CHICAGO | General Developments [Archive] - Page 67

Nowhereman1280

Apr 3, 2009, 2:10 PM

so, i'll ask again, where is the need for all these skyscrapers? to see the lake? :sly:

You seem to completely lack any knowledge of economics. Those buildings downtown are not there to see the lake, they are there because agglomeration economies. In other words, once you reach a critical mass of services and stores and nightlife, everyone wants to be in the same spot. The tall buildings downtown are not there because of the lake (there is lake just like it in Kenosha and Gary, why no highrises there?) they are there because all of the jobs, transit, stores, nightlife, and vibrancy are there. Also, businesses like to cluster (see the loop) because then information is shared inadvertently between firms. This means if employee from Megacompany A goes to lunch, he might talk to or overhear an employee from Megacompany B talking about this great new idea they have. This way everyone is kinda spying on each other and they all share ideas rapidly.

Essentially people have built downtown because they WANT to be there. The United States is a free country and people are allowed to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. If you want to give up that freedom then go away, Chicago is not a place for people who dislike capitalism. Its funny that you think this way because its the very forces of unbridled, cut-throat, capitalism in Chicago that no only unleashed the birth of the skyscraper and Chicago school, but also that allowed International Style to completely take off. Face it, modernism is not suited to socialism, it is suited to capitalism. If you want a city that limits the heights of all of its buildings in the name of the communal good, you best go elsewhere.

the urban politician

Apr 3, 2009, 2:45 PM

^ Don't be too hard on Adrian.

Remember, he's a college kid who has divorced himself from the realities of the world to immerse himself in architectural magazines and textbooks to no end, occasionally visiting this website to post "cutting edge" pictures and then retreat back to his design textbook jungle.

Tom Servo

Apr 3, 2009, 3:36 PM

textbook jungle.

... and thank you for the new name for my book case. :tup:

Tom Servo

Apr 3, 2009, 3:47 PM

You seem to completely lack any knowledge of economics. Those buildings downtown are not there to see the lake, they are there because agglomeration economies. In other words, once you reach a critical mass of services and stores and nightlife, everyone wants to be in the same spot. The tall buildings downtown are not there because of the lake (there is lake just like it in Kenosha and Gary, why no highrises there?) they are there because all of the jobs, transit, stores, nightlife, and vibrancy are there. Also, businesses like to cluster (see the loop) because then information is shared inadvertently between firms. This means if employee from Megacompany A goes to lunch, he might talk to or overhear an employee from Megacompany B talking about this great new idea they have. This way everyone is kinda spying on each other and they all share ideas rapidly.

what did i ever say about limiting heights?
tall buildings are a necessity. i never said they weren't.
i must completely lack any knowledge of the urban condition, because, apparently certain areas are desirable and lots of people all wanna be there? huh... okay. and i also must not understand the phase, critical mass. apparently our city has reached it, all over the near north / gold coast area.
silly me... well sorry 'bout that.

Face it, modernism is not suited to socialism, it is suited to capitalism.
uh huh.
http://designresearchgroup.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/le_corbusier_vision_paris_small.jpg
so this is capitalism? or are you saying modernism wouldn't exist without capitalism? because it seems to me that all architecture exist because of funding, whether that is private or public, isn't it all the same?

ardecila

Apr 3, 2009, 3:55 PM

I dunno, what about for example 2800 Lincoln?

The footprint of 2800 Lincoln is more than twice that of the Flatiron Building with that Turtle Wax sign. If you go to the site where the building once stood, you will appreciate just how small the footprint really was. (Of course, I believe the roads have been widened a bit since the building was demolished, but still....)

VivaLFuego

Apr 3, 2009, 3:58 PM

also, we were a far denser city back in the 50s than now. again, isn't the function of a skyscraper to provide more space when density is at a capacity?

Actually, the areas where highrises and 4+1s were built in the 1960s onwards have gotten denser. Where Chicago lost the population is in the outlying neighborhoods as average household sizes shrank: the same number of housing units house fewer people. In addition to shrinking household sizes, add in the drip-drip-drip abandonment of the worst neighborhoods like Englewood, Douglas, Lawndale, and you've got your population loss.

Highrises are, for certain specific demographics, far more desirable than dumbell tenements with minimal natural light of comparable unit density (but less "visual pollution" than highrises, as you might describe it). As with the demolition of beautiful buildings like the Turtle Wax Flatiron, I think it's important to remember the basic context of fundamental economic indicators and trends in assessing these decisions. By all means, economics should not always trump planning and architecture, but the latter two can only operate with the bounds of the former, and if that fact bugs you then you will be quite dissatisfied for the rest of your life. Chicago has indeed often been too cozy to finance/development interests, and ignored planning/architectural concerns: but as honte alludes to, the loss of the vast majority of beautiful old buildings and neighborhoods throughout the city was not the result of deliberate "urban renewal" actions, but more the result of simple real estate economics.

Do we know when exactly the Turtle Wax Flatiron was torn down? I'm curious because I know a great deal of Madison Street reached it's current desolate state in 1968 when rioters torched hundreds of commercial buildings (and the economic fundamentals have never supported the development of new space to replace it).

Abner

Apr 3, 2009, 4:17 PM

If you want a city that limits the heights of all of its buildings in the name of the communal good, you best go elsewhere.

...like communist haven Washington DC. Don't pretend that tall buildings are the inevitable result of some kind of natural law of the market, or that different ways of assigning property rights via zoning are more or less friendly to the free market. Tall buildings depend fundamentally on how property rights are defined. It is a matter of legal tradition, not natural economic processes, that the owner of a piece of land also owns rights to the airspace above it. Different schema for assigning property rights would lead to different patterns of growth. Imagine if there were no zoning, but it was easy to form parties that would buy airspace, and airspace was not packaged together with land. We would see different ways that the market would determine building heights.. Now imagine that buying a piece of property meant buying the rights to the sunlight hitting that property... you get the idea. Sorry, I just don't like when people act like there's something inherent or natural about their preferred way of organizing property rights and any other ways are anti-freedom. In DC, building heights are heavily regulated. Is this system oppressive to property owners, or does it ensure that the public keeps the rights to whatever amenities it obtains by having regulated building heights? In Houston, you can build whatever you want. Is this freedom for property owners or does it take away my right to buy a house with a guarantee of full sun hitting the backyard?

Abner

Apr 3, 2009, 4:19 PM

so this is capitalism? or are you saying modernism wouldn't exist without capitalism? because it seems to me that all architecture exist because of funding, whether that is private or public, isn't it all the same?

Take it a step further: brutalism would be a minor architectural footnote if it weren't for government funding it, both in the US and in the Soviet Union.

spyguy

Apr 3, 2009, 4:32 PM

How bout that new Barneys?
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7179/barneyslr.jpg

Interior shot of the new Barneys
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7065/0903130140web.jpg
Photo credit (http://chicagoarchitecturalmetals.blogspot.com/2009/04/barneys-staircase.html)

Mr Downtown

Apr 3, 2009, 5:41 PM

It's a mistake to think that economics or the high value of land are the main cause of highrises in the US. That's a contributing cause in Chicago 1890 or in Hong Kong 1980, but almost nowhere else.

Highrises are primarily a lifestyle or business image choice. When there are enough people who want to live that way in the Gold Coast or Belmont Harbor or Skokie, we get highrises. When there are enough businesses who want that image, we get Oakbrook Terrace Tower or 191 North Wacker. One Museum Park is certainly not being built because there's no land nearby for townhouses. 311 South Wacker isn't 65 stories because there was no available land in the area for shorter, more economical buildings.

Madison/Ashland/Ogden was one of Chicago's great transfer corners. When the streetcars were a completely different system than the rapid transit, people riding long crosstown lines had to transfer and it cost them no additional fare to shop a little while at the transfer point. So "shopping centers" grew up at Lincoln/Belmont/Ashland, at Six Corners, at Madison/Pulaski, and here. The surrounding buildings housed banks, a Wieboldt's or Goldblatt's, a Woolworths and a Walgreens, a DeMar cafeteria, a Jewel Tea store, and various bakers, candy shops, meat markets, and greengrocers. The upper floors housed doctors, dentists, shoe repair, employment agencies, tailors, and the like. These businesses had to be within steps of the streetcar transfer corner, so economics did work to push the buildings upward.

The burgundy lines show the strip commercial of 1948 Chicago. The white circles are the "shopping centers" in proportion to their sales volumes:

http://i41.tinypic.com/2czd2qu.png
A version of this map appears in the Encyclopedia of Chicago. (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1758.html) ©2004 The Newberry Library.

Nowhereman1280

Apr 3, 2009, 6:38 PM

http://designresearchgroup.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/le_corbusier_vision_paris_small.jpg
so this is capitalism? or are you saying modernism wouldn't exist without capitalism? because it seems to me that all architecture exist because of funding, whether that is private or public, isn't it all the same?

Mmm yes, you are so right, because those buildings got completed! I think you are missing my point, my point is not that there would never have been any highrises ever built without capitalism, it is that main propagator of modernism in architecture has been the free market. Do you think we would have all the Mies buildings we have without the free market? Many modernists were indeed socialist, however, no matter how hard they dreamed, almost none of their buildings would have been completed if it weren't for private individuals and companies seeing value in their designs and paying for them to be completed.

It's a mistake to think that economics or the high value of land are the main cause of highrises in the US. That's a contributing cause in Chicago 1890 or in Hong Kong 1980, but almost nowhere else.

Highrises are primarily a lifestyle or business image choice.

And you think that lifestyle and image have no economic value? Ummm there is a reason why you can charge higher prices and rents in a highrise than a low rise. The reason is that there are percieved or real benefits to locating there. With the exception of the maybe 5-10% of tall buildings that were build by (housing projects) or used by (daley center) the government, almost all highrises are the result of free market demand.

Also, if economics and land value do not drive the construction of highrises then why is there a perfect correlation between highrise construction and economic growth? Is it just coincidence that we have gone from seeing a dozen proposals and 10 construction starts a month in 2007 to almost none in 2009? Or has the almighty people's government decided to stop building highrises?

Anyone who thinks that there is not a link between the things you list (views and image) and land value is a fool...

Segun

Apr 3, 2009, 6:39 PM

The burgundy lines show the strip commercial of 1948 Chicago. The white circles are the "shopping centers" in proportion to their sales volumes:

http://i41.tinypic.com/2czd2qu.png
A version of this map appears in the Encyclopedia of Chicago. (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1758.html) ©2004 The Newberry Library.

I recognize a lot of those retail district intersections.

Uptown
Irving Park/Milwaukee/Cicero - 6 Points
Lincoln/Belmont/Ashland
Diversey/Milwaukee (Logan Square)
Madison/Pulaski
....and the district all the way down on 115th and Michigan.

But wow, look at how intense 63rd street used to be.

I wonder what that map would look like today, nearly all the South Side districts would be gone, along with Madison/Pulaski, and it would probably include:
26th/Pulaski (Little Village)
Devon/Western (West Rogers Park)
51st/Lake Park (Hyde Park)
Diversey/Clark/Broadway (Lakeview/Lincoln Park nexus)
Lawrence/Kimball (Albany Park)
Damen/North/Milwaukee (Wicker Park)
...anything else I'm missing?

george

Apr 3, 2009, 7:06 PM

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/9190/riverwalk1.jpg

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/4926/riverwalk3.jpg

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/2497/riverwalk2.jpg

Tom Servo

Apr 3, 2009, 8:49 PM

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7179/barneyslr.jpg
photo by george

i'm not joking... i actually think that looks nice. huh.

Tom In Chicago

Apr 3, 2009, 8:54 PM

Adrian. . . you need to source these images your posting on this site. . . please go back and do so. . . thanks in advance. . .

BVictor1

Apr 3, 2009, 8:56 PM

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.

Seriously? I mean seriously?

You are the type of person who shouldn't live in a city.

Tom Servo

Apr 4, 2009, 2:03 AM

Seriously? I mean seriously?

You are the type of person who shouldn't live in a city.

wait... how does what i said lend this response? or is this a cumulative response?

BVictor1

Apr 4, 2009, 2:16 PM

what a terrible waste of money. :yuck:

Again...

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

Perfect timing for the Olympics inspection: Handsome new railings on the Michigan Avenue Bridge

Just in time for the International Olympic Committee's visit to Chicago, not to mention the upcoming celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Burnham Plan, new ornamental railings have been installed on one side of the Michigan Avenue Bridge.

They look wonderful, with a richly-articulated, hub-and-spoke pattern that is far superior to the fence post look of the utilitarian railings they are replacing.

The just-finished railings and a new sidewalk are on the west side of the bridge, which forms the gateway to the North Michigan Avenue shopping district from the Loop and is surrounded by a quartet of 1920s skyscrapers including the Wrigley Building and the Tribune Tower. Work on the east side is to start next week and to be completed in June, according to Brian Steele, a spokesman for the city's Department of Tranportation.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/.a/6a00d834518cc969e201156fc37c10970b-320wi

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/.a/6a00d834518cc969e201156ecc984f970c-320wi

The railings are based on the original 1920 design for the bridge by Chicago architect Edward Bennett, who co-authored the 1909 Plan of Chicago with architect Daniel Burnham. Often referred to as the Burnham Plan, the document is credited with inspiring such major pieces of civic infrastructure as Wacker Drive, Navy Pier and the Michigan Avenue Bridge itself. The city's celebration of the plan is to begin June 19th. (At left, workmen fix the bridge in 1939.)

BVictor1

Apr 4, 2009, 2:40 PM

wait... how does what i said lend this response? or is this a cumulative response?

Again really? It's a cumulative to all the ignorant responses that you've posted over time. You don't appear to understand what it means to live in an ever changing city. Cities are places that aren't locked in time like a statue or portrait. If things don't evolve, they die off.

Tom In Chicago

Apr 4, 2009, 5:33 PM

Adrian. . . go back and cite the image in post #6607!!!

the urban politician

Apr 4, 2009, 7:43 PM

Edit: mistake

Chicago Shawn

Apr 4, 2009, 10:22 PM

so, i'll ask again, where is the need for all these skyscrapers? to see the lake?

Much of the pre-WWII built environment that you know of in the "classic Chicago neighborhoods" is illegal in today's zoning codes. We really can't build the dense 1950's era city today in low-rise form. Many of these old buildings fail minimum parking ratios, minimum lot area, open space, height and use restrictions in today's zoning codes. Then you have more restrictive building codes today as well.

But, for the sake of discussion, let's pretend that we can abolish all of the code restrictions, and just revert back to allowing that old stuff to be built again. We still have to deal with market trends in which people want to live in larger spaces. Additionally, we have smaller family sizes, so there are fewer people in each household while each household takes up more space. In order to make up this lost density we have to build vertically where allowed.

We need more density in a vertical format, in order to deal with the realities of more restrictive zoning codes throughout the city's neighborhoods, as well as today's household and market trends. To meet the parking requirements in larger multi-unit buildings developers usually have to go up because underground garages are so expensive to construct here. More vertical real estate is also needed to put pedestrians on the street to shop in our city's retail stores. Many neighborhoods that have lost density over time do not have enough of a critical mass to sustain street front retail along all of the arterial streets. Keep in mind that because of big box stores and the prospect of driving to them, the threshold for sustaining local neighborhood retail strips is now higher than it was in the past. Same story for sustaining higher CTA ridership as well. You in the past have derided the construction of the Lakefront high-rise wall, but it is because of that added density, that the north side neighborhoods remained vibrant and relatively healthy while much of the city declined. I also highly doubt that CTAs system of Lakeshore Drive express buses would exist without that high-rise density as well. I also personally find it a mystery that someone who praises modern architecture as much as you do, despises many of the modernist apartment towers along LSD.

Then we have the benefits of additional tax revenue coming in from new high-rise buildings while they efficiently utilize existing city services. The Central Area for example contributes something like half of all the city's tax revenue while occupying less than 5% of the city's total land area.

honte

Apr 5, 2009, 12:08 AM

Shawn, very good post.

Not that I want to jump into this argument, but I would also point out that much of the high-rise construction in Chicago has been fueled by a transition from an industrial center to a more diverse economy with more office users. Also, the images posted earlier were a terrible comparison, as the vintage one only showed Streeterville, which wasn't much at that time, and the other showed a good percentage of the downtown.

I think one of the universal things I hear from people who live in neighborhoods with skyscrapers is actually how little they notice them. The benefits so clearly outweigh the negatives.

Mr Downtown

Apr 5, 2009, 3:16 AM

My compliments also, Shawn, on a very insightful summary of the interconnected factors shaping today's urbanism.

Just one note: the central area's high proportion of tax contribution is largely due to Cook County's system of assessing commercial property at a higher rate than residential. Actually, I'm pretty sure that a residential highrise contributes much less property tax than the same number of units and square footage distributed among single-family homes or small multifamily buildings. I pay only $2,000/year property tax on my 1100 sq ft downtown condo.

the urban politician

Apr 5, 2009, 6:33 AM

I find what's happening in this town interesting. A private developer puts money towards a new rail stop in a lakeside community that has seen new townhome & condo development with hopes of becoming the next commuter suburb of Chicago. This sounds like a story from the 19th century..

Will we commute to New Buffalo? (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?articleId=31596)
By: Shia Kapos April 06, 2009

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/mag/images/articles/31596.jpg

NEW BUFFALO, Mich. — Chicago has been edging closer to this bucolic village for the past couple of decades as more second-home owners seek a nearby taste of country life. Now, a new train stop is about to open in the center of the business district, with direct service just an hour's ride from Chicago's Union Station.
Could New Buffalo be in transition from sleepy summer town to full-time Chicago suburb?

emathias

Apr 5, 2009, 3:59 PM

...
in the same number of units and square footage distributed among single-family homes or small multifamily buildings. I pay only $2,000/year property tax on my 1100 sq ft downtown condo.

Yeah, it's the sort of thing I don't really want to complain about too loudly, but I own about 1,100 sq/ft on the top floor of an 1890 four-story walkup in River North and pay about $3,000/year in taxes. I know many people in the suburbs who own single family homes with a sales value similar to my unit who pay double or more in property taxes than I do. I'm not normally one for tax increases, but I am for fairness in taxes and I'd admit I don't think it's fair I pay less in taxes for more services than some suburbanites. I don't want to pay double what I pay now - at least not in a one-year jump - but if my taxes went up some lesser amount - say 20% - to fund infrastructure projects downtown or the city at large I wouldn't be crying foul as long as the money actually went to those projects. For example, I'd sign up today to pay an extra 20% in property taxes to see the West Loop Transportation center and it's constituent components built because I know it would help reinforce the vibrancy of downtown and probably more than make up for added cost either in benefit or property value - or both.

I understand why the city likes to keep city taxes lower, but at some point there has to be equity with the suburbs and there has to be an honest analysis of what we're losing by not paying taxes proportional to what the suburbs do. I looked up condos in Naperville similarly sized to what I have downtown and they seemed to be taxed at 1.5 - 2 times what I pay in taxes - 2 - 3 times what Mr. Downtown pays. Not only is that not fair to the suburbanites in that they pay so much more, but it's not fair to the city residents who are paying less than the market would likely bear and in the process missing out on needed infrastructure. Carrol St, West Loop Transportation, Clinton Subway would all be a lot closer to reality if our property taxes were closer to the suburbs' and the difference was going to infrastructure.

Mr Downtown

Apr 5, 2009, 6:19 PM

^The places where this is really going to become intolerable are the inner suburbs. When they decline and need renewed infrastructure or revitalization, they have no resources except a bunch of small unfashionable 1950s houses. So the schools keep getting worse and the property taxes keep getting higher. I fear that a bunch of places such as Dolton, Posen, Ford Heights, and maybe even Lyons, Maywood, Stone Park, and Bensenville will go bankrupt, and the city will end up surrounded by a ring of decay.

Nowhereman1280

Apr 5, 2009, 6:27 PM

and the city will end up surrounded by a ring of decay.

And it hasn't had a ring of decay around it in some way for the past 50 years? I guess there will always be decay somewhere in the city as long as people continue to segregate themselves by income. That is something I don't see changing too quickly. I'd rather it be the suburbs than the city though. The suburbs are small enough that they can shrink back to a reasonably smaller size (I.E. tear down the sprawl like cities in Michigan are doing). I mean I know that happened to Chicago, but the central city seems to be much more damaged by changing levels of density than smaller cities around it are.

denizen467

Apr 5, 2009, 7:50 PM

^ Big cities were always more resilient to depopulation and dwindling coffers. The ghost (and then ghetto) suburb could become a disturbingly different phenomenon.

So, annexation? Merger?

Abner

Apr 5, 2009, 8:12 PM

Why is it inevitable that the inner ring suburbs will decay? For all the inner suburbs with 50s-era housing that have been going downhill, like Maywood, there are others with pretty similar physical infrastructure that have done fine, like Skokie. How the various inner suburbs have fared has more to do with social factors than with physical ones. I don't exactly understand what process you're talking about.

harryc

Apr 5, 2009, 10:06 PM

March 11
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sdkm5TtB-3I/AAAAAAABJuo/27aejLEns8U/s800/P1280515.JPG

March 17
Plates the rc will lock into.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SdknC11RXzI/AAAAAAABJu0/Qg-VFFaxioc/s800/P1290194.JPG

March 27
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SdknS-r6RQI/AAAAAAABJvA/XmQgy7SzWx4/s720/P1310054.JPG

March 30
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SdknUeIUisI/AAAAAAABJxo/3787BFSPJlk/s800/P1310397.JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/Sdkn_bsKX3I/AAAAAAABJvs/hZ6dqb3UU78/s800/P1310400.JPG

April 02
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SdkoBlDyIkI/AAAAAAABJv4/hMro2zKy6dw/s720/P1310704.JPG

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SdkoDEWhcaI/AAAAAAABJwE/TztFzQ_LjG0/s800/P1310705.JPG

An Ironworker test the wall for proper leaning height. / Well protected cable run.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SdkoEgfYi_I/AAAAAAABJwQ/WbliWDOjGBg/s720/P1310707.JPG http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SdkoGl7X_AI/AAAAAAABJwc/wVZVw-1H7xQ/s720/P1310710.JPG

Screen to protect the walkway from debris coming through the bridge deck above.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SdkoJDqqDgI/AAAAAAABJw4/lcFnqzm_7N4/s800/P1310725_6_7.jpg

Seems a bit of overkill. this would hold a small car.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SdkoH8awo6I/AAAAAAABJws/MV7eWms4kF0/s720/P1310712.JPG

riverwalk dips to go under Michigan Ave.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SdkoLDxaNzI/AAAAAAABJxE/6VxEh0fp5KM/s800/P1310728_29_30.jpg

Panasonic DMZ TZ4 (http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/compact/tz5_tz4_tz15_tz11/index.html) - Picasa (http://picasaweb.google.com/) - Autostitch (http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html) - Photomatix HDR (http://www.hdrsoft.com/)

Mr Downtown

Apr 6, 2009, 12:36 AM

For all the inner suburbs with 50s-era housing that have been going downhill, like Maywood, there are others with pretty similar physical infrastructure that have done fine, like Skokie.

The difference is that Maywood and Skokie don't share tax revenues. For a big central city like Chicago, the areas that are doing well subsidize the troubled areas. The loss of West Side industry is eased by the growth of Loop office districts. But a place that has only residential or obsolete industry has nothing to turn to.

Abner

Apr 6, 2009, 12:59 AM

Sure, I understand that. I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about a fundamental problem facing inner ring suburbs in general. If you're only worried that the suburbs suffering long-term bad economies aren't going to be able to raise the tax revenues necessary to fix their streets and staff their schools, I would agree with that. Doesn't Cook County already have to provide police service for some of the south suburbs?

I was asking why the housing that these places offer will go out of fashion, and why that will mean economic ruin instead of replacing the old housing. The only reason is that the locations themselves would become undesirable, right? But I don't know why inner ring suburbs in general would become undesirable places. I don't think there's anything inherent about Maywood and Bellwood that require them to be heading in different economic directions from Forest Park and Berwyn. Both of those suburbs have (from casual experience) improved tremendously in the last decade, despite being in pretty bad shape and still having terrible schools.

orulz

Apr 6, 2009, 1:20 AM

riverwalk dips to go under Michigan Ave.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8TC_VUmf9Fw/SdkoLDxaNzI/AAAAAAABJxE/6VxEh0fp5KM/s800/P1310728_29_30.jpg

Looks like that's only 2 or 3 feet above water level; that will flood pretty often, then, won't it?

Also, they really need to paint that bridge. Maybe they'll repaint the whole thing when they're done with the railings on the upper level.

Out of curiosity, did the lower level have the same decorative railings as the upper level when the bridge was first built?

Nowhereman1280

Apr 6, 2009, 2:02 AM

brian_b

Apr 6, 2009, 2:21 AM

I find what's happening in this town interesting. A private developer puts money towards a new rail stop in a lakeside community that has seen new townhome & condo development with hopes of becoming the next commuter suburb of Chicago. This sounds like a story from the 19th century..

NEW BUFFALO, Mich. — Chicago has been edging closer to this bucolic village for the past couple of decades as more second-home owners seek a nearby taste of country life. Now, a new train stop is about to open in the center of the business district, with direct service just an hour's ride from Chicago's Union Station.
Could New Buffalo be in transition from sleepy summer town to full-time Chicago suburb?

That's a great location for the Amtrak! Unfortunately for this guy, he's asking an INSANE amount for his condos and townhouses. I think he pretty much tapped out the market that thinks Chicago prices are ok for southwest Michigan, not to mention that loans for overpriced vacation homes aren't likely to be easy to get until loans for properly priced primary home are easy to get.

munda

Apr 6, 2009, 2:25 AM

the good mayor gave me a gift
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e118/farooq786/IMG_0082.jpg

orulz

Apr 6, 2009, 2:31 AM

^^^

No it won't flood very often, the main branch is pretty much tied to lake level which doesn't fluctuate very much.

I believe there are plans to rework the whole bridge in the near future, just like they did to LSD and Columbus and Wacker.

Yes I think it did have the same decorative railings...

Thanks. Regarding the flooding, we've discussed this before (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4129717&postcount=6292). Deep tunnel is the ultimate solution, but who knows how long it will be before that enormous project is done. So, until then, I figured that since a heavy but not ridiculously huge amount of rain can cause the riverwalk to flood to that depth, a smaller and far more common event could cause it to flood to the level of the under bridge connections. But I guess maybe only a really big rain event (say, a 1 year or a 5 year event) can cause enough rain to fall enough to cause a flood.

Abner

Apr 6, 2009, 4:46 AM

the good mayor gave me a gift
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e118/farooq786/IMG_0082.jpg

Yeah, great. Only like 20 years later than everybody else got them. I hope my area of the city will one day be as lucky as yours. Til then, I will keep hauling my stuff to the recycling center like it's the 1970s.

emathias

Apr 6, 2009, 10:49 AM

...
No it won't flood very often, the main branch is pretty much tied to lake level which doesn't fluctuate very much.
...

It depends on what you mean by "very much." The lake at Calumet Harbor in the past 10 years has fluctuated by as much as 2 feet in a single 12-month span and historically (past century) you need to account for at least a 5-foot swing between long-term monthly lows and monthly highs. If you went with min-max within each month (and not just average), lake levels probably fluctuate up to 7 feet from one-day extremes over the long term.

I think the river is somewhat protected from the extremes, but I know I've seen it (the river) vary in level by a good 18 inches just since New Years.

trvlr70

Apr 6, 2009, 2:42 PM

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

Oh my God...I totally remember it. I would always notice when my Dad took me to see the Bulls play in the 70s.

Nowhereman1280

Apr 6, 2009, 3:41 PM

It depends on what you mean by "very much." The lake at Calumet Harbor in the past 10 years has fluctuated by as much as 2 feet in a single 12-month span and historically (past century) you need to account for at least a 5-foot swing between long-term monthly lows and monthly highs. If you went with min-max within each month (and not just average), lake levels probably fluctuate up to 7 feet from one-day extremes over the long term.

I think the river is somewhat protected from the extremes, but I know I've seen it (the river) vary in level by a good 18 inches just since New Years.

Yeah, a few feet does not count as "very much" given the fact that many rivers have floods that can be as much as 40 feet above the normal level.

Also remember that the river level can be controlled by the Corps of Engineers and drained into the lake or into the canal depending on if the lake is flooding or if the river is flooding.

In other words its very unlikely that the main branch ever fluctuates more than a foot or two because the highest it can get is the level of the canal (South Branch) or the level of the lake, whichever is lower.

The record high and low levels for the lake are only 8 feet apart, 576 is the low and 582 is the high. Over one year the average level might fluctuate 2 feet maximum, it takes an awful lot of water to make the lake change much more than that. Right now the lake is just under 578 feet, the long term average for April is 578.7 feet, so we are just under normal. I imagine with our particularly cold winter this year with the ice levels on Michigan relatively high, we should probably get above normal since surface evaporation was limited by the ice this winter.

The only big daily fluctuations that happen in the lake are weather system related and result in seiches. A seiche is a giant wave formed when water from one side of the lake is driven by high winds to the other side of the lake raising water levels. Its very similar to a Storm Surge caused by a hurricane. Seiches can be as high as 10 feet and are extremely dangerous. Luckily for Downtown Chicago, the locks at the mouth of the river are designed to block such surges from heading up (down???) river and into the downtown area.

orulz

Apr 6, 2009, 4:11 PM

In other words its very unlikely that the main branch ever fluctuates more than a foot or two because the highest it can get is the level of the canal (South Branch) or the level of the lake, whichever is lower.

This picture (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4129717&postcount=6292) from last month shows that the river was at least about 6 feet above normal. So you can't say that it never happens.

Also, given the level of the riverwalk connections under the bridges (at least under Michigan Ave) it looks like they will flood if the main branch fluctuates by as little as 3 feet? I'm not saying that the river ever really floods enough to cause $millions in property damage. I'm just seeing if anybody knows how often they'll have to close the riverwalk due to flooding.

Steely Dan

Apr 6, 2009, 4:32 PM

In other words its very unlikely that the main branch ever fluctuates more than a foot or two

not true. as a downtown resident with a view over looking the river and as an avid kayaker of the river, i can tell you the the river level varies by much more than a foot. i'd estimate that after heavy rain events the river can be good 5-6 feet higher than its normal elevation.

I'm just seeing if anybody knows how often they'll have to close the riverwalk due to flooding.
i don't have any hard data on river levels and on how often the river "floods", but i'd say you could expect that section of the riverwalk under the bridge to be closed maybe 2 or 3 times a year due to rain induced flooding. that's just my best guess as a river resident and frequent river kayaker.

Oh my God...I totally remember it. I would always notice when my Dad took me to see the Bulls play in the 70s.
yep, there are a couple of generations of suburban chicagoans for whom those red Magkist lips signified the entrance to "the city" when arriving via one of the main expressways.

ChicagoChicago

Apr 6, 2009, 5:10 PM

Rizzo

Apr 6, 2009, 6:56 PM

spyguy

Apr 6, 2009, 10:24 PM

http://edwardlifson.blogspot.com/2009/04/urgent-will-chicago-tear-down-another.html

Urgent! Will Chicago tear down another Mies van der Rohe building?
Monday, April 06, 2009

...The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency determined the building had no real merit and gave the green light to tear it down to build the train station.

...Metra's studies and construction drawings are finished. Stimulus funds have been approved.

A contractor has not been chosen, but will be in the next couple of weeks. A conference will be held in two days at IIT ! to solicit minority subcontractors for this project financed with public dollars.
----

This is the image of the Metra station from our previous discussion.
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/5189/metra2biitwhite2bsox2bsus0.jpg

laro3

Apr 6, 2009, 11:30 PM

any one have pictures of the new Gibson's by sox park.

cbotnyse

Apr 6, 2009, 11:41 PM

any one have pictures of the new Gibson's by sox park.there is no Gibson's. A restaurant is planned next to the new gate, pictured here (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2184883&postcount=253). But Gibson's is only a rumor, and doubtful.

Nowhereman1280

Apr 7, 2009, 12:15 AM

If the building is really that small, couldn't they move it elsewhere and use it for something else? I mean the small town I come from has a ferocious movement of preservationism and when a building absolutely has to be moved for something then they raise money and move the whole thing elsewhere. They actually have a whole park populated with buildings from the 1800's and early 1900's that they moved to avoid being destroyed. Couldn't someone find a use for this building elsewhere, I mean it sounds like it might not have any windows, but perhaps they could move it and make it into a cafe or a bar or something...

BWChicago

Apr 7, 2009, 2:31 PM

Nowhereman1280

Apr 7, 2009, 2:49 PM

I will probably get flamed for saying this, but I have to agree that building has very little merit. OMG the only example of laying bricks in entirely the long direction in Mies work!!! I'm sorry, but I am going to have to say the windowless Mies building with no practical use remaining loses out to the brand new Metra station that can serve hundreds of citizens a day.

Also, we freaking have the plans to the thing, if we really get upset we tore it down in the future, its not like we can't rebuild it. I don't think they are going to stop making the lavish interior materials like CMUs and raw concrete any time soon...

I'm not going say the building has no value, but its wayyyy less valuable to the city and its citizens than a Metra Station is. Its not like we are tearing down the Barcelona Pavilion here!

That reminds me of an interesting side note. One of my professors had a near death experience. He said that heaven looks just like the Barcelona Pavilion!

ChicagoChicago

Apr 7, 2009, 3:03 PM

Do we know that it is actually Mies’ work?

Tom Servo

Apr 7, 2009, 3:11 PM

if koolhaas can dis iit, why can't metra?

Loopy

Apr 7, 2009, 4:30 PM

ChicagoChicago

Apr 7, 2009, 4:33 PM

Yes, it is absolutely a Mies designed work. The drawings say "Mies Van Der Rohe, Architect.

http://edwardlifson.blogspot.com/2009/04/urgent-will-chicago-tear-down-another.htmlI haven’t seen your link before. The last article I saw said it was “likely” Mies.

Loopy

Apr 7, 2009, 4:50 PM

VivaLFuego

Apr 7, 2009, 5:17 PM

It really cuts to the bone of the preservation movement's contention that architecture = art, no ifs/ands/buts allowed. Sure, we wouldn't paint over a Da Vinci no matter how pedestrian or banal, but architecture occupies space: not only functional space (i.e. guided by economics) but also, simply, contributing to the identity and feel of a particular urban space. Putting aside any discussion of craftsmanship (beautiful/ornate buildings will always be an easier preservation sell than modernism), does the shack really provide any value towards either of the above? My personal belief is that, while I can't argue against the merits enumerated by Loopy et al, nor would I want to, this is simply not the sort of battle the preservation community should go to the mattresses for. Even the small percentage of the population (and elected officials) in tune to architecture still expect buildings to contribute to one or more of the above realms of space. Put most bluntly, you will never convince anyone other than the architecture=art crowd, which I scientifically estimate at .01% of the population, that this is worth saving over reusing the physical space for something else.

Sure, it could be moved brick-by-brick to another location and modified to accommodate a new use, but to what end? By the time that's achieved, it's lost any of the value/significance it had to begin with (think Soldier Field, but moreso).

The main caveat of my position, though, is that I acknowledge vigilance is always warranted so as to avert the slippery slope towards losing everything. But we're not discussing the major modification of the lobby of the IBM building; nor are we talking about a drastic reconfiguration of the IIT site plan: we're talking about...

a shack. Next to a railroad embankment.

a chicago bearcat

Apr 7, 2009, 5:41 PM

I think this might just be a way of drumming up enough support for the preservation of the IIT campus look and feel in order to demand an appropriately modern station for the IIT campus rather than the kind of Jeff Park design Metra has been favoring, when this project comes to fruition.

Hire Kruek Sexton, Studio Gang, John Ronan, Gordon Gill, or any of our other good mies influenced, as opposed to mies reactive architects

Busy Bee

Apr 7, 2009, 6:35 PM

^That costs more dough. therefore won't happen. If there's one thing you can count on it's that the CTA and Metra are going to stick with the architects and engineers they have already worked with, feel comfortable with and have confidence in. They are going to be resistant to a "high-end" boutique architecture firm, not just because they are disinterested in making an avant garde architectural statement in a public transit facility, but because they are unsure that it will be worth the money, delivered without complications, stand the test of time and so forth.

Excluding possible "grand" projects like the WLTC, Metra and the CTA will unfortunately play it safe when it comes to architecture, working with firms like SOM and Gonzalez Hasbrouck over Studio Gang and K+S because of these things as well as their undeniable lack of experience in designing transport facilities.

ardecila

Apr 7, 2009, 6:53 PM

I don't really see anything anti-Miesian in the Metra design. In fact, its sparsity is very Miesian.

Obviously, it's not all right angles, but it has a somewhat randomized configuration of trees and simple benches in the plaza, a minimalist set of steel/plexiglas station canopies, and an efficient combination of stairs and ramps up to the platforms. Certainly, there aren't any neo-traditional lamp posts, flowery park benches, or anything disgusting that could compromise the modernist atmosphere of the area.

The odd tilt of the station canopies comes straight from Gensler's redesign of the 35th Street overpass. I don't know if they were responsible for the design of this or not, though.

When it comes to urban facilities, Metra's track record is actually pretty good. Millennium Station is a wonderful SOM design that makes a complex underground space into something bright, appealing, and easy to navigate. Ogilvie is Postmodernist, but it actually seems a lot less dated than most of Jahn's other buildings. LaSalle Street is way too small and amenity-less for such an important downtown station, but it should be up for a renovation/expansion in the coming years as more trains are shifted there from Union Station. Roosevelt goes pretty well with the Beaux-Arts design of the Museum Campus. The neighborhood stops are pretty nice, too - the new Cicero station on the MD-W line, Jefferson Park, etc.

Nowhereman1280

Apr 7, 2009, 7:10 PM

Actually it is like tearing down the Barcelona Pavilion. Despite its rich materials, the Barcelona Pavilion was notable for its site plan as well. The IIT "Test Cell" is the only example in the US of Mies garden wall style that Barcelona and other residences he designed in Europe employs.

So this thing has a wonderful site plan? What is so wonderful about a parking lot surrounded by a brick wall? Is that really a revolutionary design? Bringing up that garden wall makes me laugh because of that quote Edward Lifson included in his blog: "An indication of how Mies wanted the campus to be inclusive of its environment and not walled-off (notice how the structure interfaces with the Metra track)"

Bwhaha? Seriously? Is this person seriously arguing that this building is worthy of preservation because it INTERFACES WITH A RAILROAD TRACK? So this "garden wall" that is not really a garden wall since the only thing it walls off is a parking lot. The only living things in this garden space are sumac trees which are probably only there because no one has bothered to cut them down. Even if it were literally(I know it technically is) a garden wall, it would be creating a garden space oriented towards a railroad...

Everything else on IIT campus was a radical departure from his European work. The Test Cell is an excellent model to contrast Mies American work with concepts that he was known for in Europe.

So what Mies built in Europe consisted of windowless brick buildings built with blank walls facing the streets and a garden that is open to railway tracks? Man did Europe get the short end of the stick on that one...

Remember, once its gone, its gone.

Thats not true. This design is so simple that it could easily be recreated at any point in the future. The techniques used to build it are going nowhere fast. We have the plans, there is no reason that it couldn't be rebuilt in the future.

honte

Apr 7, 2009, 9:46 PM

^ Pure hogwash. Rebuilt buildings never equal those that were torn down, if you know what you're looking at.

There are some main points people seem to be missing here:

1. Google earth this site. Along the Metra tracks is vacant land, literally miles of it. Tearing the Mies down serves no purpose.

2. This is supposed to be a protected National Register district. What gives?

3. Why cannot the building be a part of a station? Why do we jump to the conclusion that nothing can coexist, like a bunch of barbarians?

Lifson is right when he says nothing that Mies designed should be torn down. It's like taking a chapter or two out of the bible, if you're Christian (I am not). Shame, shame on IIT for even contemplating this - they really must be as soulless and dead as their detractors claim.

Loopy

Apr 7, 2009, 9:58 PM

spyguy

Apr 7, 2009, 10:36 PM

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/04/move-over-bean-youre-about-to-get-companyseeking-to-spotlight-the-100th-anniversary-of-the-document-that-changed-the-fa.html#more

Watch out, Bean: Two new pavilions heading to Millennium Park to celebrate 100th anniversay of Burnham Plan
Blair Kamin

Move over, Bean, you’re about to get company.

Seeking to spotlight the 100th anniversary of the document that changed the face of Chicago, celebration organizers brought out the bling Tuesday night and unveiled designs for two temporary pavilions in Millennium Park by internationally-renowned architects.
---
Zaha Hadid pavilion:
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/6211/25924625.jpg
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/7833/55219788.jpg
Ben van Berkel (UNStudio) pavilion:
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/4967/93978273.jpg
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/4830/89115022.jpg

HowardL

Apr 7, 2009, 11:15 PM

^^ Wow ... I really like both of those.

Wheelingman04

Apr 7, 2009, 11:32 PM

What is going on in the near South Side? Is that area without any development near the river being developed now? (I think there is.) What is going on there (luxury/market rate development)? Any photos or renderings?

Thanks.

Nowhereman1280

Apr 8, 2009, 12:40 AM

Sorry if I wasn't clear. When I said that "the Barcelona Pavilion was notable for its site plan as well", I meant "notable for its site plan in addition to its use of rich materials", not "notable for its site plan as is the Test Cell".

Ok, you and honte raise some good points, but I still don't understand why the site plan of this building is significant. Or do you mean it is significant in how it fits into the IIT site plan? I guess I don't agree that absolutely all Mies structures cannot be torn down. I think extremely minor examples of his work might have to be sacrificed for the good of the preservationist movement and I think that is what is happening here. Most people would say "seriously?" if they heard what people were saying here justifying blocking a transit stop for what they see as a brick shed. If the preservationists raise a stink about this, it may harm their ability to raise a stink next time something like a Louis Sullivan is threatened or when something like the desecration of a Mies lobby at IBM or elsewhere is proposed...

BWChicago

Apr 8, 2009, 1:00 AM

Ok, you and honte raise some good points, but I still don't understand why the site plan of this building is significant. Or do you mean it is significant in how it fits into the IIT site plan? I guess I don't agree that absolutely all Mies structures cannot be torn down. I think extremely minor examples of his work might have to be sacrificed for the good of the preservationist movement and I think that is what is happening here. Most people would say "seriously?" if they heard what people were saying here justifying blocking a transit stop for what they see as a brick shed. If the preservationists raise a stink about this, it may harm their ability to raise a stink next time something like a Louis Sullivan is threatened or when something like the desecration of a Mies lobby at IBM or elsewhere is proposed...

Mies and the Bauhaus practiced Total Architecture - complete design (as evidenced by the fact he built what is tantamount to a shack, and the aforementioned gas station).
IIT was a campus - spreading the total architecture concept to a full district. The design was not just in the buildings, but in the way they relate to each other.
A campus by nature gains its power from the way buildings relate to each other.
It is also a historic district, which, again, recognizes the importance of how buildings relate to each other.
To compromise that historic district, when opportunities exist to mitigate the impact on the historic resources - regardless of their size or relative impact - is a bad precedent. It's locally significant as a component of the IIT campus - it should stay.

This is using federal funding on a NR district - shouldn't this trigger Section 106 review?

honte

Apr 8, 2009, 1:31 AM

^ That's precisely right. I don't know what happened to the required 106 review. I am no expert in the law, and this particular law is very complicated, but I believe there are technicalities relating to whether or not it was included as contributing in the original designation, and so on.

Nowhereman, I couldn't disagree with you more. The preservation community needs to take fewer compromises, not more. Every time they take a pass on a legitimate issue because they are afraid of being criticized or sounding "out there," their real credibility is damaged. People need to stand up for what they know and act like the experts they are. Otherwise, they are no less pandering to their critics than the alderman that get bashed routinely on this forum.

As I've said before, I don't know how anyone can jump to conclusions that this building is irrelevant. Mies is still worshipped by many like a God, but I get the feeling most people know nothing about him and just repeat what they hear. [See my signature.]

honte

Apr 8, 2009, 2:19 AM

Nowhereman1280

Apr 8, 2009, 2:52 AM

Nowhereman, I couldn't disagree with you more. The preservation community needs to take fewer compromises, not more. Every time they take a pass on a legitimate issue because they are afraid of being criticized or sounding "out there," their real credibility is damaged. People need to stand up for what they know and act like the experts they are. Otherwise, they are no less pandering to their critics than the alderman that get bashed routinely on this forum.

As I've said before, I don't know how anyone can jump to conclusions that this building is irrelevant. Mies is still worshipped by many like a God, but I get the feeling most people know nothing about him and just repeat what they hear. [See my signature.]

Regardless of whether or not you agree with me on the first point, the public isn't going to agree with you. Thats the problem, if people see preservation means saving a brick cube, then they aren't going to support the preservationists. Do I think that is right? No. Is a fact we have to face, yes. I've shown this to about a dozen of my friends who don't understand design and architecture and all of them responded with some form of "wtf, seriously?" and a few even said things like "Those people are crazy".

I'm not jumping to conclusions or saying this is irrelevant, I am saying it is not relevant enough to be worth damaging the credibility of the preservationists in the public view as well as to block a much more practical train station.

I understand the talk of comprehensive design of Mies. But his designs were also meant to be modular, once you get the general form down, you can stack it or mold it into any use. This also implies in my mind that, as long as you maintain the grid layout, insignificant buildings can be (and were intended to be) modified at a future date without disrupting the plan. Anyone who thinks Mies intended for every single building to take on his aesthetic in the future is a little loopy. I mean remember that he himself did not even live in a building of his own design. I believe he would probably be disgusted that people worship even the most benign of his designs today. He probably would prefer that people fight for the spread of his design principles instead...

ardecila

Apr 8, 2009, 3:01 AM

On a lighter note, the pavilions look phenomenal, particularly the UN Studio project. A shame to seem them disappear like, ahem, the Barcelona Pavilion. I hope at least they stay in the area and end up as someone's picnic shelter up in Lake Forest, or something like that.

The article says that they plan to auction off the Hadid pavilion at the end. The UN Studio project unfortunately will be built in place and difficult to relocate.

honte

Apr 8, 2009, 4:03 AM

^ Good, thanks. Sorry I missed that. 50% good news. We'll see - it probably will be in Palo Alto or something, which is better than gone altogether.

I'm not jumping to conclusions or saying this is irrelevant, I am saying it is not relevant enough to be worth damaging the credibility of the preservationists in the public view as well as to block a much more practical train station.

Any credibility damage is the result of past spinelessness, not a steadfast argument. The building is important. That's enough. Do you think real leadership really gives a damn about public opinion? Arguments like this should be won by facts and rational analysis, not the uneducated and naive.

No one is talking about blocking a train station. See my earlier post. And if it causes some delays or modifications, it's their own damn fault for thinking they could just do this without conducting the necessary studies.

I understand the talk of comprehensive design of Mies. But his designs were also meant to be modular, once you get the general form down, you can stack it or mold it into any use. This also implies in my mind that, as long as you maintain the grid layout, insignificant buildings can be (and were intended to be) modified at a future date without disrupting the plan. Anyone who thinks Mies intended for every single building to take on his aesthetic in the future is a little loopy. I mean remember that he himself did not even live in a building of his own design. I believe he would probably be disgusted that people worship even the most benign of his designs today. He probably would prefer that people fight for the spread of his design principles instead...

Well, that's simply not correct. The institution of a module as a planning device does not translate to express modularity in the built work.

You state that you don't know if the building is insignificant, yet here you go again claiming that it is.

And the rest of your comment is a total non-sequitur. I don't know where that came from, but it's mostly wrong too. Sorry to be so blunt.

Nowhereman1280

Apr 8, 2009, 4:55 AM

Any credibility damage is the result of past spinelessness, not a steadfast argument. The building is important. That's enough. Do you think real leadership really gives a damn about public opinion? Arguments like this should be won by facts and rational analysis, not the uneducated and naive.

To be blunt, that's just not true. Past spinelessness has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the general public sees artistic, architectural, or historical merit in a brick cube. No matter how timid preservationists were in the past, being too pushy on a matter like this will just make people think they are crazy.

And, from my various management classes, training and certifications in leadership, and practical experience, a good leader does indeed give a damn about public opinion since (as we saw with Bush) losing the favor of the public makes it completely impossible to act when you need to most...

No one is talking about blocking a train station. See my earlier post. And if it causes some delays or modifications, it's their own damn fault for thinking they could just do this without conducting the necessary studies.

If that is indeed the case and they can just build the station on the other side of the street for little to no additional cost, then by all means the building should be saved.

Well, that's simply not correct. The institution of a module as a planning device does not translate to express modularity in the built work.

I actually think that it does do exactly that, especially with this particular building. This building does not appear to have been represented in the original 1940 grid and plan. This is a layout from the plan I pilfered from a teacher of mine:

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc252/nowhereman1280/FinalScheme.jpg?t=1239166224

Note that the boiler plant which this is next is on there, but this building is nowhere to be found. IF this building really is an example of Mies' ingenious interrelation of buildings and unified planning, then why is it not included in the original plan? Clearly Mies intended this plan to be modular with room for future additions and modifications. Clearly this building counts as a modification that was not included in the original layout. Maybe I am wrong and it was included in other drawings and schemes, but from what I have access to I see it nowhere...

You state that you don't know if the building is insignificant, yet here you go again claiming that it is.

I never said I don't know that it is significant, I said I don't know how significant it is, meaning I think its at least somewhat significant, but I don't know if its worth blocking a train station in exchange for preserving it.

By the way, I'm fairly certain that the land along the tracks to the south is not vacant anymore as it is shown in google maps. I think there are private garages for townhomes up against the tracks now which would require the city to use eminent domain to construct this station, at least thats what I remember from last time I was down there a month or so ago...

Abner

Apr 8, 2009, 5:29 AM

honte

Apr 8, 2009, 6:16 AM

^ Awesome! Let's keep piling on the good news. Haven't had any devastating fires lately... anyone?

To be blunt, that's just not true. Past spinelessness has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the general public sees artistic, architectural, or historical merit in a brick cube. No matter how timid preservationists were in the past, being too pushy on a matter like this will just make people think they are crazy.

My point is about credibility and strength of position, not public opinion. Of course some degree of public opinion matters, but it should not shape policy when there is a topic critical to a mission.

Note that the boiler plant which this is next is on there, but this building is nowhere to be found. IF this building really is an example of Mies' ingenious interrelation of buildings and unified planning, then why is it not included in the original plan? Clearly Mies intended this plan to be modular with room for future additions and modifications. Clearly this building counts as a modification that was not included in the original layout. Maybe I am wrong and it was included in other drawings and schemes, but from what I have access to I see it nowhere...

Yes, the master plan was set up on a module. Yes, it evolved over time. Yes, the Test Cell was a later idea that came up around 1950. No contest.

I have no idea how the rest of what you state relates to the above. I suppose because the Gehry wasn't a part of the original Millennium Park concept, it doesn't belong there?

nomarandlee

Apr 8, 2009, 6:36 AM

I love those Millennium Park pavilions especially the one by Zaha Hadid. Perhaps it is Agora we could temporary and have these be the permanent additions somewhere?

pilsenarch

Apr 8, 2009, 1:39 PM

It is very dangerous to underestimate the importance of public opinion. I'm not sure who the omnipotent powers are that Honte refers to, but on top of their list should be education and influencing of the community....in this case IIT and other neighborhood interests.

As an architect, I certainly appreciate the arguments for the significance of this particular work in this particular location. Having said that, IMO you will find it next to impossible to convince the vast majority of the general public the validity of spending significant resources or making any significant sacrifices to save this particular structure.

Nowhereman is right, depending on how the preservation community handles this, they do risk making their job much harder in the future with a significantly more skeptical community.

I would suggest a compromise that calls for establishing a dialogue with IIT/Metra that results in either 1) engaging an architect widely respected for their deisgn ability/respect for Mies/etc. to incorporate a restoration of the building into a new station or 2) having the same architect replace the project with a strong design that respects IIT Miesean concepts.

the urban politician

Apr 8, 2009, 2:20 PM

BWChicago

Apr 8, 2009, 3:54 PM

I would suggest a compromise that calls for establishing a dialogue with IIT/Metra that results in either 1) engaging an architect widely respected for their deisgn ability/respect for Mies/etc. to incorporate a restoration of the building into a new station or 2) having the same architect replace the project with a strong design that respects IIT Miesean concepts.

I would agree that these steps (or shifting the footprint) would mitigate the impact. Get Lohan or something.

BWChicago

Apr 8, 2009, 3:56 PM

VivaLFuego

Apr 8, 2009, 4:28 PM

A new perspective of the Wrigley hotel proposal, from Crain's:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/images/random/newwrigleyrendering1.gif
Wrigleyville project holds off foreclosure (http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=33610)
It looks like they've negotiated it into an attractive project.

There are a few nice buildings along Clark that would come down for this project (and I think one nice 4-story one on Addison?), but overall nothing landmark-worthy considering the replacement is of serious and appropriate density, and, hopefully, reasonably attractive design. Of the ones on Clark, a couple have as their only redeeming quality some nice terra cotta on the facade, that could in theory simply be reused for new retail frontage a la what is proposed for the Grossinger auto redevelopment on Wells.

Taft

Apr 8, 2009, 4:43 PM

Nowhereman is right, depending on how the preservation community handles this, they do risk making their job much harder in the future with a significantly more skeptical community.

I have to agree with pilsenarch and nowhereman on this: you simply can't ignore public opinion.

Our city council and mayor are democratically elected officials who (supposedly) serve the interest of the public. If they don't serve their constituents well, they will (again, theoretically) not get elected during the next election. Because these folks create the laws that enable preservation to exist (at least on a practical level), preservation is inevitably tied to politics. Granted politics at the local level is not the democratic utopia I describe and there are significant back-door dealings that help/hurt the preservation movement. But in the end it still boils down to: the people can elect whomever they want and those in office determine the preservation laws.

So if you can accept my point that, at the end of the day, the public controls what gets preserved and what gets destroyed, public opinion about what gets saved and destroyed is paramount. If the general public thinks that the city is wasting time and money preserving structures with no perceived merit, politicians come under pressure and preservation laws and practices come under scrutiny, probably for the worse.

So, IMO, the preservation community needs to ask, for every single building that is considered: would fighting to save this building help or hurt the general perception of the preservation movement?

I'm not saying its fair. I'm not saying it results in the best policies and preserves everything architecturally worthy of preservation. But it IS reality.

Like so many other things, I think the way to improve the status of preservation at the local government level is to educate and try to change mindsets. Raising awareness of prominent architects and their local works and the value of preservation is crucial to the public supporting the goals of the preservation movement. However, in the absence of widespread support, the preservation movement needs to learn to pick its battles. Fighting EVERY battle is the road to mountains of bad PR which will ultimately rend the movement powerless in the face of a flood of public outrage.

sukwoo

Apr 8, 2009, 4:47 PM

Hate to interrupt, but Oak Park is about to have its downtown basically destroyed and replaced with a parking lot.

http://www.wjinc.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=14154

That gist of that story is that the village is about to tear down three large buildings in the heart of downtown Oak Park and replace them with a parking lot. The loss of these buildings, one of which is an attractive Tudor-style building that does not need to be demolished, has been a long time coming, but until the economy collapsed they were at least supposed to be replaced with new development. The Village owns the properties and dragged its feet on this whole mess for ages, and now they've given Oak Park the worst of all possible worlds.

Now this lot will become an absolutely enormous parking lot and the village will just have to pray that the economy will turn around and some developer will show interest at some point in the future. This is really, really, really bad news for Oak Park.

Its a dismal end (for now) to a truly maddening development process. I put much of the blame on a dysfunctional village board which from 2003-2005 obstructed any attempts to move forward on development of this site. By the time they were voted out, the market had turned, and who knows how long it will take for it to come back.

That being said, a lot of people in OP are probably okay with a new surface parking lot to replace all the old ones which got built on over the past few years. Despite the wonderful transit options available, most people (shoppers and merchants) are still adamant that cheap or free parking is essential to the survival of downtown Oak Park.

BWChicago

Apr 8, 2009, 5:38 PM

I have to agree with pilsenarch and nowhereman on this: you simply can't ignore public opinion.

Our city council and mayor are democratically elected officials who (supposedly) serve the interest of the public. If they don't serve their constituents well, they will (again, theoretically) not get elected during the next election. Because these folks create the laws that enable preservation to exist (at least on a practical level), preservation is inevitably tied to politics. Granted politics at the local level is not the democratic utopia I describe and there are significant back-door dealings that help/hurt the preservation movement. But in the end it still boils down to: the people can elect whomever they want and those in office determine the preservation laws.

So if you can accept my point that, at the end of the day, the public controls what gets preserved and what gets destroyed, public opinion about what gets saved and destroyed is paramount. If the general public thinks that the city is wasting time and money preserving structures with no perceived merit, politicians come under pressure and preservation laws and practices come under scrutiny, probably for the worse.

So, IMO, the preservation community needs to ask, for every single building that is considered: would fighting to save this building help or hurt the general perception of the preservation movement?

I'm not saying its fair. I'm not saying it results in the best policies and preserves everything architecturally worthy of preservation. But it IS reality.

Like so many other things, I think the way to improve the status of preservation at the local government level is to educate and try to change mindsets. Raising awareness of prominent architects and their local works and the value of preservation is crucial to the public supporting the goals of the preservation movement. However, in the absence of widespread support, the preservation movement needs to learn to pick its battles. Fighting EVERY battle is the road to mountains of bad PR which will ultimately rend the movement powerless in the face of a flood of public outrage.

This is an NR district, so it is at the state/federal level. Different ballgame.

honte

Apr 8, 2009, 6:17 PM

Let me clarify my position on the "public opinion" debate I seem to have started. I'm pretty pissed off about this whole issue, so I might have minced words.

I do not mean to suggest that the preservationists can ignore public opinion altogether. However, I think they need to take a consistent, strong and steadfast approach to advocacy. If you have noticed, there hasn't been much discussion by the preservation community on this one. If I can speculate for a moment based on past experiences, it's not because they personally don't know the value of the building, it's because they are afraid their position will be contrary to public opinion. That's rather sad to me - if you know something as clearly as we know this, eg that it is a genuine work of MVdR, then for Christ's sake, say something about it.

Now, in terms of what you actually do to advocate for it, or if you do anything at all, that's another ball game and the unfortunate circumstances that Taft and Nowhereman bring up come into play. But at least there should be transparency and confidence in saying, look, this tearing down of the building is bad business. Add on the bizarre issues concerning the National Register District, IIT's total carelessness about its only real historic asset, etc, and the silence is positively deafening.

One last point: My reaction came out of Nowhereman's connecting public opinion to the importance of the building - that's what got under my skin. They are two entirely different matters and cannot be equated by any logical device. Lest we forget, public opinion would really rather have replaced most of the Loop and River North with new towers and parking lots for a good part of the 20th Century.

honte

Apr 8, 2009, 6:24 PM

The real problem with that Wrigley proposal is the way it deadens the streetscape with its boring and repetitive, "look, I'm not here" podium. I could care less how tall they make it - in fact it really should be 20+ stories - but with regard to its behavior at street level, it really is "out of scale" with the street. It will suck the visible neighborhood life out, even though every storefront is sure to be filled by one riotous bar or another.

It's surprising to me that the NIMBYs would fight the height, but not recognize the damage this is going to cause to the actual streetscape they interact with.

Via Chicago

Apr 8, 2009, 6:42 PM

woodrow

Apr 8, 2009, 6:42 PM

Honte - EXACTLY. The streetscape and the floors of the podium above are so incredibly out of scale. Monolithic, boring, sterile. Wrong. It looks even worse than that abomination at Clark / Halsted - and that is saying something.

Abner

Apr 8, 2009, 6:49 PM

Its a dismal end (for now) to a truly maddening development process. I put much of the blame on a dysfunctional village board which from 2003-2005 obstructed any attempts to move forward on development of this site. By the time they were voted out, the market had turned, and who knows how long it will take for it to come back.

That being said, a lot of people in OP are probably okay with a new surface parking lot to replace all the old ones which got built on over the past few years. Despite the wonderful transit options available, most people (shoppers and merchants) are still adamant that cheap or free parking is essential to the survival of downtown Oak Park.

Oak Park has over the last few years been especially paranoid about not having enough parking. I think this might have more to do with desperately searching for a scapegoat for its struggling downtown than any actual parking shortage (even by the standards of the suburbs). When property taxes in Oak Park started to get absolutely beyond control, businesses left the village en masse and took up residence on Madison in Forest Park. Of course part of the reason for massive tax hikes was the village's spectacularly dysfunctional policy of buying up as much land as possible, kicking out the tenants, and then sitting on it for years while they squabbled over what to do with it, and their habit of building large, unnecessary parking garages and refusing to charge anything to park in them (as well as other overly expensive albatrosses like the new library and the lavish restreeting of the Marion mall). But rather than face the reality that they've ravaged their own village, the blame gets placed on parking, which is just about all there is left to do in downtown Oak Park these days.

Oak Park is royally screwed and it's the village's own fault. The village board has pissed away incredible sums and has always wound up with crap to show for it. How insane are they? They're so insane that when Walgreens wanted to move to a new location two blocks away from their current one on Madison, a street absolutely littered with vacant lots, they arranged a parcel that would involve not only tearing down one of the few historic buildings left on the street, but also uprooting an independent and much-beloved pharmacy, all the while carefully avoiding Village-owned lots that are supposed to be awaiting development.

Take a walk down Lake Street now and you will see huge numbers of vacant storefronts. Probably at least half of those vacancies can be attributed directly to actions taken by the Village.

I think most Oak Parkers don't realize how much damage is about to be done by these demolitions, but they're sure going to notice soon. You're right, the village board managed to time things with almost comical precision to miss out on everything during the good times and find itself stuck with everything during the bad. There are big vacant buildings at Oak Park and South Blvd., Forest and Lake, and the Colt/Westgate conglomeration. All of those were emptied and allowed to sit while the economy peaked.

lawfin

Apr 8, 2009, 7:21 PM

Taft

Apr 8, 2009, 7:28 PM

This is an NR district, so it is at the state/federal level. Different ballgame.

But my point stands: preservation as a whole loses when the public turns against individual causes. It doesn't matter a whit on which level of government it happens, the public still feeds into the process. Discounting popular opinion is extremely short-sighted and counter-productive.

pilsenarch

Apr 8, 2009, 7:37 PM

Lest we forget, public opinion would really rather have replaced most of the Loop and River North with new towers and parking lots for a good part of the 20th Century.

That is a very interesting assertion, honte, because I would suggest that it definitly was NOT publice opinion but rather the architectural 'elite' and, less frequently (thankfully), the local government....

sammyg

Apr 8, 2009, 8:15 PM

502 parking spots, what d fcuk!

You can make a LOT of money on parking in that neighborhood. That's what's up.

Nowhereman1280

Apr 8, 2009, 9:53 PM

I have no idea how the rest of what you state relates to the above. I suppose because the Gehry wasn't a part of the original Millennium Park concept, it doesn't belong there?

Did I say that it didn't belong on the IIT campus just because it wasn't part of the original plan? No, I said that you can't argue that this building is significant because its part Mies experiments with unity in design when it wasn't a part of the original united design. I am arguing that if the design is designed to be added to and still function aesthetically, then why can't it be subtracted from without being completely destroyed?

My reaction came out of Nowhereman's connecting public opinion to the importance of the building.

When did I say that? I never even came close to saying anything like that. I was making two entirely separate arguments. The first is that this building is somewhat significant, but its not necessarily worth blocking a train station for. The Second is that with a relatively minor building like this the public opinion could be very damaging to the preservationist movement. Most people see this as simply a brick box and wall. I can see that it is more than that, but its not, in my opinion, worth blocking a train station and using up the public credibility of the preservationist movement on it. Lets save our credibility for things that really matter like alterations to the lobby of IBM or the desecration of Sears' facade...

The real problem with that Wrigley proposal is the way it deadens the streetscape with its boring and repetitive, "look, I'm not here" podium.

I dunno I kinda like it, its different that's for sure. If they are sure to include garden boxes on it then it could have a neat terrace effect in the summer. The proportions of it remind me of this building at the corner of Argyle and Sheridan from the early 1900's. Here it is on Google Maps:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=chicago&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=37.871902,56.601563&ie=UTF8&ll=41.973083,-87.654912&spn=0.008694,0.013819&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.973159,-87.654916&panoid=ukue2LHS3dx4JtlAgScyYQ&cbp=12,331.2882763323514,,1,-7.830224285903263
It's surprising to me that the NIMBYs would fight the height, but not recognize the damage this is going to cause to the actual streetscape they interact with.[/QUOTE]

502 parking spots, what d fcuk!

I dunno, I am glad there is this much parking, hopefully it will reduce parking prices at Cubs games and cause the profitability of the surface lots to drop. Hopefully that will make it more profitable to build some buildings on the surface lots and less profitable to keep them as barren lots. It could sure have a positive effect on the neighborhood if that happens...

BVictor1

Apr 8, 2009, 9:55 PM

How ironic is it that an alderman who kisses the asses of the people in his ward regarding highrises would use an image like the one below in his E-Newsletter?

http://origin.ih.constantcontact.com/fs018/1102142667758/img/60.jpg?a=1102541918428

Ald. Bob Fioretti and Ald. Pat Dowell will co-host a public presentation on the current draft of the Chicago Central Area Plan for 2nd and 3rd Ward constituents, beginning at 7 p.m. Thursday, April 23, at the Robert Morris College auditorium, Room 803, 401 S. State St.

Featured will be Mr. Benet Haller, director of Urban Design and Planning for the City's Department of Community Development (formerly Planning), who will give an overview of the plan's goals and directions. The current Chicago Central Area Plan draft builds on recommendations of the 2003 Central Area Plan. This new plan takes the transportation and urban design projects from the earlier plan and estimates the costs of each proposed project and prioritizes each based on the cost and perceived benefit. The plan also updates sector growth projections and makes specific urban design recommendations for areas within the study area that may undergo significant change in the future. This draft of the plan was created under the guidance of a steering committee and three taskforces populated by community leaders and City officials.

7 p.m. Thursday, April 23, 2009
Robert Morris College auditorium, Room 803
401 S. State St. Enter on Van Buren Street.
Chicago, Illinois U.S.A.