in a bubble. the olympics are the obvious catalyst providing timeframes and focused federal/state/city funding, but that doesn't mean these are olympic related documents. Most of these plans have been in city pipelines for years (ie the monroe/east-west transitway has been on the drawing board for 50 years; in fact I can't find a single thing in the document which is solely olympics based) and are needed regardless of the olympics for city development over the long term. its bad logic to use these numbers against the olympic bid when they're long range city planning documents, that's how most people spin the costs of olympics as "out of control", a city speeds up its natural capital improvement programs/wishlists to coincide with the olympics and people turn that into olympic spending; these are different things.

[orulz]

Thats right by my office; i might actually go to this...

If you can make it and there's a chance to speak up - could you mention the St. Charles Air Line Greenway, specifically why it's mentioned in some places but obviously omitted elsewhere? Notice how item #2 is omitted in the text but present on the map, and located exactly where the SCAL is.

http://www.reprehensible.net/~orulz/stchuck.jpg

I'd be pretty happy if it's omitted because it's not going to happen. The SCAL should either be used for transit or for HSR. Chances are it was left out by mistake, but perhaps there was a last-minute revision as planners came to their senses and realized that, once this incredibly valuable right of way has been promised for a trail, there's no turning back.

[Taft]

So its just coincidence that almost all these documents have 2016 as projected completion dates?

Riiiggghht...and Chicago would do absolutely NONE of this if it didn't get the Olympics?

Listen, we get it. You don't trust city hall and you think that the Olympics will be a financial disaster the city will never recover from. Message received.

Now how about listening to this rational voice of reason: Chicago will invest in large infrastructure projects and will probably be OK regardless of whether it gets the Olympics. I'm not going to sit here and say the Olympic will be a complete financial success and mayor Daley always has our best interests at heart. That would be a naive and one-sided view. But it is no less silly than shouting from the rooftop that this WILL FAIL without proof, knowledge or the even the ability to know.

Face it: your proclamations are without basis in fact. They are based entirely on your perceptions of the Olympics, the mayor and our local government. Please try to broaden your perspective, see other points of view and not drag this board down with your bleating on these topics.

[Abner]

Okay, so where is the non-Olympics-related source of money for all this?

[schwerve]

Okay, so where is the non-Olympics-related source of money for all this?

where all infrastructure money is, city state and federal capital programs, what is so hard to understand about this. these projects will be funded the same way with or without the olympics, olympic money does not go to these things, the olympics is the carrot you use to out-compete other cities in these funding programs (or earmarks, whatever). its a catalyst for actually winning the money to get these things done. typically these long range planning documents achieve nothing of what they set out to do, because the ambition is far greater than ability to find funding mechanisms,

for example, the east-west/lakefront transitway is literally the central area circulator repackaged from the 1968 cta plan.

[VivaLFuego]

typically these long range planning documents achieve nothing of what they set out to do, because the ambition is far greater than ability to find funding mechanisms,

The 20-year CTA strategic plan from 1980 (I think) amusingly has:

- Extension to O'Hare
- Easing of operational bottlenecks
- Extensions to the Skokie Swift and Dan Ryan Lines
- A circumferential line

I would argue that such documents are often, in fact, successful, on condition that (1) the targeted projects don't frequently change with whimsy and (2) the chosen projects are at minimum plausible from the perspective of cost and politics.

The reality of modern government and regulation is that a few decades is indeed the time horizon these things occur on. The more ambitious, expensive, and politically-complicated (Second Avenue Subway), the longer. Heck, the O'Hare extension only got built as early/quickly as it did with money redirected from the failed Crosstown Expressway, if memory serves. If strategic planning is done sensibly, persistently, and consistently, it does pay dividends.

[schwerve]

I would argue that such documents are often, in fact, successful, on condition that (1) the targeted projects don't frequently change with whimsy and (2) the chosen projects are at minimum plausible from the perspective of cost and politics.

I think it depends on how you are defining success. if the success is accomplishing the stated goals of the document I'd disagree, they rarely get accomplished according the time frames of the documents which isn't the fault of the document producers but as you've stated, political realities which don't necessarily enter in at the conceptual planning phase. If you define success as eventually getting built, then there really is no failure because eventually everything could get built. if the need of an east-west route through the loop that connects navy pier and mccormick place exists in 1968 then it likely isn't going to disappear in 2008 and the plan will stay on the drawing board. that's my hope for the olympics in that the event can muster the political will at the state and federal level to actually push through the eventual roadblocks.

[Loopy]

.

[harryc]

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SdLSw6fg7UI/AAAAAAABJWg/LxLHC9rAb7M/s800/P1310414.JPG

[Tom Servo]

what a terrible waste of money. :yuck:

[Loopy]

.

[ardecila]

what a terrible waste of money. :yuck:

It's a Beaux-Arts bridge. What do you want? It was renovated sometime in the 60s and we got the very simple railing and slab edge. Very Miesian. Now it's being restored to something close to the original.

In fact, I actually think this is rather tastefully done, way better than the stuff that LaGrange puts out. Of course, it's not really a modern imitation of a historic style... it's actually the original design that Edward Bennett made back in the 1920s, with a few minor modifications to meet building code. Compare it to this 1955 photo.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7373/u1096752.jpg
Corbis

Loopy, I'm a little hesitant about the fasces decoration. It could look tacky... the scale doesn't seem right. I want to see it on a large scale.

[honte]

Anyone have a close-up of the original railing handy for a side-by-side?

[ardecila]

Anyone have a close-up of the original railing handy for a side-by-side?

I edited my original post with a photo from 1955.

[Nowhereman1280]

Yeah Adrian, this is not the time to complain about historicism. If they build a new bridge say at the Spire site or a pedestrian bridge, or a new bridge for a street further south on the river and it is classical, then you can complain, but returning a bridge to its original design is not a crime. Yes its a shameful behavior in our past, but that is how Chicago is, it charges recklessly headlong into the future and then goes to far and retreats into the past for 40-50 years. We are about due for another reckless charge it seems...

Also, every new bridge that I can think of that has been built here lately has been of a nice modern design or a simple utilitarian overpass design, no new bridges seem to get the pomo treatment...

[honte]

I edited my original post with a photo from 1955.

Thanks. Doesn't seem too far off.

[george]

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SdLSw6fg7UI/AAAAAAABJWg/LxLHC9rAb7M/s800/P1310414.JPG

A well done, historically accurate restoration that compliments the bridge towers. This is what Chicago is all about, the old with the new.
Next, that Seagram's sign needs to be brought back from ardecila's post.

[Nowhereman1280]

Next, that Seagram's sign needs to be brought back from ardecila's post.

Yes please! I also wish that those neon Coke signs by the corner of Randolf and Michigan overlooking what now is Millennium Park were still there, they would do a great job of obscuring Millennium Plaza or whatever that's called.

[george]

^ :yes: ^

[Steely Dan]

as long as we're bringing back old neon, let's put those wonderful Magikist lips back up on the expressways.

[george]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKC_azYUZK0

Photos courtesy of goggle images & trib photo file.

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/1046/tribmagikistfile.jpg

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/3809/magikist6.jpg

[BWChicago]

I wish I could see video of those things lit and animated. Those were so awesome.

[Busy Bee]

I think the one in Jeff Park was the last to go. Can anyone confirm this? I'm only 27 and I always remember the one off the Dan Ryan missing the lips and the rest of the bottom bulbs usually never on.

I wish they were all back. There's something wonderfully kinetic and amazing about large electric signs looming over heavily travelled areas. Love it.

[Busy Bee]

Yes please! I also wish that those neon Coke signs by the corner of Randolf and Michigan overlooking what now is Millennium Park were still there, they would do a great job of obscuring Millennium Plaza or whatever that's called.

And while were at it, for the most 'ironic' impact, lets put back the enormous Pabst sign at Central Station—wait I think there's some towers there now.http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[BWChicago]

I think the one in Jeff Park was the last to go. Can anyone confirm this? I'm only 27 and I always remember the one off the Dan Ryan missing the lips and the rest of the bottom bulbs usually never on.

I wish they were all back. There's something wonderfully kinetic and amazing about large electric signs looming over heavily travelled areas. Love it.

Yeah, in like 2004

[denizen467]

I'd swear there was also a giant red neon Budweiser logo (y'know, the googie bowtie looking version) along the Kennedy, that had a kind of half-minute cycle where it filled in with red bit by bit. Most likely came down like 15 years ago when people figured out that alcohol advertising doesn't mix with high-speed driving.

[ardecila]

No, I'm pretty sure that sign was there until recently... I remember it, and I'm only 20.

[benna_uk]

Just been to Chicago for an architecture trip last week. Saw the spire building site & models etc, looks amazing. Also did the obvious tourist thing with hancock and sears etc.

I have a question for everyone, Iam doing a 5th year Architectural Essay titled 'Structural Case Studies in Tall buildings'

Now I want to begin by saying where I think the origins of skyscrapers began and Iam getting into a debate with my lecturer as to which city is started with. Chicago or New York? What are your thoughts?

Also for my essay I need to pick between 3 and 5 case studies so was thinking of 'Home Insurance Building' As a beginning then maybe the Burj Dubai as a snapshot in time as the tallest could also do the CCTV tower as a case for cantilevers and not just trying to be the tallest and its something completely new.

What do you guys think as for the one in between (Sears, Hancock or Empire State?) Iam sure iam missing some obvious ones!

Cheers for your help.

PS How do i start my own thread, stupid newbie question I know but i cant see the link

[Via Chicago]

I wish they were all back. There's something wonderfully kinetic and amazing about large electric signs looming over heavily travelled areas. Love it

What we need is THIS back! ;)

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh92/Irishtom29/burnhampoint109.jpg
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh92/Irishtom29/burnhampoint109.jpg

[Mr Downtown]

Now I want to begin by saying where I think the origins of skyscrapers began

Make sure you look at the recent research by Gerald Larson of the University of Cincinnati on the matter:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v129/ai_4501450/

[honte]

^ Recent? That article is 23 years old. The author can't even spell "William LeBaron Jenney" right.

Condit's opinion means more than most here, but I disagree with him. While I am no expert, the true revolution that produced the skyscraper was the structural system. Everything else just enabled it to be practical.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I agree Honte, as the Monadnack building's north half clearly demonstrates, there is a clear limit to Masonry structural systems. Everything else is just a means of making people actually feel comfortable using such tall structures.

Though I have to note that I don't think Home Insurance was the first pure skyscraper either, it was definitely a proto-skyscraper, but it didn't have a pure skeletal steel frame, there was some masonry used to support weight in the building, primarily the walls, but it was definitely the most advanced use of that kind of construction at the time it was built.

[Busy Bee]

Found this blurb about that Turtle Wax building:

The Turtle Wax Turtle
Oct 11th, 2008 by Jeff Duntemann.

Somewhere in Chicago (Pete Albrecht and I are still trying to figure out precisely where) there was once a very Gothic-looking building with a giant turtle on top of it. It was the Turtle Wax turtle, of course, and it existed when I was quite young. Any time we'd be in the car passing by it, my folks would very carefully point it out. That would have been 1958-1962 or so. Pete thinks the building is the Wendell Bank Building at the intersection of Madison, Ashland, and Ogden, and it certainly looks right, though Pete remembers the sign being somewhere on Cicero and not Ashland. I confess that I have no idea, but that intersection would have been on the way to visit my grandfather and Uncle Louie, so it's a plausble hypothesis.


http://www.contrapositivediary.com/?p=152

[lawfin]

What we need is THIS back! ;)

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh92/Irishtom29/burnhampoint109.jpg
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh92/Irishtom29/burnhampoint109.jpg

I cant place that building...what interesetion is that.....does it still stand?

Great Building

I think we need more buildings of this style of scale at major intersections in this city instead of the schlock branch bank single story tripe

[VivaLFuego]

Wasn't that Madison/Ogden/Ashland? Long gone.

[Via Chicago]

I cant place that building...what interesetion is that.....does it still stand?

Great Building

I think we need more buildings of this style of scale at major intersections in this city instead of the schlock branch bank single story tripe

Well, we used to have buildings like that. But we knocked them all down up put up schlock bank branches in their place. In fact, in this case we dont even have a bank branch...its an empty parking lot (as is almost the entire block)

Now (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Madison+%26+Ashland,+Chicago,+Cook,+Illinois+60607&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=5.747918,21.972656&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FbMPfwIdeVDG-g&split=0&t=h&layer=c&cbll=41.881472,-87.666046&panoid=aFKIAy2Q-lmaB9EBClmYmw&cbp=12,332.13517633092573,,0,-3.1509433962264106&ll=41.881504,-87.665973&spn=0.000172,0.001066&z=20&iwloc=addr)

Really sad....

[Mr Downtown]

^Atop the Flatiron Building, 1555 W. Madison, corner of Ogden and Ashland. The sign was erected in June 1956.

[Chicago Shawn]

wait... what? why are so many of you guys pro-olympics. among its many other cons, it will do tremendous amounts of economic damage to this city. why do you guys think it'll just magically spawn 13.5 billion. in fact i'd be very worried if we did magically spawn that money and built all this, because the city could never sustain all the over-growth.
it's such flawed thinking.
we need more responsible and realistic planning in this city.

Over-growth? Do you realize that the city's peak population 60 years ago was 700,000 higher than it is today? Back then, there were still open fields out by Midway too. In the past, we had far more people living in far less space. This city is far from over built, and as long as transportation infrastructure is improved and expanded, then there is no such thing as "overbuilding". Density is necessary for vibrancy in a city, and density is necessary for a more sustainable world.

[cbotnyse]

Well, we used to have buildings like that. But we knocked them all down up put up schlock bank branches in their place. In fact, in this case we dont even have a bank branch...its an empty parking lot (as is almost the entire block)

Now (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Madison+%26+Ashland,+Chicago,+Cook,+Illinois+60607&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=5.747918,21.972656&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FbMPfwIdeVDG-g&split=0&t=h&layer=c&cbll=41.881472,-87.666046&panoid=aFKIAy2Q-lmaB9EBClmYmw&cbp=12,332.13517633092573,,0,-3.1509433962264106&ll=41.881504,-87.665973&spn=0.000172,0.001066&z=20&iwloc=addr)

Really sad....wow that is really sad.

[the urban politician]

Well, we used to have buildings like that. But we knocked them all down up put up schlock bank branches in their place. In fact, in this case we dont even have a bank branch...its an empty parking lot (as is almost the entire block)

Now (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Madison+%26+Ashland,+Chicago,+Cook,+Illinois+60607&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=5.747918,21.972656&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FbMPfwIdeVDG-g&split=0&t=h&layer=c&cbll=41.881472,-87.666046&panoid=aFKIAy2Q-lmaB9EBClmYmw&cbp=12,332.13517633092573,,0,-3.1509433962264106&ll=41.881504,-87.665973&spn=0.000172,0.001066&z=20&iwloc=addr)

Really sad....

^ WOW that picture made my day :(

God BLESS urban renewal

[Busy Bee]

May have gottn lost at bottom of page...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4173608&postcount=6580

[honte]

^ WOW that picture made my day :(

God BLESS urban renewal


Just for the record, the loss of that building had nothing to do with an official urban renewal effort. Also, Via, I've never confirmed this, but I think it was actually sitting in that triangular patch where the cool sculpture is now.

There were others like it lost for that reason though.

Chicago had at least 8 or 9 neighborhood buildings like that at one time. I keep a running list since it is sad and curious also that they are all gone now. I think part of this is that many did not have elevators, and Chicago is not a city where people are used to walkups greater than 4 stories in height.

[photoLith]

I just can never understand though the mentality in the 30s-70s of, lets destroy everthing beautiful for no reason and replace it with a craptastic highway, parking lot, or an architecturally devoid bank building. Could you imagine if that building were standing today though and someone wanted to knock it down. There would be a huge public outcry for such blasphemy against architecture. I just cant imagine the people back then not caring about the destruction of such a building.

[Tom Servo]

What we need is THIS back! ;)

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh92/Irishtom29/burnhampoint109.jpg
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh92/Irishtom29/burnhampoint109.jpg

huh. i've never seen this building before. what is it? and what corner is that?

edit: oops, never mind...

[Tom Servo]

we need more buildings of this style of scale at major intersections

isn't that great? you have the row houses on the neighborhood street, on modest sized retailers on the major street... the corner just lends itself to the two being married as such.

[Tom Servo]

I just can never understand though the mentality in the 30s-70s of, lets destroy everthing beautiful for no reason and replace it with a craptastic highway, parking lot, or an architecturally devoid bank building. Could you imagine if that building were standing today though and someone wanted to knock it down. There would be a huge public outcry for such blasphemy against architecture. I just cant imagine the people back then not caring about the destruction of such a building.

umm, major public outcry? wonderful buildings are torn down all the time, and no-one seems to care... or notice. remember the old dana hotel? yeah, i didn't think so... people throughout time are all the same: profitability is the only thing of any matter. don't you listen to rap music: it's all about the Benjamin's.

[Tom Servo]

Now (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Madison+%26+Ashland,+Chicago,+Cook,+Illinois+60607&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=5.747918,21.972656&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FbMPfwIdeVDG-g&split=0&t=h&layer=c&cbll=41.881472,-87.666046&panoid=aFKIAy2Q-lmaB9EBClmYmw&cbp=12,332.13517633092573,,0,-3.1509433962264106&ll=41.881504,-87.665973&spn=0.000172,0.001066&z=20&iwloc=addr)


huh... chicago: architectural mecca. :haha: that picture is a beautifully representation of this city's architectural history and progress.

[nomarandlee]

Chicago had at least 8 or 9 neighborhood buildings like that at one time. I keep a running list since it is sad and curious also that they are all gone now. I think part of this is that many did not have elevators, and Chicago is not a city where people are used to walkups greater than 4 stories in height.

You got the intersections or photos of them by any chance Honte?

[photoLith]

umm, major public outcry? wonderful buildings are torn down all the time, and no-one seems to care... or notice. remember the old dana hotel? yeah, i didn't think so... people throughout time are all the same: profitability is the only thing of any matter. don't you listen to rap music: it's all about the Benjamin's.

I know this but this building is in a very prominent location and was probably a well known icon in that neighborhood. Of course plenty of beautiful historic buildings keep on getting destroyed but this one was in a very noticeable location. So it would seem that people would not want to see it go.

Alls that I know is that if a building like that were getting torn down and I knew about it, I would be all up in arms.

[honte]

You got the intersections or photos of them by any chance Honte?

Yeah, I'll dig some up for you if I can find time. Two that come to mind were Milwaukee / Chicago (NE corner) and Blue Island / Roosevelt (SW corner). South Side had several too, mostly along Cottage Grove.

Most weren't quite as grand as the "Turtle Wax" building.

[BWChicago]

Fullerton/Lincoln also comes to mind

[ardecila]

Chicago had at least 8 or 9 neighborhood buildings like that at one time. I keep a running list since it is sad and curious also that they are all gone now. I think part of this is that many did not have elevators, and Chicago is not a city where people are used to walkups greater than 4 stories in height.

I doubt that fire codes would accommodate the construction of such buildings today. Between a primary elevator and some auxiliary fire stairs, there'd be no room to occupy.

It's a shame, too.

[denizen467]

Meanwhile, back in the future, a parking lot continues to disappear: Friedman's garage across from 353 Clark has a colorful new barricade, and will call itself "Greenway Self Park". Looks like their logo is an image of a VW Beetle spewing green leaves as its exhaust. What, are they going to be prohibiting combustion engine vehicles? (Hmm, maybe they can just include a carbon credit offset in the parking fee..)