CHICAGO | General Developments

[honte]

Originally Posted by Marcu

The Roosevelt Square residential buildings are fine. They're not overly PoMo. Just standard issue Chicago architecture. Certainly not something to get overly concerned about. The CHA redevelopment areas are not ideal for experimenting. First, the area needs to appeal to the masses (aka nimbys) so they don't have another reason not to relocate there. Seeing as that they will already be hesitent about living in a "mixed income" development. Second, the city is not in a position to take on the risk of constructing cutting edge architecture. Third, keep in mind that the "tower in the park" design of the original project homes was a the time a development trend. THe last thing we want is for the city to do something like that again. Follow a trend that's not time tested and that will flop.

The first two are very valid points. I discuss this issue frequently. Specifically, is there any chance, given the failures of the past, to bring good design to the table while redeveloping these lots? Certainly, most of the CHA residents I've spoken with (I used to work next to Cabrini Green) just want their housing to look exactly like what's existing in "good" neighborhoods - either yuppie condo garbage, or old flats. Making low-income housing stand out from its neighbors is a way of red-lining an area, at least for those who are not design-inclined.

Hence, I've somewhat given up on the idea of cutting-edge architecture being built in these areas. But your third point about "tower in the park" design being a development trend is a bit misleading: At the time, that represented the best and most radical of new thinking on urban living, not the status quo, as we're seeing now. There is absolutely nothing creative, progressive, or au currant about these new schemes, and that is by design. The very idea of the public housing redevelopment is to somehow return it to the way it "once was."

But there are nagging questions about this way of redevelopment. Are we wasting one of the greatest city redevelopment opportunities that will come along in centuries? All of the good stuff (and bad) from the past has already been cleared, so it's rather painless. More troublesome, are these buildings good enough and built well enough to continue to attract mixed-income tenants? Or are they going to be the slums of the future, avoided by those that can, due to their inferior design and craftsmanship?

Projects like the SOM design for Pershing and State give me a lot of hope. Here we see what is possible when the NIMBY crowd doesn't rear its ugly head, when you have some vision about design, and when a developer is interested in his community. I am crossing all fingers that it is a huge success.

It's also worth noting that many (alas, not all) of most carefully-designed of the old projects are still with us. Loomis Courts, Hilliard Homes, Dearborn Homes, Trumbull Park. These buildings are ones that enriched their communities and residents when they were built, and, as best they can given the funding and upkeep, continue to do so today.

[sentinel]

Hopeful news:

Foundation unveils $26M in neighborhood grants

By Johnathon E. Briggs
Tribune staff reporter
Published May 22, 2007, 11:00 AM CDT
Chicago's largest philanthropy, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, announced today that it will invest $26 million during the next five years in 16 of the city's lowest-income neighborhoods as part of a large-scale community and economic development effort.

The New Communities Program seeks to rejuvenate beleaguered neighborhoods, bolster those in danger of losing ground and preserve the diversity of others in the path of gentrification, officials said.

The 16 neighborhoods are Auburn Gresham, Chicago Lawn, Douglas, North Kenwood, Oakland, Grand Boulevard, East Garfield Park, Humboldt Park, Little Village, Logan Square, North Lawndale, Pilsen, South Chicago, Washington Park, Near West Side and Woodlawn.

"Chicago's neighborhoods, even its poorest, are significant assets, holding tremendous untapped human and economic potential," said MacArthur President Jonathan Fanton. "The work of many dedicated community groups and individuals to turn around these neighborhoods is already showing early signs of success."

Coordinated by the Local Initiatives Support Corp., a community development organization, the neighborhood projects were first funded by the foundation in 2002 with about $21 million in seed money that foundation officials said has helped generate more than $255 million in new investment in the 16 communities.

The corporation's consultants met with residents and took them on bus tours of the neighborhoods, seeking to identify their most urgent problems and to draft solutions that would not languish on the drawing board, officials said.

For example, as a result of New Communities, the Logan Square Neighborhood Association helped 54 families keep their homes in the face of redevelopment plans. Meanwhile, the Quad Community Development Corp. is establishing a vibrant commercial district that will bring shops and residences to the city's mid-South Side.

Foundation officials said they expect their second wave of funding to generate $500 million in new investment.

jebriggs@tribune.com



Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

[forumly_chgoman]

Roosevelt Square

^^^^Ok I am not super-famliar w/ this development as some of you seem to be. Is this new neighborhood to be fully integrated into the flow of the city...ie the street grid etc or is it in anyway walled off, or gated off , or fenced off etc

I guess I want to know if this development will be a stand alone...isolated style communtiy///which I hate & I do not beleive belongs in the city or is it going to be more along the lines of simply a new neighborhood that will flow into what is around it seemlessly much like most neighborhood in Chi do?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by forumly_chgoman

Roosevelt Square

^^^^Ok I am not super-famliar w/ this development as some of you seem to be. Is this new neighborhood to be fully integrated into the flow of the city...ie the street grid etc or is it in anyway walled off, or gated off , or fenced off etc.

Yes, they rebuilt the street grid throughout this area.

Roosevelt Square is basically a HUGE area of newly-built rowhouses, between 2 and 3 stories. There are also some smaller midrises, up to 5 or 6 stories. The taller buildings are built along the major streets like Ashland, Roosevelt, Racine, Blue Island, etc. Basically, the same size buildings as those that existed before the Abla projects were built. Of course, the architecture is not nearly as good as those prewar buildings.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by honte

The first two are very valid points. I discuss this issue frequently. Specifically, is there any chance, given the failures of the past, to bring good design to the table while redeveloping these lots? Certainly, most of the CHA residents I've spoken with (I used to work next to Cabrini Green) just want their housing to look exactly like what's existing in "good" neighborhoods - either yuppie condo garbage, or old flats. Making low-income housing stand out from its neighbors is a way of red-lining an area, at least for those who are not design-inclined.

Hence, I've somewhat given up on the idea of cutting-edge architecture being built in these areas. But your third point about "tower in the park" design being a development trend is a bit misleading: At the time, that represented the best and most radical of new thinking on urban living, not the status quo, as we're seeing now. There is absolutely nothing creative, progressive, or au currant about these new schemes, and that is by design. The very idea of the public housing redevelopment is to somehow return it to the way it "once was."

But there are nagging questions about this way of redevelopment. Are we wasting one of the greatest city redevelopment opportunities that will come along in centuries? All of the good stuff (and bad) from the past has already been cleared, so it's rather painless. More troublesome, are these buildings good enough and built well enough to continue to attract mixed-income tenants? Or are they going to be the slums of the future, avoided by those that can, due to their inferior design and craftsmanship?

Projects like the SOM design for Pershing and State give me a lot of hope. Here we see what is possible when the NIMBY crowd doesn't rear its ugly head, when you have some vision about design, and when a developer is interested in his community. I am crossing all fingers that it is a huge success.

It's also worth noting that many (alas, not all) of most carefully-designed of the old projects are still with us. Loomis Courts, Hilliard Homes, Dearborn Homes, Trumbull Park. These buildings are ones that enriched their communities and residents when they were built, and, as best they can given the funding and upkeep, continue to do so today.

Great points. I also think, more broadly speaking, that a lot of people have the misconception that for a new building or buildings to be integrated into its neighborhood, it needs to look just like the rest of its neighborhood. I think this is nonsense and believe fully-integrated, cohesive neighborhoods can have various design styles, allowing new modern additions to relate to the existing stock. I realize special consideration needs to be given to the mixed-income nature of these developments and the public housing they're replacing, but nonetheless...Perhaps if the SOM development on S. State moves forward as proposed and is successful, it will move other redevelopment projects around the city in the right design direction...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Latoso

That's one of the many advantages of being nearly 1 thousand miles away. You can't get all worked up about something you really don't know about.

^ Point taken, but those of you who've known me on these forums for a while likely know just how worked up I actually do get about Chicago development issues. And just to give myself credit, I have toured the construction sites and the area around Roosevelt Square personally many times, as well as long ago reviewing the site plan, which has been available for a few years.

Originally Posted by honte

Hence, I've somewhat given up on the idea of cutting-edge architecture being built in these areas. But your third point about "tower in the park" design being a development trend is a bit misleading: At the time, that represented the best and most radical of new thinking on urban living, not the status quo, as we're seeing now. There is absolutely nothing creative, progressive, or au currant about these new schemes, and that is by design. The very idea of the public housing redevelopment is to somehow return it to the way it "once was."

^ Reading this, a question arises. Why must these developments be 'cutting edge' at all? Why not just follow a tried and true model--the traditional Chicago neighborhood?

But there are nagging questions about this way of redevelopment. Are we wasting one of the greatest city redevelopment opportunities that will come along in centuries? All of the good stuff (and bad) from the past has already been cleared, so it's rather painless. More troublesome, are these buildings good enough and built well enough to continue to attract mixed-income tenants? Or are they going to be the slums of the future, avoided by those that can, due to their inferior design and craftsmanship?

^ Aren't we confusing good architecture with quality development? A building can be pretty dull to look at but still sturdy. What gives you the impression that the structures u/c at Roosevelt Square are not going to last?

Regarding the issue of these becoming future slums, you make a good point. But in my experience viewing New York's housing projects versus Chicago's, one of the reasons why New York's have largely worked is because their projects still provide easy access to retail/jobs, etc whereas the Chicago projects were just so isolated.

I like how many of these new communities being developed in Chicago now incorporate mixed-uses. That's how a traditional city neighborhood is supposed to work.

And if you want cutting-edge design, I'm not sure you're going to get it. But that doesn't mean there aren't some interesting new ideas being tried out. For example, in Westhaven Park, there are a handful of live-work townhomes being developed--definitely a new idea (which is funny, because it's actually an ancient practice). A row of townhomes will have commercial space at the base, with residential above. The entire unit will be owned by an individual so that he can live upstairs while plying his trade on the ground floor. It sounds like something out of 1897 but perhaps it will help a person with little means make something of himself. Or perhaps it won't. We'll just have to see--it's an experiment, after all..

[honte]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Reading this, a question arises. Why must these developments be 'cutting edge' at all? Why not just follow a tried and true model--the traditional Chicago neighborhood?

...

Aren't we confusing good architecture with quality development? A building can be pretty dull to look at but still sturdy. What gives you the impression that the structures u/c at Roosevelt Square are not going to last?

...

For example, in Westhaven Park, there are a handful of live-work townhomes being developed--definitely a new idea (which is funny, because it's actually an ancient practice). A row of townhomes will have commercial space at the base, with residential above.

Yes, of course, good development and good architecture are not necessarily tied, although they often come hand-in-hand. I would take quality development in the case of these redevelopments any day over amazing architecture, for the benefit of the buyers and for the benefit of the surrounding community.

What I didn't make clear in my prior post is that, from personal inspection, I don't think these building are being built well. The neighborhood association has also raised major complaints about alleged differences in construction practice north and south of Roosevelt (most of the public housing is still being clustered south of Roosevelt). We'll see what happens, but I don't expect many of these buildings to age gracefully (or many of the cheap "developer special" three-flats you see all over the north side, for that matter).

The tried-and-true model of a Chicago neighborhood has issues, as much as I love the results that arrived. The good results are very largely due not to the planning, but due to the amazing architecture and incredible craftsmanship that graced Chicago during the original boom years. The inherent issues, meanwhile, are the same that caused trouble to start before the second world war, and to continue afterwards, which led (in part) to the slums in the first place. They are further compounded by new ways of modern living, such as automobile dependence. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I don't think we should arbitrarily say through rose-tinted glasses that everything at the turn of the century was just perfect. If you haven't read The Ghetto, I suggest it, since it talks at length about this exact area and period we are discussing. I think architects should not shy away from offering new ideas and models for urban design and planning, even if some past ideas turned into disasters.

Concerning the live-work units, I think that's great and I didn't know about it. But Chicago's real problem and lack of live-work setups stems from the zoning rigidity that prevents living and working from happening in the same level, in almost all cases. This makes it very hard for up-start businesses, artists, entrepreneurs, etc, as very few can afford the ground floor and the apartment at once. Even just considering this problem, an entirely new model for an urban neighborhood could be developed by a talented team of planners and designers.

One other thought worth mentioning: The Chicago neighborhoods that remain the most desirable are the ones with distinctive features - the "sense of place" that Kamin is always harping about. It is, surprisingly, not always tied to "location, location, location." So, this is another argument in favor of mixing things up a bit, rather than repeating the old model over and over into cloying oblivion.

[Latoso]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Point taken, but those of you who've known me on these forums for a while likely know just how worked up I actually do get about Chicago development issues. And just to give myself credit, I have toured the construction sites and the area around Roosevelt Square personally many times, as well as long ago reviewing the site plan, which has been available for a few years.

I know your intentions are good. But you know ChicagoShawn and how he can be, and if he gets worked up about something there's usually something to it.

[DaleAvella]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Are there any plans for that huge area? It's been vacant for decades. Between those empty plots and the removal of most of ABLA, this area is quite desolate now, but that just means a clean slate. I can't wait to see it in 10-15 years when it's a fully developed neighborhood and the many thousands of units have been built and occupied (hopefully with an accompanying infill stop at Roosevelt on the Pink Line)

The hospital owns some of the land and there are also plans for a police training facility. This is what someone told me who has a warehouse nearby.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4...edford.article

Redford eyes Fannie May site for theater

May 24, 2007
BY DAVID ROEDER Staff Reporter

Robert Redford’s theater chain that specializes in independent films said Thursday it plans to open an eight-screen operation on Chicago’s Near West Side.

Redford’s Sundance Cinemas has signed a lease to occupy 40,000 square feet in a new building developers hope to put up at 1137 W. Jackson.

The property is the site of old Fannie May candy factory, which closed in 2004. The size of the building is still to be negotiated with the city.

The plan is for the theaters to be part of commercial space on the lower floors, with residential floors on the upper levels, said Gary Pachucki, president of IBT Group, one of the developers. Pachucki said he hopes the theaters can open in 2009.

The property extends a full block south to Van Buren, where it has frontage along the Eisenhower Expressway. Its expected the Sundance Cinemas space will face the expressway.

Pachucki said it will be on the building’s third floor and that a related bar and restaurant will occupy a mezzanine.

It would be the fourth location for Sundance. The company opened May 11 in Madison, Wis., and is renovating a location in San Francisco.

It announced this week plans to open in Denver. Founded by Redford, Sundance has financial backing from Oaktree Capital Management.

[Eventually...Chicago]

From one of their blogs...

Architectural Record
Bruce Mau told me last night, at the superbly fun...
Saturday, May 19, 2007

Bruce Mau told me last night,

at the superbly fun benefit for Stanley Tigerman and Eva Maddox's Archeworks,

that he is moving with his family to Chicago in July. He'll open a school called "The Institute for Massive Change."

He'll put it in Louis Sullivan's inspiring department store building on State Street. Carson's - the store in there for decades, recently vacated. Mau's school will be in the same building as, and he will team up with Tony Jones and The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, which recently began teaching architecture on the top floors of the Sullivan masterpiece.

Bruce Mau said he intends to focus his activities on cities. He plans to develop "Chicago prototypes." He hopes city planners and leaders around the world will note his achievements here, come here to study them, and then replicate them where needed. He told me that a developer working on a project in Korea wants to fund the prototype here, and if or when it's successful, replicate the solution in Korea. I have no more details on that.

Mau will live on Chicago's North Shore; he's looking for a grand old house to turn "smart." With all the visitors he expects he joked it'll be something of an "eco-resort." Tell that to the good ladies of Winnetka.

How did this come about? Bruce Mau said that he was gratified by the welcome he received in Chicago when he brought his exhibtion "Massive Change" to the Museum of Contemporary Art. He had lunch with Stanley Tigerman. Tigerman asked him, "What are you doing? Why aren't you here?" Tigerman told Mau he could accomplish in ten years in Chicago what it would take him forty years to acheive in Toronto. Next thing you know, Mau's moving his family to Chi-town and opening a school here.

Bruce Mau says he's a big fan of Mayor Daley and the work he's doing to make Chicago more "green." Daley is also a fan of Mau and his work.

Finally, Bruce Mau says it's too late to tone down the expectations people have for him, but that he'll work here to realize his dreams here.

The "City of Broad Shoulders," "the City that Works;" the city of "Make no Little Plans," and "Build, Don't Talk," welcomes its latest big thinker. I'm so glad to see him come here and help spur the Chicago Renaissance.

Remember, Chicago's motto has always been, "Urbs in Horto" - "City in a garden."

Welcome Bruce Mau and family. Make the place grow.
-E


http://archrecord.construction.com/p...cJz48YZ7K5qHdr

[Chicago2020]

Here is my VERY sad attempt to show if the central area plan goes through. As you can see Grant Park is extended eastward with a new pier next to navy pier. The dark red in Grant Park are areas of where dark red bricks would replace the asphalt, thats my idea of what Grant Park should be like, less roads, more antique light posts and More tree's and flowers. Many thanks to archytype for the pic.

[Busy Bee]

One step closer to Burnham's vision. I like the brick idea, any stone surface would be great as well. I absolutely hate Columbus running through Grant. As far as I'm concerned Columbus is the biggest negative factor facing Grant Park and it should be identified as so in future Park and City Plans with the goal being a shifting of, reducing of or elimination of traffic on the current Columbus Drive. Another more costly solution would be to cut and cover bury Columbus and re-sew East and West Grant Park together... Columbus is a much larger offender in this regard than the IC trench has ever been.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Columbus is a much larger offender in this regard than the IC trench has ever been.

I disagree. You can't jaywalk the IC trench.

The only thing superior about the trench is its design, which muffles the sound of the trains and complements the design of the park and the historic Mich Ave buildings.

Contrast this to the very un-park-like design of Columbus Drive - 6 lanes of whizzing traffic with crosswalks every 1/4 mile.

I don't think Columbus will go anywhere, however, because it gives the city a large paved area to host Taste.

[the urban politician]

Eric Sedler and his cadre of NIMBY butt-slaves are going to rip a hole in that Redford Theater plan if it's higher than 10 stories. Prepare for another great development not to happen.

There is an article in today's Sun-Times about it, but I'm too lazy to go and fetch it.

Seriously, the city Govt needs to stop these numbskulls

[Busy Bee]

Lake Point Tower actually doesn't bother me at all in regards to sitting in [intentioned] parkland. It's that Boeing hanger MP East that bothers me—I really don't give a hoot about it's architectural merits, I don't think people would be singing its' praises after it's raised once they see how fantastic the new view is.

Moot point really though because I don't think MP officials have any intention on removing it. Not for many years anyway.

[honte]

^ New view of what? More undeveloped parkland (Meigs) that we can't seem to fund or develop?

I want to live in a city, thank you very much. Buildings here and there are pleasing.

[Busy Bee]

Yeah just not on the lake side of LSD. Ans it's more than a building. We're not talking North Avenue Beach House, this thing is a wall.

[ardecila]

Well.. while I absolutely DESPISE LPT's podium, I don't have too much of a problem with the building being there. While it is east of the Drive, it is also at the center of a large peninsula that allows the parkland to flow around it.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Eric Sedler and his cadre of NIMBY butt-slaves are going to rip a hole in that Redford Theater plan if it's higher than 10 stories. Prepare for another great development not to happen.

There is an article in today's Sun-Times about it, but I'm too lazy to go and fetch it.

Seriously, the city Govt needs to stop these numbskulls

I'll post it then...Uggh, how these people are able to dictate such shite is a travesty. Many live within easy walking distance of two rail lines and could bike to work due to spitting distance from downtown yet they insist on keeping their hood relatively low density more befitting of a hood five-eight miles away from the city center. Someone should talk to these people about selfish underutilization of resources.

Maybe they think an expresway gives them illusions that they are farther away and differant then the near north and south side and think of themselves exempt from the inner core.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/401...ford25.article

Redford cast as villain in cinema development plan?
NEAR W. SIDE | May pit neighbors vs. Sundance firm

May 25, 2007
BY DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com
Actor Robert Redford, proponent of all things environmentally sensitive, could land in the middle of an old-fashioned battle over neighborhood development on the Near West Side.

Redford's Sundance Cinemas LLC, a chain that shows independent films and documentaries, said Thursday it plans to open in 2009 at 1137 W. Jackson. Developers intend to put up a building there to replace the old Fannie May Candy factory that closed in 2004.

But what kind of a building, and how tall, are open for conjecture. The developers have yet to request a zoning change and have not shown plans to neighbors, the standard way of building political support.
Los Angeles-based Sundance said it will open an eight-screen theater. It signed a lease to occupy 40,000 square feet, its space including an attached bar and restaurant.

Gary Pachucki, president of IBT Group LLC and one of the developers, said Sundance will take the third floor and a mezzanine. Other uses in the commercial space will include a health club, grocer, and parking he said.

But he and his co-investors want a mostly residential building on the nearly 4-acre site. Asked how tall he wants to go, Pachucki replied, "Don't go there."

The issue is sensitive because Near West residents have organized against what they see as an encroachment of high-rises into their midst. They gained political muscle in the last aldermanic election when a challenger, Robert Fioretti, defeated an incumbent in part by criticizing her for tuning out residents when development issues arose.

Eric Sedler, president of the West Loop Community Organization, said the developers a few months ago suggested a building of about 25 to 30 stories and were informed the idea "is a non-starter."

The Redford cinemas would be an asset to the area, he said. But he said he hopes the developers "aren't selectively floating out pieces of the project to give an inaccurate picture of what it is."

Pachucki said signing Sundance was "a terrific opportunity" to give the building a commercial tenant. He said the property has few residential neighbors nearby and that a high-rise could take advantage of visibility along the Eisenhower Expy.

Sundance executives were unavailable to discuss the zoning issue. Pachucki said the theater's lease contains customary clauses that let it out of the deal if the building cannot be delivered by a particular time. He declined to discuss those terms.

An aide to Fioretti, Hanah Jubeh, said the alderman is assembling a zoning advisory committee. Once the developers submit their plan, he will give it to the committee for its input, she said.

It would be the fourth location for Sundance. The company opened May 11 in Madison, Wis., and is renovating a location in San Francisco. It announced this week plans to open in Denver.

The company, with financial backing from Oaktree Capital Management, is part of Redford's Sundance brand that grew from the annual film festival he hosts. It uses plush seating and promises no ads before showtime.