CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I didn't realize the city had put adopt-a-landmark into the Neighborhood Opportunity Bonus program. The program used to employ the fiction that it wasn't "city money." The developer of some other building would give money to the church to restore a landmark building. In return for "adopting" a landmark, the developer got a zoning bonus.

I have to wonder whether this would pass a court challenge, should someone mount one. After all, the building is primarily used for religious services. In fact, in this case, city money will go to restore religious murals. There's a whole line of Supreme Court cases about what limited categories of government aid to parochial schools are allowable. Perhaps the city would argue that the proper part of the First Amendment to measure against is not the Establishment Clause, but the Free Exercise Clause. The argument would be that if it's allowable to give city money to restore a landmark Elks Lodge, it would be unconstitutional to not give money to a similarly designated building just because it's a church.

Honestly, why is everyone so against this? This church is an architectural landmark (as are many other churches in the Chicagoland area) and this church should be treated as such. No Supreme Court case necessary here, this is just good preservation at its heart. We should preserve every architectural landmark, no matter its use.

[Mr Downtown]

I'm in favor of restoring landmarks.

I'm even more in favor of having our governments comply with the Constitution.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The Illinois Constitution (and the First Amendment to the US Constitution) forbids any government money going to religious organizations. That's what made Blagojevich's day-of-fire promise to rebuild Pilgrim Baptist laughable. Now if the church has set up a separate not-for-profit development corporation to develop badly needed new strip malls to serve the people of Hamilton Park, well that's different. But supposedly someone will be looking to make sure no money crosses over to the church itself.

This is not true. The US Constitution doesn't bar churches from participating in generally available government programs simply because they are a religious institution. In fact, denying churches the opportunity from participating in the program (if they are otherwise qualified) simply because they are religious institutions would likely violate the Free Exercise clause in the Constitution. There was a Supreme Court case on this issue last year.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=en&as_sdt=806

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I'm in favor of restoring landmarks.

I'm even more in favor of having our governments comply with the Constitution.

Does the US Constitution cover a city giving a church money to restore it because of its historical significance?

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Does the US Constitution cover a city giving a church money to restore it because of its historical significance?

That's an interesting question. I think I cogently laid out the proper analysis of the issue a few posts back:

I have to wonder whether this would pass a court challenge, should someone mount one. After all, the building is primarily used for religious services. In fact, in this case, city money will go to restore religious murals. There's a whole line of Supreme Court cases about what limited categories of government aid to parochial schools are allowable. Perhaps the city would argue that the proper part of the First Amendment to measure against is not the Establishment Clause, but the Free Exercise Clause. The argument would be that if it's allowable to give city money to restore a landmark Elks Lodge, it would be unconstitutional to not give money to a similarly designated building just because it's a church.

muertecaza says the question is decided in Trinity Lutheran, the 2017 Supreme Court case about providing rubberized surfaces to church preschools same as other preschools. But that's not the only case in this area of First Amendment law, and part of the Establishment Clause test is "for a secular purpose." Preschools are a level removed from religious activities, and their playgrounds even more removed. Protecting toddlers from falls is hard to characterize as "advancing religion." In the case of First Deliverance, the building being restored is used almost exclusively for religious services—the two towers are known as "Old Testament" and "New Testament"—and part of the money will be used to restore religious murals whose intrinsic purpose is liturgical.

It's the sort of unresolved close question used on Constitutional Law final exams, and I would hesitate to confidently predict how an appellate court would rule.

[Steely Dan]

let's please get back on topic here folks.

chicago highrise developments.

[jc5680]

Perkins + Will has a couple pictures of the Bio Research Center from the sides less photographed (here) on their twitter

[marothisu]

^ Not bad



Apparently there was a community meeting last night for the AmeriGas replacement in West Loop at 310 N Sangamon - 12 stories of office and retail. Anybody have renderings? More info?

[Randomguy34]

^^ NOWL discussed their approval for the project's design a month ago. Here was the design submitted to City Clerk:


https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/12/1...ent-310-morgan

[marothisu]

^ Yep. I knew that. Was wondering if anybody had an actual rendering

[KWillChicago]

Northwestern turned out real sharp. I really like the diversity in facade on the different sides. The tower portion is just begging to get built. I hope they get it going alot sooner than later.

For any of you researchers out there how many towers in chicago have the opportunity to build a larger tower on top of them at a later time? Such as BCBS, block37, NW bio-med center.
I really wish Gleacher center and 55 wacker had that capability. Those two sites are too prime to have such short buildings along the river canyon.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

I really wish Gleacher center and 55 wacker had that capability. Those two sites are too prime to have such short buildings along the river canyon.

Gleacher Center has always driven me nuts. It was only recently with the talk about the supertall at the Tribune site that I realized maybe Gleacher is so short in order to preserve views of Tribune Tower from the river similar to how the Ogden Slip view corridor preserves views from LSD.

[dropdeaded209]

I think it's a good think that 55 Wacker is the height that it is, allows some breathing room for the Roche and Bofil towers to express themselves. Plus 55 Wacker itself is a great and overlooked CF Murphy brutalist building in its own right.

[ChickeNES]

Originally Posted by dropdeaded209

I think it's a good think that 55 Wacker is the height that it is, allows some breathing room for the Roche and Bofil towers to express themselves. Plus 55 Wacker itself is a great and overlooked CF Murphy brutalist building in its own right.

The only problem with 55 Wacker is that it doesn't cover up the ugliest building in the city.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by dropdeaded209

I think it's a good think that 55 Wacker is the height that it is, allows some breathing room for the Roche and Bofil towers to express themselves. Plus 55 Wacker itself is a great and overlooked CF Murphy brutalist building in its own right.

Without "short" there can be no "tall"

[LouisVanDerWright]

55 W Wacker has always reminded me of the 2X2 blue and white office skyscraper from SimCity 2000.

Edit: this one:


From YouTube Minecraft channel.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

I really wish Gleacher center and 55 wacker had that capability. Those two sites are too prime to have such short buildings along the river canyon.

should we also rip down reid murdoch because it's not tall enough for the river canyon?

good > tall.

and 55 w wacker is EXTREMELY good.

but gleacher center is meh, i wouldn't miss it much.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

should we also rip down reid murdoch because it's not tall enough for the river canyon?

good > tall.

and 55 w wacker is EXTREMELY good.

but gleacher center is meh, i wouldn't miss it much.

I would prefer to see the Renaissance Hotel go before either of those.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by rlw777

I would prefer to see the Renaissance Hotel go before either of those.

for sure!

that turd would be missed by absolutely no one.

[Notyrview]

I like 55, what i don’t like is that hideous pomo turd behind it