CHICAGO | General Developments

[honte]

^ Walter Netsch (RIP) pushed for an idea similar to this after he retired from SOM and was working at the Park District.

[pip]

at Addison and Sheffield there was a nice old building that has been torn down. Hope something other than a three story building with two stories of parking goes up or even better yet it is left vacant for years or a 7-11 with nice parking in front. I'm surprised that building was torn down.

[honte]

^ That is a huge loss. I saw the scaffold up but was hoping it would be a rehab. I can't believe it was taken down either.

I have a close friend doing scholarly research into Art Nouveau and this building was suspected to be one of the first of a particular strain. It was designed by Samuel Crowen, who has many landmarked structures in Chicago.

I was hoping the weak economy would have one silver lining (decreasing demolitions) but it doesn't seem to be helping much.

[dvidler]

Originally Posted by honte

^ That is a huge loss. I saw the scaffold up but was hoping it would be a rehab. I can't believe it was taken down either.

I have a close friend doing scholarly research into Art Nouveau and this building was suspected to be one of the first of a particular strain. It was designed by Samuel Crowen, who has many landmarked structures in Chicago.

I was hoping the weak economy would have one silver lining (decreasing demolitions) but it doesn't seem to be helping much.

The building where the Sports Corner is was torn down??

[pip]

yup

like honte I thought when I saw the scaffolding it was going to be a rehab. Then last week the top part of one floor was exposed then I began to have my doubts. Today it is about gone.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ What? How the hell did that happen? How did that community let it happen? Has anyone even heard of what's supposed to be going there?

[honte]

^ Sadly, unless one follows these matters very closely, it might be surprising to learn that buildings of this magnitude fall in Chicago at a rate of about 1 per week.

How did it happen? Well, there is still no protection nor any public notification for demolition of buildings in Chicago, unless they are official landmarks or given a Red or Orange rating in the Historic Resources Survey. The Survey-listed buildings will generate a 90-day delay (which is useless anyway about 90-95% of the time).

Unfortunately, the Survey, while useful, is woefully inadequate. The passing of the Demo Delay Ordinance, which gave the Survey its protective power, also gave people a false impression that every worthy structure would have a measure of protection, which is clearly not the case. This building was not identified within the survey in any capacity. It's a frequent problem in architecture-rich neighborhoods: The survey skipped many structures simply because of limited time / resources, and also in an attempt to produce "parity" across different areas of the city.

For people who didn't know this building, the coolest parts are not showing in the photo above. These were Art Nouveau details in the oversized cast-iron corner column and other elements. The ornament was done with an emerging personal style that evolved to be very distinctive in Crowen's architecture from this period.

[Via Chicago]

Unbelievable.

[pyropius]

What's going up in its place?

[the urban politician]

Beyond irritating. I hate that shit

[VivaLFuego]

^ Sad news... a very high quality building.

Is there a silver lining? Well, the zoning on this site is very high and permissive: B3-5, allowing an FAR of 5.0. The replacement could, potentially, be very dense (e.g. 6-7 stories, 70+ feet tall) as of right, requiring no Planned Development process.

[OhioGuy]

Wow, this took me by surprise. Addison is my local el station and I'd been assuming this entire time that they were gutting in the inside while keeping the exterior. To actually tear down all of it is disappointing. Hopefully what they build there in its place isn't something immensely pathetic.

[Tom In Chicago]

From today's Trib. . . this has always been a pet-peeve of mine as it has such a negative impact on all the pedestrian tourist traffic. . .

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5646846.story

Michigan Avenue bridge set to reclaim some of its ancient luster
Handrails, sidewalks will be restored over next six months, officials say

By James Janega

Tribune reporter

December 27, 2008

Beginning in January, the city will restore decorative handrails on the Michigan Avenue bridge to a design reminiscent of their original 1920s Beaux Arts pattern while also replacing sidewalks on the bridge with non-skid fiberglass decking.

The project will restore a stroke of beauty to one of the city's most iconic tourist and pedestrian landmarks and address one of Chicago's iciest river crossings. But it also promises to snarl pedestrian traffic for up to six months as first one side of the bridge and then the other is closed in the $3.5 million face-lift.

"This is something that has been planned for at least a couple of years," said Chicago Department of Transportation spokesman Brian Steele. Because pedestrian counts are lower now, he added, "winter is a better time to handle this type of construction."

The bridge was designed by Chicago architect Edward Bennett. One of the first priorities of the plan was the double-deck bridge finished in 1920 to link the north side of Michigan Avenue with the southern end and downtown. The interlaced diamond pattern of the original railings will be recreated (though with smaller gaps in the lattice, bringing them up to modern code) as new deck plates are installed to reduce the ice-rink quality the bridge has had in recent years.

If Venice has its Bridge of Sighs, Chicago has on Michigan Avenue its Bridge of Muttered Curses. Four years ago, metal deck plates were covered with a polyurethane non-skid surface, Steele said. "Because of the high traffic on that bridge, it has deteriorated."

Though conceptually simple, renovating one of the city's landmark bascule-style bridges involves painstaking attention to detail. To open and close properly, the weight of each bridge leaf must be balanced with a counterweight hidden below the streets on either side of the river.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

^ Sad news... a very high quality building.

Is there a silver lining? Well, the zoning on this site is very high and permissive: B3-5, allowing an FAR of 5.0. The replacement could, potentially, be very dense (e.g. 6-7 stories, 70+ feet tall) as of right, requiring no Planned Development process.

Unfortunately, it almost certainly won't be. I'm guessing it'll be a 2-story building of about the same height as the 3-story building was. There was a permit application in October to gut renovate it from a commercial+domestic unit building to just a commercial building. If they decided to just turn it into commercial, then the chances of it being multi-story, in that location, seem to me to likely be zilch.

[honte]

^ I wonder what changed? A few scenarios I've seen play out before:

1. Contractor doing gut rehab does something idiotic and the building becomes unstable.

2. Architect or contractor is lazy and makes the case that it would be easier and cheaper to just knock it down.

3. Owner files for rehab permit to show "good community intentions," but the true idea is that he will knock it down and make a bank on a new development. Then, owner claims there were unexpected structural problems that required demo. Later, owner uses sad story and existing good will in attempt to gain favor for a larger development.

[jjk1103]

Originally Posted by honte

^ I wonder what changed? A few scenarios I've seen play out before:

1. Contractor doing gut rehab does something idiotic and the building becomes unstable.

2. Architect or contractor is lazy and makes the case that it would be easier and cheaper to just knock it down.

3. Owner files for rehab permit to show "good community intentions," but the true idea is that he will knock it down and make a bank on a new development. Then, owner claims there were unexpected structural problems that required demo. Later, owner uses sad story and existing good will in attempt to gain favor for a larger development.

...I vote for option 3

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ So kind of recourse is there? I don't feel like just venting my frustration and disappointment on here. And this is beyond appalling. Write the alderman? The developer? I'm sure I could get some of my friends to. If enough of us do it...?

[honte]

^ I'm thrilled you're interested in doing something, but what exactly would you ask for?

One of the hardest problems with preservation is that a fair percentage of the community does in fact care, but usually only once it's too late. They may not have known about the threat, or may not have realized the particular damage to the streetscape that would occur with a certain loss, or didn't consider the environmental implications, whatever. Then people get angry for a while, complain to their alderman if they're really ticked... but pretty soon it's business as usual.

What is needed are holistic changes to the system. Better public notification, more power in the Landmarks Commission, stronger preservation / reuse policies, better incentives for adaptive reuse, possible zoning flexibilities that make renovations more attractive, etc. But these are changes that are mostly beyond the aldermanic level and would require a huge effort to effect (based on past experience).

I believe this is Tunney's ward, and he's generally been a pretty good advocate for preservation (not ideal by any means, of course). I think in this case he would have tried to broker a deal (probably facadectomy) if he knew about it in advance, although this is just more speculation on my part. I really don't know anything about what transpired here.

I'm not trying to discourage you from writing, but simply trying to shed light on the complexities of the beast. The preservation community has not been very successful in creating the major changes that are needed to protect more of these small-scale neighborhood structures, which largely are off the radar of the art historians, politicians, and the less-in-tune civilians who use them. This is because the preservationists are overwhelmed with more visible projects, and because these policy changes that I've mentioned above are so difficult to achieve.

[lawfin]

I agree that this is a loss, but this jumping up and down should wait until after we find out what is going to replace it. At this point I have not seen anyone put forward any confirmed plan of what is going to replace the building, it might be crap, it might be ok, it might be great. I fear the first is the most likely, but hope for the third given the underlying zoning that is available to this sight as of righht

[honte]

^ Given all of the negatives involved + the fact that a vertical addition on the old structure was a definite possibility, I'd have to wager that the replacement will need to be pretty damn great to justify the demolition.

Don't take this the wrong way please, but the opinion that demolition is the correct solution, provided the replacement is ok, gets right to the root of the problem. Our society, and Chicago in particular, is set up to encourage "out with the old" and usually very little thought is given to these decisions on a broader scale.

Just my opinion; sorry to hog so much airspace.