CHICAGO: boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v4

[the urban politician]

^

[Sir Isaac Newton]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

Walsh has a in-house Pile crew, so yes it will be loud, drawn out pile driving. Imagine, Ziv waking up at 7am to the ear shattering banging noise occuring a few feet outside his window.

Victory is so sweet.

I'm all for Burnham Pointe (I actually bought a place there as an investment, which I will rent out), but I won't lie - living across the street and waking up to the sound of pile driving will kind of suck....especially since this has already been going on for the last month at 900 South Clark. It is definitely exciting to see all the new developments in the neighborhood, though....between the Wells/Clark and Harrison/Roosevelt grid, there will now be 4 buildings U/C (Burnham Pointe, 900 South Clark, Printers Corner, and Vetro) with 2 more supposedly starting work in the first half of 2007 (the Curve and Roosevelt Collection).

[Belacqua]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

Walsh has a in-house Pile crew, so yes it will be loud, drawn out pile driving. Imagine, Ziv waking up at 7am to the ear shattering banging noise occuring a few feet outside his window. :haha:

I don't think pile driving can start till the clock strikes 8, under noise ordinances. But they sure can drive them some bulldozers at the crack of dawn. BP didn't actually start first thing this morning, but they were preparing to block off Polk and the equipment was on site. As for drawn-out, Walsh has said 2.5 months for the foundation work. This will be a long winter.

[Sir Isaac Newton]

* Moderator Edit *

at the request of that website's administrator, we are not allowed to post information from that website nor link to it in this forum.

just pretend it doesn't even exist when you post here.

[Monkey36]

Okay, here it goes, my first picture(s) post. Some of the pics aren't that great, mostly because its a new camera that I'm not used to and the fact that I'm horrible at taking pics, but I thought it'd be nice to share what I took.

50 E Chestnut (first from signiture bar in hancock)




30 W Erie


340 OTP/Tides


340/regatta/tides/chandler


Chandler


Regatta/Chandler


353 N Clark


Clare


Grand Kingsbury


Recently completed Loyola dorm


600 N LSD (north, then both, then south)




MoMo





Parkview (east and west)



Columbian (then Col and OMP in bottom left sticking out of ground)



River North Mariott


The next six pics are of 550 N St. Clair, 600 N Fairbanks, Ave East, and Fairbanks @ Cityfront (I forgot which ones were which, I've been up for a long time now. forgive me [ps one has trump in the foreground])







Streeter II


That's all for today. Next week I'll try and get the south loop (with better quality pics).
Also, if anyone knows how to get images larger than 800x600 onto imageshack please let me know.

[Wild Onion Mike]

Monkey 36, Thanks for the great photo update. I am continually amazed by the transformation taking place near the Columbian and One Museum Park. Gotta love it.

[VivaLFuego]

^ so basically all they are saving from Farwell is the facade, nothing of the rest of the structure? And behind the facade will be a parking garage? What a disgrace.

^ Thanks for those photos!

[spyguy]

Great updates - most of the projects shown seem like they are either TO or 1/2 their final height.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by honte

Just so that we're all on the same page, this is a demolition proposal and facade dismantlement that would ultimately result in the facade being reerected over the new parking structure under the supervision of the Landmarks Commission. This has already happened once on Michigan Avenue (sadly) with the McGraw-Hill building, so that precedent is already there... I am certainly not in favor of this, but it's better than completely losing the building altogether.

I just read an article saying that the McGraw-Hill building is different than the Farwell in that only the facade of the McGraw-Hill building was a designated landmark. The entire Farwell building is landmarked, so this is different.

Any word on the actions of the commission?

Taft

[Loopy]

Originally Posted by Lukecuj

What a bunch of Horse Shit..... It's the same excuse over and over again everytime greed trumps historical preservation. If this is the case why did the city spend millions to help restore the Reliance building. Economically unviable my ass. They must have used the same " independent" engineers who said old comiskey park, the stadium... and countless others were beyond hope.

Well, unfortunately, besides facadectomy, public subsidies are the only thing that can save many historic high-rise buildings in the City.

The costs of restoring facades and other cladding to the specifications of the City of Chicago's new standards are astronomical.

The Blackstone Hotel, as an example, is undergoing a facade repair that will cost well in excess of the recent purchase price of the building. Without the TIF subsidy the purchasers received, it would be a boarded-up eysore for many years to come.

I know that some landmarked buildings are able to write-off, or transfer the responsibility for the facade to some other entity. Draper and Kramer's Palmolive Building comes to mind. Preservation Chicago needs to help develop more creative solutions like these to give landmarked property owners more options than they currently have.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Taft

I just read an article saying that the McGraw-Hill building is different than the Farwell in that only the facade of the McGraw-Hill building was a designated landmark. The entire Farwell building is landmarked, so this is different.

Any word on the actions of the commission?

Taft

Yeah, I read that too... Frankly, I don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Landmarking in Chicago protects by default only the exterior parts of a structure that are visible from the public right-of-way. In other words, generally only the street-facing facades such as McGraw-Hill.

If the Commission decides to specifically protect other elements of a building, such as the lobby, stairs, &c, then they must specifically detail this in the designation. To my knowledge, neighter Farwell or McGraw-Hill had any such special provision. So, they probably were in the same category. I have never seen any building in Chicago entirely protected throughout the interior and exterior.

The only other remote possibility that would set them apart is if John Buck had worked out something with Landmarks as a negotiation, if he already knew he was planning to tear McGraw-Hill down. This may have caused them to specifically write in that only the facade was protected, but I have no recollection of this formality.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Loopy

Well, unfortunately, besides facadectomy, public subsidies are the only thing that can save many historic high-rise buildings in the City.

The costs of restoring facades and other cladding to the specifications of the City of Chicago's new standards are astronomical.

The Blackstone Hotel, as an example, is undergoing a facade repair that will cost well in excess of the recent purchase price of the building. Without the TIF subsidy the purchasers received, it would be a boarded-up eysore for many years to come.

I know that some landmarked buildings are able to write-off, or transfer the responsibility for the facade to some other entity. Draper and Kramer's Palmolive Building comes to mind. Preservation Chicago needs to help develop more creative solutions like these to give landmarked property owners more options than they currently have.

I definitely see your point about costs. One reason I decided to sell my high-rise condo had to do with the huge costs of routine inspections.

However, in this case we are talking about a relatively small amount of historic facade (11 stories vs. 40 story tower). And it's not as though the new tower is doing anything extra-expensive or special that would break the bank - just another concrete structure, but priced double that of others. I really cannot see any reason why they couldn't rehab the existing building, other than lack of creativity and greed.

And yes, I hate to sound so negative, but I do distrust the comments by the Commissioner and the engineers, from personal past experience.

Just about anything is possible when the limitations are established. Your example of the Palmolive building is a great one - I don't know if any of you caught the article in MWC about how they carved three new floors for parking out of former boiler room? Very, very impressive.

[spyguy]

From Lynn Becker's blog
http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/

Proposal to Demolish Farwell Fails

In a major upset, at this afternoon's session of the Chicago Landmarks Commission, a proposal to strip the landmark Farwell building of its facade, demolish the building, and reinstall the facade on another structure appears to have failed. Chairman David Mosena announced the final vote as 4 in favor of the proposal, 3 against, and 1 abstention. He announced that the motion failed, and called on a representative from the city's Corporate Counsel office, who reaffirmed that the majority of all commissioners was required. Including the abstaining commissioner, eight were present. There was no majority, and so the motion failed. We will keep you on top of how this plays out.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Lukecuj

That is sad. I know in some cases only the facade preservation is the last resort, but clearly now we are on the way to mickey mouse main street with facade only landmarks and current era structures ( total disneyfication). I know visually it's the facade that is most notable, but the uniqueness of each structure is once your inside, and that is what is being lost here. Instead of unique restorations/updates of the interiors of these buildings, you get contempory cheap ass, cookie cutter interiors. If one of the last period Boul Michigan buildings doesn't qualify for city assistance to transition it to appreciative owners with an alternative use, besides another river north run of the mill condo tower, then...... another step closer to a ghostless, soulless city.

Well, let me make this a bit clearer. The landmarking of buildings in Chicago does not automatically provide for facadectomies. These issues have to return to the commission as proposals for alterations, and then are voted on as other major alterations. Not too many have come up yet, but the Commission typically has allowed them (now, the Lynn Becker's report above on Farwell thing is pretty interesting, not sure what to make of it yet... ) However, the Commission can also be very strict about other matters such as roofline alterations and other moves that would undermine landmarks, and we do have a lot to be thankful for due to their presence.

As far as interiors go, yes, you're right, often protected buildings do get gutted and modernized. The Commission is typically a lot easier on the residential buildings than the downtown buildings - it's just too hard to get anyone to agree to live in a museum piece, understandably. A really extraordinary house such as a FLW would probably be an exception. On the other side, for example, at Marshall Field and Company they landmarked the facade, the exterior signage, the interior stairs, the Tiffany domes, &c. It's a lot more restrictive.

[Loopy]

Does anyone know what the present use of the building is? Res, office, club?

[honte]

^ It was a part of the Terra Museum holdings. The Terra renovation by Larry Booth incorporated the Farwell into a larger structure.

[jcchii]

the blog is correct. it was rejected this afternoon

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custo...dmarks,1,7941689.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Landmarks panel rejects Mag Mile project

By Johnathon E. Briggs
Tribune staff reporter
Published January 4, 2007, 5:28 PM CST

In a decision that shocked yet pleased preservationists, the Commission on Chicago Landmarks today rejected a plan to dismantle a historic building on the Magnificent Mile and convert it to luxury condominiums.

"What a fabulous outcome," said Ward Miller, vice president of Logan Square Preservation and one of about 10 people who spoke against the proposal at the commission's meeting.

"I'm shocked," said Jonathan Fine, president of the advocacy group Preservation Chicago.

With four commissioners in favor, three opposed and one abstention, the proposal by Chicago-based Prism Development Co. failed to garner enough votes to move forward to the City Council

The vote was particularly surprising because it had the backing of city officials from the Landmarks Division of the Department of Planning and Development.

City officials and Prism had argued that the 1920s Farwell Building at 664 N. Michigan Ave. was so badly deteriorated that only a radical rehabilitation could save the aging landmark.

Under the proposal, Prism would have removed the limestone façade, demolished the 11-story building, erected a new structure and reapplied the facade. A mixed-use, 40-story development would have been constructed adjacent.

Commsioner Lisa Willis said she could not support the plan because not enough of the building's original façade would be saved. According to the proposal, only up to 65 percent of the façade would remain.

"The integrity of this landmark would be sorely compromised by this proposal," Willis said.

Commission Chairman David Mosena voted in favor of the proposal. He said it was necessary to provide an economic engine that would cover the cost of repairs. The planned development would feature office and retail space, parking and 86 luxury condos to be managed by Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.

"I support it because there are not economic opportunities in place to do what is necessary to salvage a building like this," Mosena said.

Prism officials were not immediately available to comment on the vote or if they would seek to contest it.

Under the city's landmarks ordinance, they could seek a re-hearing before the commission and make a case for "economic hardship," arguing that the existing building was in such poor shape, there was no way they could make the project work other that what they had proposed.

Commissioners voted after about two hours of debate and discussion. One member abstained.

Designed by architect Philip Maher, the Farwell is a legally protected city landmark ornamented in a mixture of French revival and art deco styles. The building is the former site of the Terra Museum of American Art.

Preservationists had contended that if Prism got the go-ahead to do its project, the decision would mark the effective end of landmark protection in Chicago.

Fine warned commissioners before the vote that approval of the plan would set a "terrible, terrible precedent."

"What's next for the Carson Pirie Scott building?" he asked, referring to the historic Loop department store designed by Louis Sullivan. "Will it too become a parking garage?"

Earlier this year, Carson's owner, Bon-Ton Stores Inc., announced it would shutter its State Street flagship next spring, saying it was too expensive to operate. The building is to be redeveloped as a combined retail-office property.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by spyguy

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custo...dmarks,1,7941689.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Landmarks panel rejects Mag Mile project

By Johnathon E. Briggs
Tribune staff reporter
Published January 4, 2007, 5:28 PM CST

In a decision that shocked yet pleased preservationists, the Commission on Chicago Landmarks today rejected a plan to dismantle a historic building on the Magnificent Mile and convert it to luxury condominiums.

"What a fabulous outcome," said Ward Miller, vice president of Logan Square Preservation and one of about 10 people who spoke against the proposal at the commission's meeting.

"I'm shocked," said Jonathan Fine, president of the advocacy group Preservation Chicago.

With four commissioners in favor, three opposed and one abstention, the proposal by Chicago-based Prism Development Co. failed to garner enough votes to move forward to the City Council

The vote was particularly surprising because it had the backing of city officials from the Landmarks Division of the Department of Planning and Development.

City officials and Prism had argued that the 1920s Farwell Building at 664 N. Michigan Ave. was so badly deteriorated that only a radical rehabilitation could save the aging landmark.

Under the proposal, Prism would have removed the limestone façade, demolished the 11-story building, erected a new structure and reapplied the facade. A mixed-use, 40-story development would have been constructed adjacent.

Commsioner Lisa Willis said she could not support the plan because not enough of the building's original façade would be saved. According to the proposal, only up to 65 percent of the façade would remain.

"The integrity of this landmark would be sorely compromised by this proposal," Willis said.

Commission Chairman David Mosena voted in favor of the proposal. He said it was necessary to provide an economic engine that would cover the cost of repairs. The planned development would feature office and retail space, parking and 86 luxury condos to be managed by Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.

"I support it because there are not economic opportunities in place to do what is necessary to salvage a building like this," Mosena said.

Prism officials were not immediately available to comment on the vote or if they would seek to contest it.

Under the city's landmarks ordinance, they could seek a re-hearing before the commission and make a case for "economic hardship," arguing that the existing building was in such poor shape, there was no way they could make the project work other that what they had proposed.

Commissioners voted after about two hours of debate and discussion. One member abstained.

Designed by architect Philip Maher, the Farwell is a legally protected city landmark ornamented in a mixture of French revival and art deco styles. The building is the former site of the Terra Museum of American Art.

Preservationists had contended that if Prism got the go-ahead to do its project, the decision would mark the effective end of landmark protection in Chicago.

Fine warned commissioners before the vote that approval of the plan would set a "terrible, terrible precedent."

"What's next for the Carson Pirie Scott building?" he asked, referring to the historic Loop department store designed by Louis Sullivan. "Will it too become a parking garage?"

Earlier this year, Carson's owner, Bon-Ton Stores Inc., announced it would shutter its State Street flagship next spring, saying it was too expensive to operate. The building is to be redeveloped as a combined retail-office property.

WOW THAT.IS.AMAZING.

The Landmarks Commission just regained my admiration.

[Loopy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...,1,7718719,print.story?coll=chi-news-hed

An actual landmark decision

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic

January 4, 2007, 5:52 PM CST

Pigs flew. When Chicago's landmarks commission stiffened its spine Thursday and throttled a plan for a spectacularly ill-conceived act of architectural taxidermy, the vote was a stunner.

Members of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks typically act like the old Soviet parliament and do what the Daley administration tells them to do. But four brave commission members heeded the warning of historic preservationists who argued, correctly, that approving the plan would set a horrible precedent.

And that was just enough.

Under the plan, advanced by Chicago-based Prism Development Co. and designed by Chicago architect Lucien Lagrange, the exterior of the 11-story Farwell Building at 664 N. Michigan Ave. would have been dismantled and reconstructed as part of a 40-story condo tower to be built just to the north on land now occupied in part by the Terra Museum of American Art. The Farwell, which was declared an official city landmark in 2004, would have been turned into a Beaux-Arts/Art Deco carcass. Most of its innards would have served as a multi-level parking garage for the condo tower.

Imagine looking at frosted glass windows--or mini-blinds designed to hide the cars–and you have some idea of what the gracious, elegant Farwell, designed by architect Philip B. Maher, would have become: A stage-set travesty.

No one disputed the views of engineers who said that the 80-year-old Farwell, originally an office and retail structure, was shoddily constructed and that it may soon present a safety hazard. Pins hold some of its corroding limestone facade in place. Behind the façade is a low-grade hollow clay tile--about as flimsy as a flowerpot.

But the minutia of technical issues obscured the issue of whether the building's shoddy condition provided a convenient excuse for the developers to turn the Farwell into the garage space they so desperately need on their sliver-thin Michigan Avenue site.

Was this truly the plan of last resort, as city officials claimed?

Planning Commissioner Lori Healy was right on the facts, but wrong in spirit, when she said that the tax-increment financing measures that have been used to resuscitate other landmark buildings in the Loop can't be used on posh Michigan Avenue. Of course they can't. But why not ride the wave of Michigan Avenue's growth and look for developers who would pursue uses, such as a boutique hotel, that would be more suitable for the Farwell?

The art of the deal should take into account the art of architecture