CHICAGO | General Developments

[Chi-Sky21]

Ah ....the spelling police got me! Twice!! All those years of college.....worthless i tell ya!

And thank you Harry for the answer!

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I once flew to Paris just to shop for headgear at Cap. Finally Chicago is worthy!

Actually, I just heard through my awesome insider connections that we are only getting a CAP Outlet, I guess Chicago really isn't a "World City" after all.

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Air Traffic Control has reported a high number of jokes passing overhead today.

ATC has just lost contact with the jokes and they've done a 180 and crashed in the Indian Ocean. (Too soon?)

----------

In all seriousness though, those renderings are pretty heinous. I find the generally retained nature of Chicago's retail storefronts to be quite appealing. This isn't Tokyo or Times Square. If we are going to have big retail like this, the city should continue to enforce our strict signage laws and keep the overbearing examples to a minimum. We have done this is a few places now on Michigan Avenue with fairly decent results. Topshop, Zara, Victorias Secret, and, to an extend, Burberry come to mind. Anything that is done along those lines needs to be architectural and not just an applique like that horrendous mutilation of that deco storefront a while back. I guess that is why I find Burberry to be acceptable, they put real money into making it an architectural statement that enforces the brand, not just signage pasted onto plywood wall.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by spyguy

500 N. Michigan - flagship three story retail space, connected to North Bridge

I'm not as hostile towards the recladding of the 500 N. Michigan even though I understand peoples objections.

My biggest beef is why in the heck are though no plans again to deck over what would seem to be some prime pedestrian space above at least part of Illinois Street. These seems to be the same sort of cheap skate limited vision folly of the whole Grand Ave. refurbishing on the other side of the street.

I'm not sure if this isn't done out of cheapness. Or because they building owners lack the air rights to build over the streets. Or if this is strictly a City of Chicago prerogative that the city doesn't see value in or what.

I think these are potentially some real wasted opportunities to enhance the pedestrian/retail experience along that portion of Michigan Ave. that aren't getting done either out of lack of vision or cheapness.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Actually, I just heard through my awesome insider connections that we are only getting a CAP Outlet, I guess Chicago really isn't a "World City" after all.

Yeah, but even the "Chicago" CAP Outlet will actually be in Rosemont.

[Rizzo]

^ not true or maybe i just remember all those hodgepodge sales rack stores now replaced by falafel shops

[denizen467]

^ Hey, speaking of racks, Nordstrom Rack opens in that new retail building at Weed/Sheffield on April 3.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by denizen467

^ Hey, speaking of racks, Nordstrom Rack opens in that new retail building at Weed/Sheffield on April 3.

I wish they'd just have one big Rack downtown and one in the burbs. Too many means having to visit a lot of them to really find what's available - which is a PITA.

[wierdaaron]

Hold on to your butts...

Curbed: More Plans For Times Square Style Michigan Ave Retail Emerge

Today Curbed brings even more interesting news in the continuing story of the Magnificent Mile's spread south of the river, as we have yet again come across a sales brochure for another retail project planned for Michigan Avenue that is sure to raise a few eyebrows based on the design mockups. Early last year, local development firm Sterling Bay took over a property at 300 North Michigan Avenue, but has kept quiet about its plans for the space ever since. The recently leaked sales brochure reveals a new retail development for the site called 300 NMA, and the designs indicate that the whole structure will be demolished and replaced with a mixed-use tower of unknown height.

The project includes approximately 43,000 square feet of floor space made available for up to three tenants. What's perhaps most striking about the project is the complete design control over the exterior facade they appear to offer tenants, a trademark of Times Square shopping district not often seen in Chicago, even on Mag Mile. There are renders of two wildly different design configurations, one with three tenants and the other with one....

There's also an interesting bit about the building trying to frame that stretch of Michigan as "Millennium Mile" as opposed to Mag Mile. I found that pretty strange.

Here's the sales brochure: http://cwchicagoretail.com/wp-conten...re-demised.pdf I guess the editor didn't want to link to it from Curbed.

That small "Mid-Rise Lobby" in the floorplans makes me think whatever is going on top of the retail won't be too high, possibly just offices. If it was a hotel or residential they'd want a much bigger lobby, unless they did a split lobby, which would seem like a waste of a floor for a midrise... plus this is Sterling Bay, have they ever done anything but commercial?

[LouisVanDerWright]

I don't see how this building could NOT end up being a skyscraper. Who would go through the trouble of tearing down for new construction in this location and not pursue at least a medium sized tower?

[UPChicago]

I would rather see this type of thing happen on state being more enclosed between Lake and Van Buren.

[wierdaaron]

^LVDW, see the paragraph I added at the end about the "Mid-Rise Lobby".

[Ned.B]

At 120 feet wide along Michigan, this project will apparently only replace the Wallgreens/Subway and Radio Shack Buildings and leave the four story building with Chipotle (even though the renderers seemed to have forgotten to include it in the rendering).

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

^LVDW, see the paragraph I added at the end about the "Mid-Rise Lobby".

As we learned with that proposal in River North by that Milwaukee developer people have varying definitions of "Mid Rise" and "High rise" Mid-rise could very well mean 20 floors which, especially if office use with higher ceilings, could mean a decently large tower.

[wierdaaron]

^True. The retail sales brochure is suspiciously quiet about what's going on top. Makes me think they don't even know yet. Maybe they need to get a feeling of the retail interest before they make plans.

[rlw777]

I would rather see a a miniature trailer park in that location than the facade they are proposing. That location is surrounded by some of the oldest most unique buildings in Chicago and they want to build that ridiculous facade. No thanks.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by rlw777

I would rather see a a miniature trailer park in that location than the facade they are proposing. That location is surrounded by some of the oldest most unique buildings in Chicago and they want to build that ridiculous facade. No thanks.

it looks like some 3rd tier Asian boomtown mall. hopefully the signage ordinance does its job and squashes this in the bud.

also, given the glut of retail space that went up in the past decade how are we still scrambling for more?

[the urban politician]

I think Chicago's 'mild mannered' or 'toned down' look is a beautiful thing, but I wonder if the city should relax this a bit? One thing for sure, this is still nowhere nearly as loud as Times Square.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think Chicago's 'mild mannered' or 'toned down' look is a beautiful thing, but I wonder if the city should relax this a bit? One thing for sure, this is still nowhere nearly as loud as Times Square.

this times square fixation is tiring, as if over-sized obnoxious branded advertising is the cure-all to underutilized public spaces. it seems it works its way into any conversation about new downtown development. im not opposed to tastefully done lighting or displays. but that proposal looks like it was slapped together in 15 minutes by an underpaid intern

[wierdaaron]

Originally Posted by rlw777

I would rather see a a miniature trailer park in that location than the facade they are proposing. That location is surrounded by some of the oldest most unique buildings in Chicago and they want to build that ridiculous facade. No thanks.

They aren't proposing building that facade, though. They're just showing that the facade can be completely designed by the tenant. That's why there's two wildly different mockups. If they got Apple in there, for instance, it'd just be a big silver cube. It's entirely up to whoever signs the lease. (I don't think there's any chance of an Apple store there.)

I wonder if there could ever be stores like you find in Times Square, where companies that have no business having retail stores open up little flagship "experience" stores just for the novelty of it being Times Square, like an M&Ms store and a Pop Tarts store.

Seriously. There was a Pop Tarts store.




Maybe a Wrigley gum store, since they're local? Or a Groupon store, or a GrubHub cafe with tables and kiosks where you can order from any nearby GrubHub restaurant. It's the mid 90s and there's plenty of money, go nuts!

[harryc]

Wrigley already has a presence ;-)