CHICAGO | General Developments

[the urban politician]

^ I'm guessing not.

Why waste the money?

[denizen467]

What's the scaffolding for, then (assuming, as iamhydro's post suggested, this is related to the new building project)? Maybe they are just adding some simple protective covering before the construction?

Also, if any of the architects on this forum were hired by a tenant in this situation -- about to have a large fraction of your windows blocked off forever -- and let's say they had some money to spend -- is there anything you would recommend? Suppose there would only be inches of clearance, so the windows would never be capable of being washed again -- and if there were ever to be a broken glass pane in the future, it might be difficult or impossible to fix because of lack of access from the exterior. So at this stage, do you remove the windows and fill in with something? Just cover up windows from the outside?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by denizen467

So at this stage, do you remove the windows and fill in with something? Just cover up windows from the outside?

You'd want something inexpensive, watertight, and sympathetic to the existing architecture (in case it's ever exposed again).

My personal choice would be CMU infill with ceramic tiles affixed to the outside of the CMU. It's fairly monolithic, so it won't break apart very easily. Even if the tiles do fall off, they can be easily replaced in the future. The CMUs behind will be there for eternity or until they are removed.

Between the mud for the tiles and the CMU would be a water-seal coating.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by spyguy

I wonder what Wrigley plans to do with the former Lakeshore Athletic Club.
---

Latest Esquire plans:



First floor will have retail space for five tenants; exterior design based on the store's identity. Existing second floor will be removed to expand interior ceiling heights. Commercial space on the "new" second and third floors. New granite planters consistent with the ones recently installed in the area.

Overall, I'm happy. The owner was not even obligated to do this much. Even though I'd prefer a more sensitive renovation, they could have just demolished the whole thing and put up a bunch of ugly "contextual brownstones" like in the original plan. This is much better in my opinion.

Wow! I hope this happens. I think it's a great compromise to be honest.

[ardecila]

Drop those weird trees and it's great. Even if you stopped the line of trees midway, it would look much better.

[Rizzo]

I'm sure they'll just end up being some low shrubs or something. It would be interesting to see what kinds of facades go up. I'm in agreement that the facades should all be different. Oak Street benefits from the fine grained character. Still think a boutique hotel tower would have been successful, theater preservation or not.

I'm curious what they'll do with all that extra volume up there though. 3rd floors have been slow to rent over here on Oak...though someone's up on the 4th level of the original barney's building now.

[ardecila]

I believe the idea is to turn the 3rd floor into a cavernous restaurant in the former auditorium spaces. I assume that a large restaurant with event spaces and a large kitchen would be able to utilize most of the space.

[the urban politician]

^ Why are they keeping the Esquire marquee?

[dropdeaded209]

because it's bad-ass!

[BWChicago]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/670...e-theater.html

This sun-times article says theatre users are looking at the upper floors, which doesn't especially make sense, because if you were running a high-end movie theatre or live theatre you wouldn't want to go much smaller than the existing Esquire's square footage. This suggests that the plan isn't as concrete as implied.

[emathias]

I'd still have preferred the hotel proposal. This is an acceptable second choice, and much superior to the prior proposal of Reilly's.

[SamInTheLoop]

I believe site prep was supposed to have begun this week at Jackson and Aberdeen. Opening of the store planned for one year from now....

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

if you were running a high-end movie theatre or live theatre you wouldn't want to go much smaller than the existing Esquire's square footage.

Not for Broadway touring productions or anyone needing a flyloft, but it would be fine for an off-Loop company hoping to bring in the tourist crowd as Lookingglass has done at the Pumping Station. What else could you put up there?

[J_M_Tungsten]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

I believe site prep was supposed to have begun this week at Jackson and Aberdeen. Opening of the store planned for one year from now....

Yep, I go by it everyday. A lot of equipment is being moved around on the site. Also, there has been a traffic light out at Adams and Aberdeen (I believe) almost everyday for the past month (possible electrical work?).

[BWChicago]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Not for Broadway touring productions or anyone needing a flyloft, but it would be fine for an off-Loop company hoping to bring in the tourist crowd as Lookingglass has done at the Pumping Station. What else could you put up there?

What I'm saying is, you'd need most of the space that the Esquire Cinemas used, which would considerably hem in the space to be reconfigured. The Sun-Times seemed to hint towards film or off-Loop performance. For performance you'd minimally need to knock out the theatres across two floors into one big space and devote part of the upper floor to infrastructure. You could possibly stand to lose the lobby, but it would need at least some street presence. That doesn't seem too compatible with the proposal. Really it seems like it would be difficult to do much of anything on the upper floors with cutting up the facade like that.

[sammyg]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

What I'm saying is, you'd need most of the space that the Esquire Cinemas used, which would considerably hem in the space to be reconfigured. The Sun-Times seemed to hint towards film or off-Loop performance. For performance you'd minimally need to knock out the theatres across two floors into one big space and devote part of the upper floor to infrastructure. You could possibly stand to lose the lobby, but it would need at least some street presence. That doesn't seem too compatible with the proposal. Really it seems like it would be difficult to do much of anything on the upper floors with cutting up the facade like that.

I don't think it would be a big theater, more along the lines of something like IO's downstairs, or the Neo-Futurists, where it's a large room, but with roughly the same ceiling height as a standard office, instead of a big open space with fixed seating.

[Via Chicago]

Cabrini Target Approved


http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...n-the-loop.php

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Cabrini Target Approved


http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...n-the-loop.php

And the further march of turning Clybourn into a suburban hell hole auto sewer continues unabated......

too bad Clybourn if it had developed in a more traditionally midrise urban form type of way could have been a great commercial strip instead we have the mork and mindy indy from parking lot to parking lot

[J_M_Tungsten]

^^^ is there a surface lot with that?

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by lawfin

And the further march of turning Clybourn into a suburban hell hole auto sewer continues unabated......

too bad Clybourn if it had developed in a more traditionally midrise urban form type of way could have been a great commercial strip instead we have the mork and mindy indy from parking lot to parking lot

No surface parking. The lot is beneath the store. The extra lot space is being used for an urban farm that got approved simultaneously with the Target. I'm not certain, but I think some of the produce from the urban farm may be sold at the Target...