CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 97

Marcu · #**1921** Posted **Oct 29, 2007, 6:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ We're having a discussion about that at SSC, and to make a long point short, I think this is exactly what Chicago's south side (outside of core lakefront hoods well-served by transit) needs more of to attract more residents. I hate strip-style development too, but attracting more residents requires appealing to the general public, not internet urban enthusiasts.

I agree. We're not in a position to dicate terms to developers on the southside. There's very little development as it is.

Alliance · #**1922** Posted **Oct 29, 2007, 7:00 PM**

Its probably a needed development, but the parking bothers me.

Nowhereman1280 · #**1923** Posted **Oct 29, 2007, 7:09 PM**

^^^ Agreed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu

I agree. We're not in a position to dicate terms to developers on the southside. There's very little development as it is.

Hopefully we will get the Olympics and that will change...

VivaLFuego · #**1924** Posted **Oct 29, 2007, 8:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Agreed

Hopefully we will get the Olympics and that will change...

I don't get why a 2-week event will forever change the development and ivnestment picture (which is on a much longer timeline) throughout the city. At most, over the long run, the city's image will improve and increase tourism and overall housing demand to spur development, but we're talking a 20+ year time horizon and the dearth of investment in the south side is in the here and now.

Nowhereman1280 · #**1925** Posted **Oct 29, 2007, 8:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I don't get why a 2-week event will forever change the development and ivnestment picture (which is on a much longer timeline) throughout the city. At most, over the long run, the city's image will improve and increase tourism and overall housing demand to spur development, but we're talking a 20+ year time horizon and the dearth of investment in the south side is in the here and now.

I'm saying that it will change the southside because of the massive amounts of infrastructure improvements that will occur. Also, you can expect that quite a bit of money will be put into generally sprucing up the area, and don't forget the Olympic village adding to development momentum in the area. Also, crime rates will drop because the government will have to make the Washington Park area extremely secure for the Olympic Stadium. Overall, that whole area would be a much more desirable place to live by the time the Olympics are over.

I don't see how it can't change the course of the southside forever. I mean that's one of Daley's stated goals, to gentrify the south side, make it like the north side, you don't think he would use the Olympics as an excuse to pour money into doing this?

nomarandlee · #**1926** Posted **Oct 29, 2007, 8:50 PM**

True, while i am very weary of any lofty expectations and promises of change I think a games will at least have some marginal effect on some neighborhoods as they have in Sydney, Barcelona, and the near West Side did for the 96 convention. But that could also be argued that if the public investment was made in such areas even without a games or large event would an eventual uplift occur more because of the investment rather then an event itself. Really it gives a city an excuse to improve infrastructure and spur investment in areas in which it should ideally do anyway.

Much more important in the long run to neighborhoods health would be schools, crime, and general quality of living that will draw people in and make it all sustainable in a way that building infrastructure for an event will never be able to do.

Alliance · #**1927** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 12:35 AM**

They'll have marginal impact, but what they really should be is an excuse for building sensible developments.

Chicago2020 · #**1928** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 5:05 AM**

What are the chances there will be a green roof on this beast?????

courtesy of charlton_b from flickr

honte · #**1929** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 5:30 AM**

^ Zero, I'd say, considering it's a long-span structure and the loads from the vegetation would be incredible. Unless, that is 1) the mayor sends the decree, or 2) they do one of the newer, much more lightweight vegetated roofs, which typically involve small sedum plants in planter boxes. Even with option 2, the roof structure would probably have to be reinforced.

For example, the structural acrobatics needed to put the green roof on the Cultural Center were nothing short of heroic.

2PRUROCKS! · #**1930** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 1:45 PM**

What is the possibility of putting solar panels on the roofs of MCP? It is just a vast amount of space that seems that it should be put to some good use. I would imagine the weight of solar panels would be much less than a green roof.

Alliance · #**1931** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 2:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago2020

What are the chances there will be a green roof on this beast?????

Can you please stop posting everythign in size 5 bold green text? We can read.

A green roof on McCormick would be amazing. Olympics?

Marcu · #**1932** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 4:00 PM**

Green roofs/solar panels do very little to save energy costs/emissions and are just a way for Daley to appease environmentally conscious voters. So if the cost is high, chances are very low.

Alliance · #**1933** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 5:45 PM**

Hnace why you need the games. Many events would be helt at McCormick place and it would be an easy way to garner attention.

Nowhereman1280 · #**1934** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 6:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago2020

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]What are the chances there will be a green roof on this beast?????

Much lower than the chances of that huge parking lot behind it getting a green roof!

simcityaustin · #**1935** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 10:01 PM**

Is that low income housing in the upper right?

Mr Downtown · #**1936** Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 10:11 PM**

No, those are the Prairie Shores apartment towers; Loebl, Schlossman & Bennett, 1962.

ardecila · #**1937** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 12:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

No, those are the Prairie Shores apartment towers; Loebl, Schlossman & Bennett, 1962.

They appear quite a few times in Stranger Than Fiction, as does a lot of other mid-century Modernism in Chicago.

GregBear24 · #**1938** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 12:35 AM**

I hope they never knock those down. Call me crazy, but I really think they're a staple in that area and are strangely pleasant to have. No pun intended for "strangely".

Nowhereman1280 · #**1939** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 1:59 AM**

^^^ Well they are just about the only mega development of the modern era left in Chicago that isn't completely ghetto or torn down...

I mean its almost reminiscent of LeCorbusier's style of commie block housing projects. We really don't have much of that left in this city. Not to mention these are relatively integrated unlike the towers in a park scheme of Robert Taylor Homes and Cabrini Green.

But I agree, there is something awkwardly pleasing about them. Maybe they will someday be landmarked (very doubtful) as a remnant of our Urban renewal/housing project past.

I just did some reading on them and they were apparently built in conjunction with Michael Reese Hospital. Hopefully they won't be torn down if the Olympic village is built on Michael Reese Hospital...

honte · #**1940** Posted **Oct 31, 2007, 2:19 AM**

^ No, they are privately owned. Unless Preckwinkle gets any more stupid ideas, they should be ok. Michael Reese hospital was responsible for instituting the discussions that led to most of the urban renewal in the area - such things as Lake Meadows, IIT, and Dearborn Homes. In this case, as their contribution to the cause, they partnered in land with a private developer. Their architect of choice (the very Jewish Loebl, Schlossman, and Bennett) did the work therefore. Anyone interested in this project should also go to Michael Reese and see some of LS&B's very cool designs there - while they are still standing.

We've been here before, but I'll say it again for the record: I agree 100% that these are great buildings, and along with Lake Meadows, they represent a rare, very successful, and wonderful example of this type of design/planning. The owners have been remarkably faithful to the original schemes, and I do think if they survive intact for another 20 or so years, they would be landmark candidates.