CHICAGO | General Developments

[JK47]

Originally Posted by glowrock

This is pathetic. Utterly, sickeningly pathetic. NIMBYs need to go the hell away, and the alderman needs to be smacked upside his head with a 2×4!

Aaron (Glowrock)

"Mayor Lori Lightfoot said Tuesday that Ald. Jim Gardiner (45th) “overstates his ability” to block The Point at Six Corners, a huge development proposed for the busy intersection of Cicero Avenue, Milwaukee Avenue and Irving Park Road."

[LouisVanDerWright]

Y'all should join the movement to save Thomson Center:

https://m.facebook.com/preservationf...24&ref=m_notif

[Freefall]

Per Ward email: The Covent Hotel at 2653 N. Clark is proposing to convert/renovate from 60 SRO rooms to 30 affordable apartments. A 7 story apartment building is being proposed to be built in the parking lot behind Covent with 84 market rate units and 52 parking spots.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Freefall

Per Ward email: The Covent Hotel at 2653 N. Clark is proposing to convert/renovate from 60 SRO rooms to 30 affordable apartments. A 7 story apartment building is being proposed to be built in the parking lot behind Covent with 84 market rate units and 52 parking spots.

Excellent news! That place is more than a bit of a disaster right now, especially at street level!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Y'all should join the movement to save Thomson Center:

https://m.facebook.com/preservationf...24&ref=m_notif

I was initially all for this one biting the dust, but I’m starting to tread back from that. The exterior is meh, but the atrium is attractive.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

I was initially all for this one biting the dust, but I’m starting to tread back from that. The exterior is meh, but the atrium is attractive.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the building, but I want the State to sell it. If that means it gets demo'd so be it.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I'm pretty ambivalent about the building, but I want the State to sell it. If that means it gets demo'd so be it.

Same. I understand it is a work of art to some, but great architecture is about marrying form AND function. This building wasn't designed to be very efficient, and it's costing the state instead of contributing like a block at this locale should be.

[r18tdi]

For all of its issues, if we lose the Thompson Center we'll never see a building like it again in Chicago.
Every time I walk through, I pause and take it all in. I'm not optimistic about it sticking around.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

For all of its issues, if we lose the Thompson Center we'll never see a building like it again in Chicago.
Every time I walk through, I pause and take it all in. I'm not optimistic about it sticking around.

See, now we know that the building styles of a particular era have reached "worth preservation" status when people say things like this.

[Rizzo]

It’s an irreplaceable spectacle with its impressive atrium. But it’s aged terribly, difficult to upgrade, difficult to adapt.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Rizzo

It’s an irreplaceable spectacle with its impressive atrium. But it’s aged terribly, difficult to upgrade, difficult to adapt.

All buildings require ongoing investment, whether they are painted in pastel colors or steel and black granite. The neglect that the State has subjected this building to is not a justification for tearing it down.

As for "difficult to upgrade" - I find it hard to imagine that in almost 40 years, building technology has not advanced sufficiently to solve the issues with the Thompson Center... the biggest issue by far IIRC is the HVAC situation. But computers nowadays can do incredibly advanced energy modeling to determine the most cost-effective ways to retrofit the building. I imagine the solution would be a combination of upgrades to the building envelope - films, frits, tinted glass, etc - and re-balancing of the HVAC system to provide the right amounts of heating/cooling to the right areas.

Once you get past the HVAC issue, the other gripes about the building fall flat. Some state employees were complaining about the frayed carpet and dingy furniture! No shit, a bargain-basement carpet and Chinese-made cubicles from the 80s will require replacement after 40 years of heavy use. Those same employees also complained about noise, but acoustic issues are also an easy fix, and also an area where computer modeling can help suggest the right locations to install sound-dampening materials.

Regardless of how you feel about the aesthetics of the building, the Thompson Center is at an age in its life-cycle where all large buildings require major re-investment. Illinois taxpayers would be facing a big bill to rehabilitate this building even if the building had a perfect design with no major issues from the outset... so you can't use "expensive to upgrade" as an argument against this design. The best-case scenario would still have required a 9-figure investment after 40 years for a building of this size.

[BonoboZill4]

And then you're still looking at suboptimal usage of the land there. Fiscally speaking, the logical choice is to sell and tear down. Now, if there was a city on Earth to make the fiscally irresponsible choice on a decision, this would be the one, but even here, I fully expect demolition in the next decade. I for one, look forward to that day.

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

For all of its issues, if we lose the Thompson Center we'll never see a building like it again in Chicago.
Every time I walk through, I pause and take it all in. I'm not optimistic about it sticking around.

We'll never see a lot of designs again. Doesn't mean they're worthy of protection. Gotta prove significance. Rarity and uniqueness =/= preservable

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Y'all should join the movement to save Thomson Center:

https://m.facebook.com/preservationf...24&ref=m_notif

I'm good for it to go, especially if it means we get something with real height/density there.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4

And then you're still looking at suboptimal usage of the land there. Fiscally speaking, the logical choice is to sell and tear down. Now, if there was a city on Earth to make the fiscally irresponsible choice on a decision, this would be the one, but even here, I fully expect demolition in the next decade. I for one, look forward to that day.

This is what they said about Block 37 when they razed it. And look at the festering garbage we got. B37 is probably less dense than what was there before.

How many more times do we need to turn landmarks into giant vacant blocks that sit empty for 20 years and end up being filled with banal trash before we figure out that the "underutilized land" and "needs repairs" arguments are a bag of flaming dogshit?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

This is what they said about Block 37 when they razed it. And look at the festering garbage we got. B37 is probably less dense than what was there before.

How many more times do we need to turn landmarks into giant vacant blocks that sit empty for 20 years and end up being filled with banal trash before we figure out that the "underutilized land" and "needs repairs" arguments are a bag of flaming dogshit?

I don’t think B37 is less dense than what was there before. And really the only thing about it that sucks is the fact that they built a mall right when malls were going out of fashion.

Ultimately I think the mall will fold some day, and when it does that space can be repurposed. I don’t see that much retail making sense there. You can have streetfront retail with perhaps an option for two level stores. The rest can be converted into office space, or, if possible, a boutique luxury hotel. But keep the AMC movie theatre.

[woodrow]

Re: the Thompson Center and it being old or suboptimal or, absurdly, "Rarity and uniqueness =/= preservable," click here - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...l_Building.jpg
or especially here - http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bi...5_250071v.html

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by woodrow

Re: the Thompson Center and it being old or suboptimal or, absurdly, "Rarity and uniqueness =/= preservable," click here - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...l_Building.jpg
or especially here - http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bi...5_250071v.html

Only two examples of hundreds in Chicago. You could build three or four historically great cities with the buildings we've thrown away. This is the only place on Earth you can find sites where there were two or three generations of landmark buildings on a site before the existing landmark was constructed.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I don’t think B37 is less dense than what was there before. And really the only thing about it that sucks is the fact that they built a mall right when malls were going out of fashion.

Ultimately I think the mall will fold some day, and when it does that space can be repurposed. I don’t see that much retail making sense there. You can have streetfront retail with perhaps an option for two level stores. The rest can be converted into office space, or, if possible, a boutique luxury hotel. But keep the AMC movie theatre.

I kind of like Block 37. It would be a good place for some additional boutique museums.

[gebs]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I kind of like Block 37. It would be a good place for some additional boutique museums.

Agreed. The Design Museum was fun, and the pop-up game store did wonders for my collection.