HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1181  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2007, 3:06 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,419
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...l=chi-news-hed

TRIBUNE INVESTIGATION

Clout helped build flawed luxury homes
City missed defects in Bridgeport Village plans

By Laurie Cohen and Todd Lighty
Tribune staff reporters
Published June 3, 2007

Four years ago, a gusty wind raced through a luxury housing development near the Chicago River, tearing apart a two-story home in the later stages of construction.

The debris was quickly swept away, and the project—the largest development of single family homes in the city—went on to win awards and attract more than 100 buyers, some of whom paid more than $1 million for their homes.

But the 2003 collapse eventually led to the conclusion that the buildings had structural problems so severe that they needed to be supported by towering steel braces between the homes—an unprecedented engineering fix designed to prevent their wood frames from twisting in strong winds.

Many residents are wondering why the city allowed such flawed houses to be built in the first place and why the defects did not come to light sooner.

The answer, pieced together through interviews, court records and city documents obtained by the Tribune through the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, involves the familiar Chicago mix of political clout and lax oversight.

The homes are in Mayor Richard Daley's native Bridgeport neighborhood in the 11th Ward and their creation feature a cast of political heavy-hitters with close ties to the mayor. Daley himself took an unusual interest, at one point asking his aides for a list of those buying homes in the project, known as Bridgeport Village.

The project was monitored by an understaffed Buildings Department that paid little attention to single-family home construction, especially when it came to making sure a politically connected development complied with the building code.

When the city quietly approved the plan for 15-foot-high braces—without notifying homeowners—officials made it clear that the decision was aimed at shielding the mayor from embarrassment.

"We are concerned above all with the safety of all the citizens and … also to protect our mayor," John Agrela, then chairman of the Building Board of Appeals, said at an April 4, 2006, meeting. "I mean, we don't want anything to look bad in the eyes of the public that, you know, these things are done."

The Daley administration already had been hit by a series of building-related scandals, including the collapse of a Lincoln Park porch that killed 13 people and the hiring of a teenage building inspector whose father was a top union official. Since late last year, 10 city employees have been charged with taking bribes or lying in connection with building permits and inspections.

City officials said that the houses are in no danger of falling down and that the braces were designed for improbably high wind speeds. Officials said homeowners were not immediately notified of the need for braces because they are common elements of the development, which individual residents do not own.

Residents aren't satisfied with the way the city handled the project.

"The city missed everything that was going up," said Bridgeport Village resident J.B. Bruederle, a veterinarian. "They just dropped the ball."

Others worry that bad publicity could hurt the value of their homes.

But the publicity has come anyway. The development filed for bankruptcy in March, claiming it needed protection from creditors while it sells nearby industrial property so it can raise money to repair the homes. One of the partners, Thomas Snitzer, alleged in a federal lawsuit that the city forced him out as manager because he refused to give favors and kickbacks to 11th Ward operatives.



Clout at ground floor
Early on, the development appeared to be stalled.

The partners were no lightweights: John Kinsella, a longtime Daley supporter and former chief executive of the advertising agency Leo Burnett; Sidney Diamond, a novelty candymaker; and Snitzer, a real estate developer.

Still, they didn't have the City Hall access they needed. Ald. James Balcer (11th), whose blessing was required for the project to proceed, had refused for a year to even discuss it, according to Snitzer's suit.

Court documents now show that the project's dealings with the city began to click after Kinsella brought in as an adviser Timothy Degnan, an 11th Warder and former top aide to the mayor, to steer the project through official channels. Degnan's business associate, Thomas DiPiazza, was hired as a consultant, to be paid up to $1.3 million.

According to Snitzer's suit, Degnan, DiPiazza and Kinsella attended a 1999 meeting at City Hall to talk about plans for the project with Balcer, Daley and the mayor's brother John, the 11th Ward committeeman and Cook County commissioner.

At the meeting, the mayor pledged to have the official in charge of the sale of city-owned land expedite the project, the suit says.

Jodi Kawada, a spokeswoman for Daley, said the city had no record of the meeting, but added that "the mayor frequently attends planning meetings that cover a range of developments all over the city."

Kawada said the mayor did not ask that the sale of the land be expedited.

City records show that the mayor's office kept tabs on the project's progress. In May 2001, Sheila O'Grady, then Daley's chief of staff, asked the building commissioner for an update on the status of the development's permits.

Many of the proposed homes were as narrow as Chicago's squat brick bungalows—20 feet wide—but were taller and had wood frames. Their first floors had large windows and open floor plans.

Despite the updated design, the city did not make sure the architectural plans for the houses met structural engineering requirements, including the ability to endure winds without swaying. Unlike many suburban communities, Chicago does not typically do structural reviews for single-family homes. The city says it puts its resources elsewhere because homes have a relatively small risk of structural failure.Since 2004, city officials said, plans for big housing developments get structural reviews from outside architectural and engineering firms.

As building got under way, problems began cropping up. Inspectors placed stop-work orders on 70 homes that did not have building permits. But for reasons that are unclear, the city allowed the work to continue.

Homes sold rapidly, and the project was hailed as a symbol of rejuvenation for blue-collar Bridgeport. It attracted buyers from across the city, including doctors, lawyers, former Chicago Bear Chris Zorich and former Daley aide Victor Reyes.

But problems kept coming.



Storm damage
On May 11, 2003, a storm blew over one partially built house and caused another to shift on its foundation. Anthony Splendoria, a subcontractor who left the project in a dispute over payment to his Brickcraft masonry company, noticed the damage and hired a structural engineering firm to review plans for the homes.

Stuart K. Jacobson & Associates concluded that the design did not have enough rigid walls to withstand the wind.

"We thought it was a serious issue," Jacobson said in an interview. "We believed the buildings to be structurally deficient as shown on the drawings."

The engineers found that wind pressure could cause "racking," a gradual twisting of the frame that can cause cracks in the masonry and drywall and dislodge windows and doors, leading to chronic leaks. In extreme cases, the buildings might collapse.

After receiving the report, Splendoria and his brother Robert say they became concerned about the safety of the houses.

"The houses were safe as long as it was not too windy," Robert Splendoria said.

For the next two years, the Splendorias crusaded to get the developers to respond to Jacobson's report, but their efforts went nowhere.

Snitzer hired engineers who vouched for the structural soundness of the homes, and the project architect said changes in the field during construction had strengthened the walls.

After years of allowing construction to proceed despite code violations, City Hall finally brought work on the project to a halt in 2005. To make sure that all work really stopped, the mayor told his aides to post an inspector at the project all day and bill the developer, city records show.

The reasons for the city's long-delayed move are in dispute. City officials said they halted work and helped persuade a state court judge to remove Snitzer as manager because they were getting complaints from homeowners and Snitzer was not moving quickly enough to fix problems.

Snitzer, in his federal suit, claims the city cracked down after he refused DiPiazza's demands to pay him more money and to stop acquiring real estate that 11th Ward power brokers had intended for others.

But the city still hadn't figured out that there were structural problems.

On May 9, 2005, the Splendorias met with then Building Commissioner Stan Kaderbek, giving him the Jacobson report and photos of the wind-damaged homes. Kaderbek, a structural engineer, immediately called in consultants at Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates to review the plans for Bridgeport Village.

The consultants agreed with Jacobson that the homes did not meet code. The firm recommended in May 2005 that the homes be reinforced within a year.But Kaderbek did not mention structural stability when he met with Bridgeport Village homeowners to announce that the new management team, led by Kinsella, had signed an agreement with the city to fix all problems. Instead, he said there were "serviceability issues" with some of the houses that could be fixed with a "low cost, minimal impact solution," according to a copy of his statement.

Kaderbek, who is a defendant in Snitzer's suit, declined to comment, but his lawyer, Mark Rotert, said in an e-mail that Kaderbek "acted properly in all respects."



A quick fix
Ralph Schmidt, an engineer hired by the project at the city's direction, came up with a plan to fix the buildings: braces installed between the homes, anchored in concrete and attached by steel bars at the second floor. Schmidt has told homeowners that such braces have not been used before but are similar to stone buttresses used centuries ago.Even with the braces, the plan did not meet the building code. It had to go before the Building Board of Appeals, a little-known agency that reviews requests to build in ways that don't comply with city law. At the meeting in April 2006, the main spokesman for the project was lawyer Jack George, whose partner at the firm of Daley & George is the mayor's brother Michael.

Approval was never in doubt, with Balcer and a handful of other city officials on hand to give support. The residents, who by that time had occupied 93 homes, were not told of the need for the braces until three weeks later.

Kinsella has since acknowledged that the braces are the cheapest solution and the only one he would pay for. So far only a handful have been installed.

Kinsella refers to the braces as "gates" because they are designed with ornamental gates at the bottom.In meetings with residents, Kinsella has acknowledged water leaks in many homes but said they were caused by construction flaws relating to windows and roofs and not by structural defects.

As part of the deal that allowed construction to continue, the developers had agreed to get certificates of occupancy for each home to show it met code. Usually such certificates are not required for single family homes in Chicago.

But Jose and Sandra Ruiz, who live in Bridgeport Village, were sold a larger home there in March 2006 even though it had no certificate of occupancy.

They have not moved in because of a series of problems: buckled floors, leaky windows and doors, an unconnected sewer line and a wood frame that was not attached to the concrete foundation. They blame the city for not alerting them to structural flaws.

"When we make an investment in something like this, we rely on the city to protect us," Jose Ruiz said.

lcohen@tribune.com

tlighty@tribune.com
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1182  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2007, 7:08 PM
ginsan2 ginsan2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 523

Ugh. I know it's that way here in many of the newer homes, especially the pre-fab ones. One has to wonder why someone would have a home built and then not have it examined periodically along the way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1183  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2007, 7:31 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
Civil War landmark on 35th St. will house Catholic Archdiocese

By Patrick Butler


Over nearly a century and a half, the landmark building at 739 W. 35th St. has been a Civil War hospital, a home for disabled veterans, an orphanage, and a treatment center for special needs children. By the end of 2008, it and the complex of buildings adjoining it will start yet another life as the main offices for the Chicago Roman Catholic Archdiocese, once the City Council changes the buildings' zoning from residential to business use.

Archdiocesan spokesman James Accursio said he knows of no opposition to the plan and expects prompt approval.

According to Accursio, the move to the “Old Soldiers' Home,” as it has been known since long before the last veteran moved out, is part of a plan to consolidate several Archdiocesan offices. About 150 church employees will move to the refurbished buildings in the complex once the zoning change becomes official.

Another 250 workers will move to the recently shuttered Quigley Preparatory Seminary building at 103 W. Chestnut St. in August 2008, Accursio
added.

Full article

------

De La Salle to acquire, save Pickford Theater

By Lisa R. Jenkins


An ordinance recently introduced to the Chicago City Council by Mayor Richard M. Daley means the historic Pickford Theater, located at 3445-59 S. Michigan Ave. and 100-114 E. 35th St., will be saved. With City Council approval this City-owned land now can be sold to De La Salle Institute to create a new academic building and auditorium.

The school plans to combine its existing parking lot with the new property to permit construction of a four-story, 100,000-square-foot facility that will contain classrooms, laboratories, and school offices.

The Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois (LPCI) considered the Pickford one of the ten most endangered historic places in Illinois. De La Salle plans to use the theater’s original shell and its interior terra cotta in constructing the new building.

Full article
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1184  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2007, 1:25 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,419
That image isn't even of the Pickford Theatre
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1185  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2007, 1:05 AM
Chicago103's Avatar
Chicago103 Chicago103 is offline
Future Mayor of Chicago
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,060
Maybe I am missing something but isnt the civil war hospital that old building across from Douglas' Tomb, which would put it at 739 EAST 35th St and not west? 739 west would be in Bridgeport near 35th and Halsted.
__________________
Devout Chicagoan, political moderate and paleo-urbanist.

"Auto-centric suburban sprawl is the devil physically manifesting himself in the built environment."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1186  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2007, 2:24 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
^ Correct.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1187  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 9:56 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is online now
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,361
South Works site

http://www.suntimes.com/business/415...teel06.article

Developers seek OK for South Works housing, retail
ZONING | 530 lakefront acres is largest open tract in the city


June 6, 2007
BY DAVID ROEDER AND FRAN SPIELMAN droeder@suntimes.com/fspielman@suntimes.com

In the most detailed plan yet submitted for the largest open tract in Chicago, developers have proposed more than 17,000 housing units on the site of the old U.S. Steel Corp. South Works plant on the lakefront.

A zoning application for the roughly 530-acre property that runs from 79th to about 91st Streets also allows for retail buildings, a public high school, park land and an extension of Lake Shore Drive.

But the lead developer, Daniel McCaffery, president of Chicago-based McCaffery Interests, said the application is just the first formal volley in long-term negotiations with the city that will shape the project over the next 30 years.

"There is a sense with everybody that this is somewhat malleable," McCaffery said.

Market forces will decide the speed of the construction, and other uses could come up later. McCaffery said one example is that a large institution, such as a university, could speak up for part of the property. A research park is another possibility.

Sources said the University of Chicago is interested in a South Works satellite campus, but McCaffery declined to comment on specific prospects. He also said no one has approached him about incorporating a casino or an Olympics-related use in connection with the city's bid for the 2016 Summer Games.

"None of that has even been modestly suggested," McCaffery said.

He controls most of the site through a partnership that includes U.S. Steel, the Lubert-Adler investment funds and Westrum Development.

The same partnership is working to close a purchase of 118 acres on the site's southern part that was owned by Solo Cup Co. Solo canceled plans for a new plant on the property.

McCaffery said that despite the long-term nature of the project, Chicagoans will see progress at the site soon. He said construction should start this fall on the extension of Lake Shore Drive into the site, and some retail buildings could be under way by next year.

He said talks haven't begun with the city over a taxpayer subsidy. The site has been certified as environmentally safe, but it contains numerous foundations and is mostly slag, meaning that tons of soil must be brought in for landscaping.

The zoning application triggers a Planning Department review and hearings that lead to a vote in the City Council.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1188  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 10:54 AM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
http://www.suntimes.com/business/415...teel06.article

[SIZE="4"]
developers have proposed more than 17,000 housing units on the site of the old U.S. Steel Corp. South Works plant on the lakefront.
if there's about 2 people per household, we're looking at about 34k people in a piece of land tht's about 5/6 of a square mile, or over 41k folks per square mile extropolated (very respectable).

many suburbs take about 10 sq. miles of land to achieve this population.

This can be a prime example of reusing brownfields to relieve develpment pressures from open lands.
__________________
n+y+c = nyc

Last edited by alex1; Jun 7, 2007 at 1:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1189  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 1:21 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is online now
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,361
I agree. From this article and the first rough diagrams of layout plan so far my fears have been mitigated about worst case scenarios such as a burb in a city. The basic layout, good density, mix of urban and green space seems well planned. I have a very preliminary optimism about the road it is taking so far.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1190  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 1:42 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Monterey CA
Posts: 4,215
Agreed. Are there any good renderings of the PUD yet? Has anything been posted already?
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1191  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 2:28 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,375
17,000! Wow, that is a very welcome number, I honestly was expecting something an amount well under 10,000 with a butt load of open underutilized "open space" built in. I vote to round up to 20,000.

About the average household size, I think with 17,000 units you could potentially see a build out population of >50,000!
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1192  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 5:15 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Great news about South Works. I just love that 'hood.

In other news, the Humboldt Park Receptory and Stable Building, 3015 W. Division Street, will be granted Preliminary Landmark Status tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1193  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 5:16 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,649
I am very excited about this project but ss the extension of LSD really necessary with 90 and 94 about 5 and 10 minutes away? And what will Hyde Park NIMBYs have to say about that?

Overal it's great to see the far south-side getting so much new development. It's projects like this that make us all truly doubt those census population numbers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1194  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 5:23 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
^ I am guessing he means extension of highway 41, not LSD. After all, LSD as a divided highway stops far further north, and I don't think there's any plan to extend it down to the South Works.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1195  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 8:01 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
^ I am guessing he means extension of highway 41, not LSD. After all, LSD as a divided highway stops far further north, and I don't think there's any plan to extend it down to the South Works.
Yep, extension of South Shore drive (US 41), not LSD, from 79th st down to the bridge at 92nd. Check an aerial photo and you can see some of it has been started with the widening of Harbor Ave and Avenue O. Still, I hope they do it right, because such a large high-speed 4-lane road would be murder to any hope of pedestrian traffic if they dont incorporate friendly crossings and streetscaping.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1196  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2007, 8:06 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
^ Would it make any sense to split it into two roads, one northbound and one southbound? They do this in Denver (not intentionally, but due to lack of space/planning), and it seems to work much better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1197  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2007, 12:59 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,384
Well, splitting up high-traffic roads can be bad, too, if done improperly.

Kunstler in one of his books mentions a commercial street in Miami Beach that withered because most of its business came from commuters driving home from work in the evening. Splitting the traffic meant that most of the evening commuters ended up on the next street over and didn't see or think about stopping at those businesses.

South Works should have no such problem, since it's being built from the ground-up.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1198  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2007, 3:20 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...099&TM=82911.7

St. Boniface dodges the wrecking ball again

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER


The future of the shuttered St. Boniface Church in West Town still remains uncertain, but a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Chicago says it won't be turned into senior housing as earlier planned.

Spokesman James Accurso said this week that the Archdiocese has decided not to lease the property at 1358 W. Chestnut to Smithfield Properties, who he proposed putting in senior housing.

Smithfield could not be reached for comment.

The Romanesque Revival-style church was closed in 1990, and has slowly eroded for lack of upkeep.

Accurso gave little more information on the topic, but the Archdiocese revealed to a former parishioner of the 105-year-old church last month that it was ready to move on a deal with the developer by June 1.

East Village resident Richard Maskoff, the former parishioner who lives three blocks away from church, said he contacted the Archdiocese for fear that the building would be demolished to make way for condominiums.

The letter he received in response states: "Part of the negotiations [with the developer] entailed keeping at least the façade of the church and the towers, which are neighborhood landmarks." But many questions are still unanswered in the development project.

Maskoff, 69, said he remembers singing in the church choir as a child and attending Mass with his parents, but more than anything he said he wants to see the architecture preserved.

"If they would keep the entire building and make it condos, then I would say, 'OK, at least the building is safe, but the fact that they want to tear down most of the building-that upsets me," Maskoff said.

The letter signed by Archbishop Francis Cardinal George says a number of Eastern Catholic churches have approached the Archdiocese with plans to reuse the church, adding that, "none had the sufficient funds to repair the building."

A group of Coptic Orthodox Christians, however, has expressed interest in rehabbing the building and using it as a church, but the group says its offer has been largely ignored by the Archdiocese.

Nefrette Halim, a Coptic Christian who attends church in the north suburbs, says she first heard about the church in mid-2005 from Jonathan Fine, president of Preservation Chicago. She said the church would help support the Copt's growing congregation, which is largely located in the suburbs.

Halim said the Copts have not made a formal proposal to purchase or lease the land, but she and members of her church have inquired about fixing the building. Last August, Halim and other members of the Coptic Church toured the building with representatives of the Archdiocese.

But Halim says their offer to restore the building was ignored.

She estimates that the building could be restored for $5 million.

"I feel that from a construction point of view this is a great building to pursue," she said. "I think the location of the building is perfect for a community building."

Halim, a developer with Wilmette Real Estate, said her company has specialized in the rehabilitation of historic buildings, but she noted that it would be unlikely that her firm would be involved in the rehab of St. Boniface if the Archdiocese decided to sell to the Coptics.

The Archdiocese did not respond to questions concerning the Copt's offer, but in the letter to Maskoff it stated, that it is "too late to begin negotiations with them."

Michael Moran, vice president of Preservation Chicago, said the city considered taking the church through the power of eminent domain in 1999, when plans first surfaced to demolish the building.

"It would be ideal if buildings could retain their historically recognized use, but we realize that's not always possible," Moran said. "Because it fronts on a park, St. Boniface Church has a commanding presence that is seen by anyone that passes through the neighborhood. It can still enhance the future neighborhood if it becomes something other than a church."

Twenty-seventh Ward Alderman Walter Burnett said he was unaware of the pending plan to develop the church into senior housing but noted that converting the building into residential housing would require a zoning change.

"They are going to have to talk to the community," he said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1199  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2007, 3:23 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
A fairly positive article from the Chicago Journal?

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...089&TM=82911.7

Children's Museum has some worried
Park would get new field house, but some residents are concerned about congestion

By HAYLEY GRAHAM


Some neighbors living near Grant Park say the relocation of the Chicago Children's Museum from Navy Pier to the park will bring congestion and pollution to the busy downtown area. But others argue that the new museum would enhance the park and facilitate construction of a new field house.

Bob O'Neill, president of the Grant Park Conservancy, brought the proposal to last week's Grant Park Advisory Council meeting, giving neighbors a chance to ask questions and voice their opinions. The proposal calls for the 100,000-square-foot museum to be built on the site of Daley Bicentennial Plaza, located at 337 E. Randolph. The building also would double as a field house that would be twice the size of the existing building. The new building would have two levels above ground and two below.

O'Neill said he believes he can win over opponents with a little tweaking to the proposal. At the meeting an aide to the new 42nd Ward Alderman Brendan Reilly said that unless local residents embrace the new proposal, "he will not endorse the plan."

The museum expects about 800,000 visitors annually, which neighbors of the park are worried will add congestion and increased traffic to the area. But O'Neill said that since the traffic will be routed below Randolph, it should not be much of an issue, adding that many visitors will walk or take public transportation.

The plan calls for the building to take the place of the current 30-year-old field house and adds a new $15 million field house. O'Neill said the current condition of the field house is terrible and has been in need of a revamp for years.

"When it rains the roof leaks; I've had complaints from parents who had birthday parties with water dripping down on their birthday cakes," O'Neill said.

If the Children's Museum moves to Grant Park, it will create revenue for neighborhood parks, O'Neill said. And the $15 million that it would take to replace the current field house could go toward building one in a neighborhood that would not otherwise have the opportunity, he said.

"The Children's Museum will help contribute to what we have a duty to support," O'Neill said. "It's Grant Park doing its part for neighborhood parks."

However, O'Neill said he is concerned with replacing the number of trees that would have to be removed from the current rooftop garden of Bicentennial Plaza.

"My concern is that in no way do we loose any trees, but what we're asking is that they that they buy several trees to put in Grant Park," he said.

Even though the new plan includes a rooftop garden, it will not compare to the trees with a 10- to 12-inch-trunks that would be removed, O'Neill said.

Nearby resident Paula Upshaw is in favor of moving the Children's Museum to Grant Park, but still believes there are a few concerns that need to be addressed.

"I think there are a few things that need to be worked out," she said.

Upshaw's biggest issue with the plan is the possibility of added pollution from an increased number of school buses in the area. She, like other residents in the area, worry that the added exhaust fumes from idling school buses could be a problem. However, Upshaw said this could be solved simply by finding a place for them to park while waiting for the children.

Even though Upshaw has a few concerns with the plan, she thinks many of the complaints from her neighbors are absurd and come from a "not in my back yard" mentality.

"My feeling is that when you buy in the city it's lovely to have a park across the street, but you can't consider it your community neighborhood park," Upshaw said.

Mary Zavett, who lives at Michigan and Van Buren, said she cannot understand why some residents are so adamantly against having the Children's Museum in Grant Park.

"I have grandchildren in the city, and I think it would be wonderful not to have [the museum] tied up with the commercialism of Navy Pier," Zavett said. "In the long run I think it will be excellent."

O'Neill said there is incredible potential with Millennium Park, a world class field house and the Children's Museum all within a few blocks of each other. And there is going to be a kindergarten through eighth grade school built in the Lake Shore East Park, which is also just one block away, he said.

"The ability for all of those institutions to work together for children's education is amazing," O'Neill said. "There is nowhere in the world where that can be rivaled."

The Children's Museum is not currently commenting on the plan, but issued a statement saying that it is currently in the process of completing the conceptual design of the new museum and will have a series of community meetings within the next few months.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1200  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2007, 6:27 AM
pottebaum pottebaum is offline
Betch
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: CHICAGO
Posts: 897
Go Upshaw!
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:42 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.