Neither do we, but at least they have good reason to demolish their buildings for tall towers whereas we have surface parking lots literally across the street.

^ I hate to say this, but even the ardent preservationist within me isn't exactly stirred up over this.

I'm actually a bit reassured. Those buildings aren't all that impressive in my book. Chicago has lost (and preserved) much nicer structures than those.

^I thought this building was already knocked down and replaced with the Walgreens at State and Walton? I dont think this building is around anymore....can anyone confirm?

Looking at a Google map aerial compared to the map on the Crain's story, I don't see the Barney's building as encroaching on the 943 footprint.

Thats odd, the images aren't showing up for me when they did this mourning. Anyone else have that?

The State street side buildings look a bit above average but not exceptional. I don't think meet the qualifications of preservation, far better has been torn down in the city. The Rush street single level stores are quaint and have nice windows but I think single level retail looks outdated or small timel in that area.

Funny that over at SSC a week ago we were talking about more density on Rush and now this comes up. If Barney's come up with a half way descent building (which I am betting they would) I think it will be an upgrade that will probably be worth it. If it looks like they are planning to put up a clunker then I may change my mind.

Probably seems bad of me to say this, but I sort of like the Rush St. stores like Chico's and Bang & Olufsen - I wonder where these stores will relocate to.

Paul Vranas has a little bit more info on his website.

Commercial building approximately 90,000 square feet
98 feet tall
No parking

Basically demolishes the following stores:
The Denim Lounge, Alternatives, Quatrine Furniture, Tender Buttons, Chico's, Bang & Olufsen, Mondeli Lounge, Papa Milano, & G'Bani

Couldn't they just build an extra floor or two on top of the existing Barneys? If none of them relocate, it would suck to lose all that retail for one store expansion.

^ I love the 'no parking' part.

And regarding the other stores, I"m sure if they really want to be downtown, they will find space to rent. Nothing like a good game of real estate hardball to get a place kickin'

That's why I kind of wonder if Trump's tactics, as asshole-ish as they are, aren't exactly the right dose of medicine for Chicago's luxury residential market

Yes, the 943 building is already gone. I went by there today, and it was replaced already by the new Walgreens. The Cook County website is out of date. I'll reserve my judgement untill we see the plans for the replacement building, but I am really not expecting anything special.

^ Thanks for clearing this up. So, this was the old Natarus offices? It looks much different to me in the photo - a ghost from the past.

This whole Barneys thing sound like a DISASTER just like the whole Macys thing was! Why sacrafice buildings and 9 businesses for a store that very few people shop at!?

^ also, I really like all those one story shops down there. It brings a certain quaintness that area.

i've had to delete several posts from this thread to keep it on track. this is not the "let's whine about macy's and some perceived loss of chicago" thread. this thread is strictly for discussion about low-rise developments currently under construction and proposed in chicago.

The Palmer House needs to assert its presence better on State Street. For years, I had no idea the building was a hotel. AFAIK, their only signage is the script titling on their 2 entrance canopies. Oh, and the Hilton logo on the fire escape; is the fire escape gonna go? I REALLY hope so, it's such an eyesore in that location.

Honestly I wish the Feds would move forward quickly and select which option of the plan they are going with - to somewhat relieve the block of its current state of "limbo" It seems like its such a long-range thing which is kind of frustrating...

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Chicago tops US property hotspots
By Daniel Pimlott in New York

Published: January 29 2007

Chicago shot to the top of the list of the hottest US office property markets last year as investors flocked from the east and west coasts towards cheaper prices in the Windy City.

The amount of office property changing hands in downtown Chicago soared to more than 26m square foot last year, nearly tripling from the year before, and shooting past midtown Manhattan’s property market, according to data from Cushman and Wakefield, the property services company.

Across the US office property sales were at their highest ever, with total sales volumes jumping 40.5 per cent to $134.9bn.

In Chicago the total value of property sold in the central business district rose from $3.3bn to $5.25bn, according to Jones Lang Lasalle.

Midtown was the second most active office property market in the US last year, with nearly 21m sq ft sold last year, up nearly 9m from 2005.

Sales in Chicago were driven by a number of large office buildings coming onto the market. In 2006, 9 buildings costing more than $200m were sold, compared to 5 the year before.

The top price tag was taken by the Citadel Center at 131 South Dearborn Street, housing the Citadel hedge fund, which was bought by Richard Gans, a New York investor, for $560m from Prime Group Realty Trust. The Prudential Plaza building was the second most expensive property sold at $465m, while a new building at 1 South Dearborn came in third at $350m.

Chicago, as well as cities like Dallas and Atlanta, benefited as competition for sales in gateway cities such as LA, San Francisco and New York drove office property prices to their highest ever level this year, pushing investors to seek value in second tier cities, said Janice Stanton, senior managing director at Cushman Wakefield.

Meanwhile, low interest rates have encouraged buyers to look at larger properties and assume more debt.

Prices per square foot in downtown Chicago came in at $300-$400 last year, compared with $1,200 in midtown Manhattan.

Chicago’s success was a feature of booming US commercial property market, Ms Stanton said. ”Real estate easily outperformed all other asset classes last year,” she said. “Office is particularly hot.”

The success of Chicago as a centre for derivatives exchanges has in recent years spawned a large support sector in the city, which has also helped to spur the property market. “That has been one of the growth engines in the economy,” said Bruce Miller, a managing director at Jone Lang Lasalle. Law firms, in particular, have been one of the main driving factors in Chicago’s expanding office real estate market.

If the sale of Equity Office Properties, the Chicago-based company which owns more than 10m sq ft in the downtown area, goes ahead, then this year could even beat 2006. But excluding that, analysts say so much property changed hands last year - more than a sixth of the entire Chicago downtown - that sales must drop in 2007.

Chicago is second only to New York in terms of the number of the biggest US companies which locate their headquarters there. United Airlines is moving its headquarters to downtown Chicago from the suburbs, Mittal announced it would locate its headquarters in downtown Chicago at the end of 2005 and Boeing moved to Chicago from Seattle in 2000.

However, in recent years the city has lost other headquarters, such as Ameritech, BankOne, Quaker Oats, and Amoco. Analysts say that currently the numbers of firms moving to locate their headquarters in the city against those leaving is fairly evenly balanced.

Other markets that saw big changes in office property sales include Dallas, where more than twice as much property sold in 2006, at over 7.5m sq ft, as it did in 2005. Atlanta saw sales shoot up from just over 600,000 sq ft to more than 5m.

Lakefront bridge proposals are moving slowly
 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...,6148755.story

Lakefront bridge proposals are moving slowly

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published January 31, 2007


There was optimism in the air two years ago when the City of Chicago held a lakefront pedestrian bridge competition and announced winners for five sites -- North Avenue, Lake Shore Drive at the Chicago River, 35th Street, 41st Street and 43rd Street.

Not much visible has happened since then, much to the relief of historic preservationists who want to save the existing North Avenue Bridge, a 1940s classic with an elongated steel arch. Meanwhile, just a year after introducing the idea, the Art Institute of Chicago in 2006 won city approval for a pedestrian bridge designed by Italian architect Renzo Piano that will span busy Monroe Drive. Private donors last year gave $14 million for the 620-foot-long bridge that will link the museum's under-construction Modern Wing with Millennium Park.

"Private pocketbooks are easier to pry open than public pocketbooks," said Brian Steele, a spokesman for the Chicago Department of Transportation, explaining the relatively slow pace of the city-sponsored bridges.

City transportation officials, it turns out, are grinding forward on the South Side pedestrian bridges selected in the design competition. They have commissioned preliminary engineering studies for those spans -- a curving, single-tower suspension bridge at 35th Street by Teng, a Chicago architectural and engineering firm, and a pair of S-shaped bridges for 41st and 43rd Streets by Chicago architects Cordogan, Clark & Associates.

The combined cost of the studies is about $2 million. Ground for these bridges may not be broken until 2009 or 2010, Steele said. Developers in the reviving North Kenwood and Oakland neighborhoods consider the new bridges crucial to improving lakefront access from the areas--and, thus, their real estate prospects.

Less clear is the fate of the other winning designs: the Lake Shore Drive pedestrian bridge, by Wight & Company with Edward Windhorst Architects, a moveable span that echoed historic Chicago River bridges with a single swooping truss, and a replacement North Avenue Bridge, by PSA-Dewberry's Chicago office, which called for a boldly curving profile inspired by sand dunes.

The city hasn't commissioned preliminary engineering studies for either bridge, Steele said, adding that they were always lower on the priority list than the South Side bridges.

The winning design for the Lake Shore Drive bridge, he added, does not rule out architect Santiago Calatrava's proposal for a towering, cable-stayed bridge at the same location because the city is not contractually obligated to build the competition winners. Calatrava included the bridge in his latest plans for the 2,000-foot Chicago Spire, which would rise nearby.

Saying that much has changed with the site, including the Chicago Spire proposal and the planned development of nearby DuSable Park, Steele said city officials would be open to reviewing Calatrava's concept. But so far, he added, "we simply don't have enough detail to know whether it's something to move forward with."

----------

bkamin@tribune.com



Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

Tribune Image...
http://www.cordoganclark.com/project...43rd/page.html
http://www.cordoganclark.com/project...1st_43rd/1.jpg

^ Great news all around! The South Side bridges should be built ASAP. Meanwhile, the LSD bridge was underwhelming and the Calatrava should be seriously considered in its place.

Saving North Avenue Bridge is a MUST and the City has actually implied that it might be open to doing so. The pressure should be kept on this issue, however.

It just seems foolish to demolish a ramped bridge that is otherwise in pretty decent shape and could be rehabilitated. Why not use the money to build a new bridge elsewhere?

^ If I recall, the city claims the existing bridge's slope does not meet ADA standards (this should be checked independently). In any case, it's not a cause for tearing anything down. Do you throw out your heirloom china because it doesn't fit in new the china cabinets?

In this scenario, they should build a new underpass for ADA standards, and rehab the existing bridge. They also could build anew, as you suggest.

Come to think of it, this was the Richard Rogers plan more or less. How foolish of them not to select this great architect.