CHICAGO | General Developments

[ardecila]

I love Morphosis, and I wish they would build something in Chicago, but that design seems inappropriate for U of C's campus. The Tod Williams Billie Tsien design is much more reserved and formal.

[sentinel]

^^Agree 100% - thanks again spyguy, I randomly saw the Morphosis design images that you linked to a few days ago and I had the same thought - the new Cooper Union building in NYC by Morphosis is actually pretty nice, but given the context for this Performing Arts Center @ U of C, I'm glad Mayne's design didn't get past the conceptual level.

[Busy Bee]

I'm pretty thankful that Morphosis didn't make the cut, I'm not really a big fan of their brand of deconstructionism. With the exception of their civic building in San Francisco as few years back, I find most Morphosis buildings to be like tits on a bull.

[a chicago bearcat]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'm pretty thankful that Morphosis didn't make the cut, I'm not really a big fan of their brand of deconstructionism. With the exception of their civic building in San Francisco as few years back, I find most Morphosis buildings to be like tits on a bull.

As I'm sure with my alma mater's recent climb up the BCS rankings it's becoming a bit more obvious, I went to the University of Cincinnati. And the Campus Recreation Center, while in some functional senses on the interior it falls short, the way it meets surrounding buildings, public spaces, and the stadium are a lesson in balancing many variables to pull a campus cohesively together.

Problem is, this project was stand alone, without the luxury of an entire block surrounded by continuous fabric (ala San Fran and CalTran), and IMHO Thom hasn't been too consistent in these types of projects. Still would love if he did something on UIC, because Brutal Deconstructivism sounds like a perfect reuse match.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by spyguy

http://interactive.chicagobusiness.c...eline/private/
...

There are some other interesting things in that list from an urban development standpoint.

Nice to see some density added to Bridgeport - although it really makes me sad that the CTA isn't making the Circle Line more circular and running it south of Archer along the river, as then it would serve these two (and potential other developments) quite well:
158-unit mixed-use development, $20 million
W 35th St & S Aberdeen St, Chicago, IL 60608, USA
and
The Lofts at Bridgeport Place
190-unit artist live-work space, $10 million
1038 W 35th St, Chicago, IL 60609, USA

This is small, but looks like nice infill near the Kostner Pink Line station:
18th Place Mixed-Use Development
.4-acre mixed-use development, $5 million.
4315 W 18th Pl, Chicago, IL 60623, USA

What is this one?
Ontario Center Residences
77-unit residential development, $10 million
446 E Ontario St

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ 446 E Ontario is the Onterie building, perhaps they are doing some kind of renovation or converting commercial space to apartments?

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Architecturally yes, but in an overall sense, I think it's worth it. And I know I"m of the minority opinion here.

The several dozen super wealthy people these condos will bring downtown, while probably a drop in the bucket at this point, only helps the downtown economy/culture/retail scene.

That's a really odd argument. I don't think Ritz buyers are being attracted by its ugly shape or inefficient parking garage with the Farwell Building pasted on the front. If the Ritz, in it's current nasty form, had not been approved, those buyers could have helped the Waldorf Tower or the Spire get off the ground, and have helped shape a good cityscape as well as a good economy.

[Busy Bee]

^here here

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

That's a really odd argument. I don't think Ritz buyers are being attracted by its ugly shape or inefficient parking garage with the Farwell Building pasted on the front. If the Ritz, in it's current nasty form, had not been approved, those buyers could have helped the Waldorf Tower or the Spire get off the ground, and have helped shape a good cityscape as well as a good economy.

^ I don't buy for a second that the Ritz's lack of approval would have propelled the Spire or the Waldor-Astoria towards obtaining financing for construction. The Ritz is a much smaller project and it's right on the Mag Mile, unlike the other two.

If the Ritz had not been approved, I'm pretty sure none of the three would be getting built right now. Lets take what we can get.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

...
Lets take what we can get.

Really? REALLY? You think Chicago should allow DESPERATION to mold our finest retail corridor?

Look at some of the buildings erected in other great cities on their primary retail boulevards, and then tell me that Chicago should allow mediocre architecture on North Michigan Avenue. The City could very easily have sent the message long before this was even a proposal that any new construction on Michigan Avenue:

1) Not require parking (there is no reason to require parking for land fronting Michigan Avenue, and many rational reasons to actually disallow it)

2) Be either very high grade traditional architecture using real stone OR be high quality, cutting-edge showcase architecture of any material as long as it melds well with the pedestrian environment.

The Ritz benefits from none of those, adds little to what makes Michigan Avenue attractive in the first place, and actually detracts from some of what makes Michigan Avenue such a great area. Michigan Avenue is large enough that the occasional misstep won't kill it. But if the City neglects to encourage development that builds on the greatness, and allows projects that actually detract from it, eventually Michigan Avenue will be an also-ran instead of a star. Nothing great comes of ambivalence.

[VivaLFuego]

tup, while I usually agree with the utilitarian/pragmatist approach that not all development will be Class A architecture and we shouldn't get apoplectic about the occasional parking podium here or banal painted concrete there, I have to side with the mob here: Ritz Residences is an inexcusable travesty in every regard given the location. Not only the poor-taste Lagrange schlock aesthetic (is Lagrange the Bob Fioretti of architects, or is Fioretti the Lucien Lagrange of Aldermen?), but even the basic form/program of the project should have been a non-starter.

It's not like the Near North market is suffering for more high value units. This project means potential future absorption of such high-end units will be that much slower. Maybe that doesn't mean the Spire getting built right now, but it does mean that down the road, there is that much more inventory to be absorbed before future projects can find enough buyers to proceed.

[the urban politician]

There's already plenty of crappy architecture on the Mag Mile.

I mean, the Mag Mile has a friggin Disney Store for crying out loud. LaGrange has already made his mark on the Mag Mile, and lets not forget some of those ugly department store boxes that already exist on the Boulevard.

The garage levels, if you all recall, don't even begin until the sixth level. Lets remember that. It's not like people will be looking up and seeing opaque windows directly above them.

Do I love this project? Of course not. I still think it's far inferior to what could have been built. But do I think that this project is a net positive compared to what was there before (a closed museum and the Farwell building, which will be brought back but with garage levels on top)? Yes, I do. Do I think the city should allow parking podia on the Mag Mile ever again? No.

[VivaLFuego]

Crain's reporting that Conlon proposes to convert the 11-story Plymouth Building, 417 S. Dearborn, into an 80-bed student housing project using historic preservation tax credits. No zoning action required for the project but there would be legislative action required for the tax credits. Sounds like a win-win project unless Bob "" Fioretti once again does his level best to achieve the worst possible outcome for taxpayers so that he might pander to a few crotchety NIMBYs that belong in Woodstock, IL anyway.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Crain's reporting that Conlon proposes to convert the 11-story Plymouth Building, 417 S. Dearborn, into an 80-bed student housing project using historic preservation tax credits. No zoning action required for the project but there would be legislative action required for the tax credits. Sounds like a win-win project unless Bob "" Fioretti once again does his level best to achieve the worst possible outcome for taxpayers so that he might pander to a few crotchety NIMBYs that belong in Woodstock, IL anyway.

What's the win? Yet another developer decides to glom onto the student housing trend? I seriously doubt there is enough student demand to support dorms in the Plymouth Building AND the 3 proposals for Wabash. There's also the fact that many students may currently be choosing to get a traditional apartment in the South Loop, with a kitchen and a bathroom and such. Undoubtedly, some percentage of the apartments or condos being built in the South Loop are being occupied by students; increasing the supply of designated "student housing" just reduces the demand for apartment and condo projects.

In a more traditional university setting, there are definite trade-offs between on-campus and off-campus housing, so the two aren't substitute goods. But Columbia and Roosevelt are so integrated into the urban fabric that the differences are minimal, and increased student housing WILL cannibalize the residential demand.

Our typical argument here on these forums is that construction of any sort is good; even if developers overbuild, the cityscape improvements are worth the glut and the economic penalties that it creates, in terms of depreciation and the carrying costs to the developer of unsold units. I'm not sure that's the right mentality to have when growing a healthy city.

[VivaLFuego]

Let's see, it's only 80 beds (i.e. very small project relative to the others, so the burden to obtain financing is less than the big 3 proposals) in a presently vacant building that has historical merit but otherwise has floorplates too small for modern office use, and in which a proposed residential conversion languished before failing outright. I wouldn't mind if it were apartments or condos, but frankly when it comes to saving historic structures I think we should welcome any re-use that entails preservation. Plus this means a slightly elevated chance for more bad news college students to loiter and spread blight in the general vicinity of Dearborn Park at the sinful hour of 10pm. I stand by 'win-win'. I'd rather any reuse than a Farwellization.

[the urban politician]

I asked this at SSC but I thought I'd pick some brains over here:

Since WWII, has a pedestrian-oriented commercial/mixed use corridor been built out of scratch in Chicago, excluding downtown?

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I asked this at SSC but I thought I'd pick some brains over here:

Since WWII, has a pedestrian-oriented commercial/mixed use corridor been built out of scratch in Chicago, excluding downtown?

What qualifies as "pedestrian-oriented" and what qualifies as "out of scratch"? I ask the former because there are probably some gray areas on the Northwest and Southwest sides and inner-ring suburbs that were farmland as of WWII and have since developed in an urban fashion albeit not with continuous streetwalls, with some visible accessory parking, etc.

I ask the latter because there are any number of stretches of arterials that, while predominantly planned and built in pre-War/streetcar Chicago, didn't not develop into vibrant pedestrian districts until recent decades.

[J_M_Tungsten]

error

[J_M_Tungsten]

Very large lot of buildings being torn down on 15th and Blue Island Ave. I think it has a lot of potential, and I hope they don't fill it in with the garbage homes they put just north of this lot. This is also happening on another large lot with similar style homes on Ashland and 15th. This is just the Frontage homes, it goes back quite a ways. So many possiblities...

[a chicago bearcat]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

There's already plenty of crappy architecture on the Mag Mile.

I mean, the Mag Mile has a friggin Disney Store for crying out loud. LaGrange has already made his mark on the Mag Mile, and lets not forget some of those ugly department store boxes that already exist on the Boulevard.

The garage levels, if you all recall, don't even begin until the sixth level. Lets remember that. It's not like people will be looking up and seeing opaque windows directly above them.

Do I love this project? Of course not. I still think it's far inferior to what could have been built. But do I think that this project is a net positive compared to what was there before (a closed museum and the Farwell building, which will be brought back but with garage levels on top)? Yes, I do. Do I think the city should allow parking podia on the Mag Mile ever again? No.

it also would have been a net positive if they had only built on the footprint of a non-historic building.

but of course urban politicians caved, because after all, if we've already mucked up the mile, what's another thousand tons of sludge going to matter, no need to strive for something to fill that market segment, that doesn't compromise the integrity of an architectural city.

sorry for that last paragraph, but this argument was sounding too much like Cincinnati's acceptance of Queen City Plaza