CHICAGO | General Developments

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by bnk

Thanks for the link but the title makes me sick to my stomach....

Lost Chicago....

What a loss it would be.... "death by a thousand cuts". I mean a mansion built in the late 19th century is something that can be thrown in the trashbin.. because it is not on the westside or southside?

No care about the buildings history or who lived there or who built it... Astounding.

Thanks for the stand up Via Chicago. Others had and others will. I hope that those at prefer keeping these buildings are not caste as NIMBYs .....

I'd like to point out I've witnessed 2 of these home demolitions in the gold coast and they've never been replaced. They remain empty lots.

[the urban politician]

^ It's certainly a loss, don't think that I don't feel the same way.

My point is, unlike a demolition of a graystone in W Garfield Park, there is 500 times more likely chance that something of decent quality will eventually go up to replace it. Property values and taxes are way too high in the Gold Coast to just sit on a vacant lot forever..

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It's certainly a loss, don't think that I don't feel the same way.

My point is, unlike a demolition of a graystone in W Garfield Park, there is 500 times more likely chance that something of decent quality will eventually go up to replace it. Property values and taxes are way too high in the Gold Coast to just sit on a vacant lot forever..

The fact that something may or may not be built in its place is beside the point. Is the building as it currently exists not worthy of saving in its own right?

And might I remind you that we lost the CME building a decade ago in the heart of the Loop, a landmark if there ever was one, and yet here we sit today with a vacant eyesore. How many transgressions have we had in this city where we were "supposed" to get something for selling our souls, and ended with a bag of shit. Garrick Theatre being replaced by a parking garage? Block 37 debacle? One could go on all day. Nothing is ever a guarantee, and we shouldnt treat our crown jewels with such a blase attitude. These things are not replaceable, and they were passed down to us with the understanding that we would be good stewards to them. We often don't realize what we've got until its gone.

Im not the type to say anything old is worth saving, but if there is a type of building for the preservation community to rally around, this is most certainly one of them. What amazes me is I dont recall this building making any of the "most threatened" top 10 lists, unless I missed someting.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It's certainly a loss, don't think that I don't feel the same way.

My point is, unlike a demolition of a graystone in W Garfield Park, there is 500 times more likely chance that something of decent quality will eventually go up to replace it. Property values and taxes are way too high in the Gold Coast to just sit on a vacant lot forever..

It's unlikely you'll see anything of height go up in the Gold Coast unless it's on a parking lot. There's probably room for 2 more towers. All that's left is a bunch of lowrise buildings, 75% of which are older architecture worth something. The residents of the area would never allow another tower. That said, the area is left with knocking down older buildings and constructing something the same size.

I've been a bit more forgiving with the commercial structures, but the residential buildings define the neighborhood.

As I've said before, Chicago can be anyone, but no one can be Chicago. Why should we erase our downtown history, especially when more intensive use of the land is not an option?

[ardecila]

Andersonville Parklet, Clark at Farragut



I assume the neighborhood groups funding the construction will also pay for the parking at an hourly rate.

[Rizzo]

The trib had an article about electronic signs on Michigan Ave

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,4902383.story

I think NIMBYism is permissible in this case in that the neighborhood is an incredible mix of residential and commercial. My apartment glows bright as day because of neon and department store lights, but it's not a nuisance because the lighting is static. However, electronic signage is a broad spectrum of designs. These could be dynamic LED jumbo-trons that could create all sorts of flashing imagery and could potentially be disruptive.

That said, cleverly placed and well designed these may benefit the neighborhood. On the other hand they could be massively tacky. And Times square meets Michigan Blvd could potentially do more harm than good.

I see the signage benefiting the RN area more where condos sit high atop podiums washed in darkness where at street level there's electronic clutter.

[ChiTownCity]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I'm not too worried about the Gold Coast losses, mostly because at least in areas like that, at least you know that they will be replaced.

Not the same as when there is a demolition on the south or west sides

^ Don't worry there's plenty of demolition over there too:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/violenc...trategies.html

The city’s Department of Buildings will spend $4 million to board up, secure or demolish 200 vacant buildings in five police districts: Englewood, Harrison, Grand Crossing, Chicago Lawn and Ogden.

....

[le_brew]

Originally Posted by Hayward

These could be dynamic LED jumbo-trons that could create all sorts of flashing imagery and could potentially be disruptive.

That said, cleverly placed and well designed these may benefit the neighborhood. On the other hand they could be massively tacky. And Times square meets Michigan Blvd could potentially do more harm than good.

Block 37 was originally envisioned to have an abundance of these displays and who knows what happened? This would be more appropriate for Block37than Mich Ave. . .lord knows it couldn't hurt State Street.

[Mr Downtown]

You folks who have suddenly become preservation advocates over 1337 N. Dearborn—are you actually suggesting the immediate landmark designation of all "orange"-rated properties? What if that someday stood in the way of one of your beloved supertalls? How many of you were as passionate about Jewelers Row in the fight over Legacy, or about the YWCA in the fight over 830 S. Michigan? I remember some of you taunting me that if we never tore anything down, Chicago would still be a collection of log cabins.

To be legally defensible, landmarking has to decide ahead of time which structures are so valuable to the culture that they must be maintained even though that affects property rights and future development. You cannot wait and say "we like the new building better than the old; tear it down." And you certainly cannot wait and say "the new proposal is ugly; the old building just became incredibly significant to us."

[773shadow08]

Originally Posted by Hayward

The trib had an article about electronic signs on Michigan Ave

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,4902383.story

I think NIMBYism is permissible in this case in that the neighborhood is an incredible mix of residential and commercial. My apartment glows bright as day because of neon and department store lights, but it's not a nuisance because the lighting is static. However, electronic signage is a broad spectrum of designs. These could be dynamic LED jumbo-trons that could create all sorts of flashing imagery and could potentially be disruptive.

That said, cleverly placed and well designed these may benefit the neighborhood. On the other hand they could be massively tacky. And Times square meets Michigan Blvd could potentially do more harm than good.

I see the signage benefiting the RN area more where condos sit high atop podiums washed in darkness where at street level there's electronic clutter.

About damn time, this city needs a little change. This city needs some lights at night. After sunset downtown chicago, the city of a metro-population of 9 million, suddenly becomes a ghost town partly because the downtown area becomes dark and looks like there is no life. NIMBY'S oppose everything because there are afraid of change and are too complacent with how things are. LED's throughout the city won't be that bad, have you guys seen the movie I-Robot?

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

You folks who have suddenly become preservation advocates over 1337 N. Dearborn—are you actually suggesting the immediate landmark designation of all "orange"-rated properties? What if that someday stood in the way of one of your beloved supertalls? How many of you were as passionate about Jewelers Row in the fight over Legacy, or about the YWCA in the fight over 830 S. Michigan? I remember some of you taunting me that if we never tore anything down, Chicago would still be a collection of log cabins.

To be legally defensible, landmarking has to decide ahead of time which structures are so valuable to the culture that they must be maintained even though that affects property rights and future development. You cannot wait and say "we like the new building better than the old; tear it down." And you certainly cannot wait and say "the new proposal is ugly; the old building just became incredibly significant to us."

I don't recall that, direct us to these posts.

[ChiTownCity]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

You folks who have suddenly become preservation advocates over 1337 N. Dearborn—are you actually suggesting the immediate landmark designation of all "orange"-rated properties? What if that someday stood in the way of one of your beloved supertalls? How many of you were as passionate about Jewelers Row in the fight over Legacy, or about the YWCA in the fight over 830 S. Michigan? I remember some of you taunting me that if we never tore anything down, Chicago would still be a collection of log cabins.

To be legally defensible, landmarking has to decide ahead of time which structures are so valuable to the culture that they must be maintained even though that affects property rights and future development. You cannot wait and say "we like the new building better than the old; tear it down." And you certainly cannot wait and say "the new proposal is ugly; the old building just became incredibly significant to us."

If it were a regular grey-stone, I wouldn't mind as much, but it's not. I can't think of anywhere else that has that style of building in this city....

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

You folks who have suddenly become preservation advocates over 1337 N. Dearborn—are you actually suggesting the immediate landmark designation of all "orange"-rated properties? What if that someday stood in the way of one of your beloved supertalls? How many of you were as passionate about Jewelers Row in the fight over Legacy, or about the YWCA in the fight over 830 S. Michigan? I remember some of you taunting me that if we never tore anything down, Chicago would still be a collection of log cabins.

I dont know who this is directed at, but I was most definitely against all the facade-ectomies that went down in the past decade.

[Kippis]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

You folks who have suddenly become preservation advocates over 1337 N. Dearborn—are you actually suggesting the immediate landmark designation of all "orange"-rated properties? What if that someday stood in the way of one of your beloved supertalls? How many of you were as passionate about Jewelers Row in the fight over Legacy, or about the YWCA in the fight over 830 S. Michigan? I remember some of you taunting me that if we never tore anything down, Chicago would still be a collection of log cabins.

You've opened the floodgates, Mr. D.

And through every historically significant building that Chicago has lost over the past several decades, there are many more buildings over this rowhouse that come to my mind as being more significant that have come down (and sadly sit as vacant lots today); don't get me wrong, I do like this home very much. And I also don't mind progress -- but I do agree in the respect that if you're going to tear something down in a prominent location such as this one, especially if it's a building that is still very salvageable (again, just like this one), you better make damn well sure you put something tasteful and relevant in its place.

Although to the modern rich and snobbish, "tasteful and relevant" should roughly translate to "badly-proportioned schlock P.O.S. beaux-art lookalike visual eyesore".

[Rizzo]

Well, I prefer not to speak of new construction in its place. I'm not convinced yet. As I've mentioned, I can see out my window 3 parcels that had these types of rowhouses, and they remain vacant land or parking.

[the urban politician]

'The Shops and Lofts at 47th' just signed Walmart as its anchor tenant, according to today's Crains.

I think this is huge news, and may very likely seal the deal in getting this project to move forward.

In a year of soaring murder rates, this is GREAT news for the south side...

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by 773shadow08

About damn time, this city needs a little change. This city needs some lights at night. After sunset downtown chicago, the city of a metro-population of 9 million, suddenly becomes a ghost town partly because the downtown area becomes dark and looks like there is no life. NIMBY'S oppose everything because there are afraid of change and are too complacent with how things are. LED's throughout the city won't be that bad, have you guys seen the movie I-Robot?

So there wasn't much information provided the other day, but I mentioned in my previous post I was concerned the lights would have changing dynamic images that would possibly be a nuissance to residents at night.

I also pointed out that I currently have electronic signage outside my apartment that shines in casting various colors, but the electronic signage is static, and it is not a bother to me all...simply because it's a constant glow and not flashing.

The ordinance will allow signage on the malls, but the signage:
- Will not be allowed to flash
- Will not be able to stream / play video
- Will require dimmers to soften the brightness during times of day.

That said, Michigan Avenue get's a bit of an upgrade but avoids tackiness. As of a resident of the Mag Mile, I'm in favor of the new ordinance.

[FlashingLights]

I don't see why we don't turn theatre district + north state street near block 37 into times square and not michigan avenue. It just makes more sense for the loop to be full of LED signs. Michigan avenue has a more high end type of feel especially when you get more towards oak street.

I really don't want michigan avenue lit up.

[ChiPhi]

I think that block 37 could definitely do with more screens, as the original design had. But I'm not sure static screens would "muck up" the high end feel of Michigan Ave. Oak Street certainly shouldn't have giant TV screens, but if someone puts giant screens to cover the blank, horrid walls of Water Tower Place, I wouldn't complain. Preservation on Michigan Ave has already failed. The last glimmers of it died with the facadectomy of the Farwell. Now its just a touristy beige strip of pomo. I see no problem with adding some lively modernity to the place. State Street, on the other hand, still has some pretty nice historic buildings to be maintained.

[ChiPhi]

Sorry for the horrid quality, I took it with my phone from the BP Bridge.