CHICAGO | General Developments

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by emathias

It's sad. I can't believe how many movie theatres I've been to here in Chicago that no longer exist, at least not as cinemas. And I'm neither old nor originally from here - were I either I'm sure the number would be far greater.

Ditto on being young and still seeing so much change; from that list, I went to all but one (the Adelphi). Commercial space, be it retail or any other purpose (office, industrial, warehouse...), is the most 'dynamic' and 'whimsical' of land uses, with a single space not being economically viable for more than a few decades, tops. It's just sort of a fact of life that unlike housing (for which there will always be a demand), commercial space will undergo drastic changes, often quite rapidly. Theatres fall into this guise; these old theatres served a purpose as second-run, cut-rate neighborhood joints until the DVD/online/TV market finally did them in too. Sounds like city taxes and regulations didn't help the cause either, it might be that the Portland-style business model is just too hard to make work here with a few niche exceptions like the Vic (whose ticket prices aren't particularly cheap given the dreadful sound quality and overall "viewing experience").

[VivaLFuego]

Spotted a neighborhood development. Nothing extraordinary, though somewhat unique because it's on a corner slice of a 6-corner intersection (Diversey/Lincoln). That's one property type for which we haven't seen a cookie-cutter "new condo building" in this boom. This is a rather small lot, that is currently just a bunch of gravel. Looks like 9 units + 1 corner retail spot. I wonder if the gods will smile and have the corner retail space be something other than a bank branch, real estate broker's office, or cell phone store? Is even a mere Cold Stone Creamery or some such too much to ask?

http://2800lincoln.com/index.php

[Taft]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Spotted a neighborhood development. Nothing extraordinary, though somewhat unique because it's on a corner slice of a 6-corner intersection (Diversey/Lincoln). That's one property type for which we haven't seen a cookie-cutter "new condo building" in this boom. This is a rather small lot, that is currently just a bunch of gravel. Looks like 9 units + 1 corner retail spot. I wonder if the gods will smile and have the corner retail space be something other than a bank branch, real estate broker's office, or cell phone store? Is even a mere Cold Stone Creamery or some such too much to ask?

http://2800lincoln.com/index.php

I noticed the signs up for that the other day. Looks like something unique.

Anyone remember that lot sinking a few years back? As I recall, the lot had been paved and the entire center started sinking. Eventually the pavement split and a small cliff appeared in the sinkhole. They filled it up and put gravel there and it hasn't sunk since.

Could this be a challenge for the developers or a risk to the buyer?

Taft

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Taft

I noticed the signs up for that the other day. Looks like something unique.

Anyone remember that lot sinking a few years back? As I recall, the lot had been paved and the entire center started sinking. Eventually the pavement split and a small cliff appeared in the sinkhole. They filled it up and put gravel there and it hasn't sunk since.

Could this be a challenge for the developers or a risk to the buyer?

Taft

First, that's a really awesome-looking development! I think that even in this market they should have no trouble selling that out quickly as long as they can build it for a reasonable price.

Second, I do remember the sinkhole, but I think that was probably caused by pushing debris into the basement of whatever used to be there and then that debris settling it. I'd imagine they'd excavate that all out and start from scratch, so I seriously doubt there'd be any significant engineering challenges associated with the site compared to any other narrow corner lot.

[the urban politician]

Just Google streetmapped that intersection

That intersection has a LOT of potential. Good to see projects like this. It would be nice to eventually see that gas station developed as well, but then again I doubt that's likely to happen

[Taft]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Just Google streetmapped that intersection

That intersection has a LOT of potential. Good to see projects like this. It would be nice to eventually see that gas station developed as well, but then again I doubt that's likely to happen

There is actually a fair amount of gas-station redundancy in that area, with gas stations at Diversey/Southport and Diversey/Ashland. Then, there seems to be an insatiable desire for gas stations in the city, so who knows...

Taft

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28833

Kellogg planning major new building in Evanston
By: Steven R. Strahler April 03, 2008

Apparently suffering from an edifice complex, Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management is looking to make a bold, new statement on its Evanston campus.

The MBA factory, whose rise to pre-eminence has been an information-age success story for Chicago, is laying the groundwork for a building likely to cost more than $100 million

[i_am_hydrogen]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,1128317.story

Showdown expected after Children's Museum filing
Controversial new facility sought in Daley Bicentennial Plaza

By Dan Mihalopoulos and Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah | Tribune reporters
1:05 PM CDT, April 3, 2008

The Chicago Children's Museum announced Thursday it has filed its application with the city to move to a new building in Grant Park, setting up a showdown with neighbors who oppose the controversial plan.

The museum's plans to relocate have been controversial from the beginning. Three years ago, the museum said it wanted to move from Navy Pier to Daley Bicentennial Plaza at the northeast corner of Grant Park. Since then, it has found critics in the residents of high-rises across the street from the site, Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) and civic groups who oppose any buildings in the park. The fight flared last fall and picked up again last month as the museum hired a public-relations firm to begin its push for approval.

[Marcu]

Originally Posted by spyguy

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28833

Kellogg planning major new building in Evanston
By: Steven R. Strahler April 03, 2008

Apparently suffering from an edifice complex, Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management is looking to make a bold, new statement on its Evanston campus.

The MBA factory, whose rise to pre-eminence has been an information-age success story for Chicago, is laying the groundwork for a building likely to cost more than $100 million

Holy crap. That's one expensive building. Especially since it will likely be less than 4 stories.

[Nowhereman1280]

The worst part about this whole thing is that it is a K&S design so its likely to be extremely badass. Its too bad we have to kill it for trying to build it in the park. I don't get why they would want an entire children's museum underground, with no regular windows. Maybe that would be a good place to put a holocaust museum or something creepy like that, but not a children's museum.

[honte]

^ Yeah, it never made much sense.

I'm sure they already have an alternative site lined up behind the scenes. K+S probably would get the job again.

[pilsenarch]

Wherever the children ‘s museum is built, it would contain little to no windows….the museum program eliminates them (like most museums) so they can control the exhibits.

So, knowing that, I don’t understand the opposition to this K+S design. It replaces an existing building while adding more useable park space. No one could possible argue that this end of the park would not be an improvement with the replacement of Daley Bi….(see Diagram above)

So is this just an opportunity for the populists to stick it to the all-powerful mayor and the Pritzkers?

[honte]

^ Well, you might not agree with me, but I have indeed argued that point somewhere in the past. I can dig it up for you in a PM if you really like; I'll save the rest of the forum the headache of hearing it again.

However, as always, my position has been that this museum could make a much better impact elsewhere. That's my primary reason for objecting.

Most museums do not contain many windows, this is true. However, museums without sufficient connection to the outdoors are disorientating and uncomfortable, in my opinion - especially if the plans are contorted as K+S's appear to be. The new Libeskind addition to the DAM suffers from this, IMO. Many people complain about it; I've been there, and I thought it really suffered as a building.

[wrab]

While I don't always agree with the Trib editorial board, they did a decent job of laying out objections to the GP CM site in this recent editorial; emphasis on the first objection, which I feel to be the strongest, is mine:

The Grant Park land grab
March 30, 2008

The Chicago Children's Museum officials who last year tried to ram a new museum building into Grant Park are back with their terrible idea. Which raises three questions:

•Why don't the museum officials—is there no voice of reason and courage in their ranks?—choose a site other than the one Chicago park that has extraordinary open-space protection against even the most worthy civic projects?

•How can the museum officials not understand that Chicagoans strongly dislike their plan to take over a part of Grant Park?

•Do current stewards of the museum not realize that public revulsion to their land grab could tarnish what in the past has been a platinum brand name? .....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,5861714.story

[pilsenarch]

Honte has made the ONLY objection that makes any sense....that, arguably, the museum might be disorienting architecturally.

However, the Trib editorial is very revealing "...this land grab isn't really about children. This land grab is about clout." What does that mean? Are we really supposed to believe that the non-profit Children's Museum's only interest is sticking it to the people of Chicago? That the board of the museum is so obssessed with their potential political power that they have lost all sight of their mission?

But since this forum isn't about politics, but rather buildings, I would have to reiterate that we focus on the actual design. Honte may have a valid point, but the CCM did select one of the best Chicago architects and there has been enough presentations of the design to evaluate it on its architectural merits or lack thereof.

Once again, I feel it is necessary to ask again, how can this possibly not be an improvement to what exists today?

Would the children be happier on the west side, downtown, or somewhere in the Museum Campus? Maybe, but it would be a difficult argument to make that whatever benefits of another location would outweigh the increased visitor traffic due to Millenium Park along with the access to existing public transportation.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

So is this just an opportunity for the populists to stick it to the all-powerful mayor and the Pritzkers?

It's also an opportunity for Hack Reilly to be humilated which would be one of the best possible things to happen to this city outside of a successful O'hare expansion. I assume that Da Mare and the Pritzkers wouldn't be advancing this for approval if they weren't comfortable that they had the votes lined up, otherwise they'd just be humilating and weakening themselves.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Once again, I feel it is necessary to ask again, how can this possibly not be an improvement to what exists today?

I'd also like to hear an explanation as to how the "forever free open and clear" claptrap isn't completely meaningless in this context, given that Grant Park is an interactive, formal park with plenty of fee-entry activities already; this is not a nature/serene park, it's an activity park. honte's concern is the most legitimate, but the BS being put forth by "the neighbors" and Hack Reilly is disingenuous.

EDIT: what, did the Trib let the cranky smog-belching anti-change progressive NIMBYs in 400 E. Randolph write that editorial? It's a nightmare of logical reasoning.

[Marcu]

^ "forever free, open, and clear" is not absolute and I'm not sure why opponents of this plan are treated it as such. Sure some lakefront events/structures violate the notion on its face (eg Soldier Field), but it's absurd to treat the concept with complete disregard for the circumstances and other factors at play; just as it would asburd to permit people to shout fire in a crowded theatre because the First Amendment on its face prohibits punishment.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

.....I don't get why they would want an entire children's museum underground, with no regular windows.....

They are attempting to address the GP charter (prohibiting buildings) by locating the museum (mostly) underground - the skylights protrude above-ground, but K&S has designed these, and the museum is promoting them, as sculptural elements; sculpture is not prohibited by the charter.

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

.....
But since this forum isn't about politics, but rather buildings, I would have to reiterate that we focus on the actual design.......

This program is a response to the restrictive GP covenant. That is why the museum is subterranean. I don't see how in this instance one can consider the design apart from the GP controversy.

I wouldn't be devastated if the museum locates at GP, especially given the talent at K&S, and the renovations to DBP. But it ought to be difficult, very difficult, for any private group to build in the city's front yard. Make 'em fight for the privilege. And extract as many park-friendly concessions from them as possible in the process.

Originally Posted by Marcu

^ "forever free, open, and clear" is not absolute and I'm not sure why opponents of this plan are treated it as such. Sure some lakefront events/structures violate the notion on its face (eg Soldier Field), but it's absurd to treat the concept with complete disregard for the circumstances and other factors at play.....

I don't believe that the SF site falls within the GP covenant. Nor museum campus, which was created after Field's failed attempt to locate his museum in GP. The Art Institute got in before Montgomery Ward filed his lawsuit to enforce the GP charter. And the Gehry was allowed in only after it was classified as "sculpture".

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I'd also like to hear an explanation as to how the "forever free open and clear" claptrap isn't completely meaningless in this context, given that Grant Park is an interactive, formal park with plenty of fee-entry activities already; this is not a nature/serene park, it's an activity park. honte's concern is the most legitimate, but the BS being put forth by "the neighbors" and Hack Reilly is disingenuous.

EDIT: what, did the Trib let the cranky smog-belching anti-change progressive NIMBYs in 400 E. Randolph write that editorial? It's a nightmare of logical reasoning.

It is meaningless until someone sues to enforce it, as Ward did when Field attempted to build his museum in GP.

There are so many competing interests at play here - one can be wary of a GP site on preservation grounds alone, without being a NIMBY in any way (meaning...ahem...me, among others). Personally, I'd love to see it at the LSE park

[Taft]

Originally Posted by wrabbit

There are so many competing interests at play here - one can be opposed to a GP site on preservation grounds alone, without being a NIMBY in any way. Personally, I'd love to see it at the LSE park.

Curious LSE park didn't make it on Reily's "alternatives" list. I'd love to see CCM propose the museum there and watch Reily's head explode.

I definitely agree on the diversity of the opponents. I, myself, am not an opponent, but I completely understand the preservationists position. Reily's position, on the other hand...

Taft