CHICAGO | General Developments

[honte]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

The fieldhouse is a piece of shit. It leaks like the pecker of an old man with a swollen prostate.

Sorry, I just don't buy that argument. Same one I heard for tearing down 63rd and Halsted for the new KKC / demolishing the old one (which is very nice, and yes, I've taken classes there)... "It leaks, we have to tear it down." Sorry to say it, but all buildings leak some time. The city probably has never done any maintenance. Such a sad, typically-American mentality: disposable architecture.

Sorry to hear they will be ruining Daley Bi anyway. Of course, there's nothing except bureaucracy preventing them from replacing it when they're done. Again, these are preprogrammed responses hoping that the average joe won't question what's going on.

The free fieldhouse thing is an obvious carrot with little sense behind it. They make it sound like they're being sooo generous. Rather, it's what they should do as new neighbors who will be relying on the park's beauty to better their establishment. And I do not see what's the difference between building anew, or just contributing money toward rehabbing the existing fieldhouse.

Spyguy, I do not know how much it would cost to build over the tracks, obviously. I'm sure your question is rhetorical. I think if one were smart about it, it wouldn't be too much more than screwing around with the parking lot and below-grade building, etc. But really, it's a huge public benefit to cover the tracks / connect Grant Park - I would support TIF or whatever other funds were being considered to make that happen.

If you guys don't mind, let me ask a question: Why are you so gung-ho about this proposal? BVic, you sound like you're working for the developer. Are you sure this is the ideal place for this thing? Presumably, K+S would still get the job, no matter where the building goes, so I'm not worried about a loss of good design. Are you just annoyed because my opinion happens to coincide with some of the NIMBY jerks?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by honte

Sorry, I just don't buy that argument. Same one I heard for tearing down 63rd and Halsted for the new KKC / demolishing the old one (which is very nice, and yes, I've taken classes there)... "It leaks, we have to tear it down." Sorry to say it, but all buildings leak some time. The city probably has never done any maintenance. Such a sad, typically-American mentality: disposable architecture.

Sorry to hear they will be ruining Daley Bi anyway. Of course, there's nothing except bureaucracy preventing them from replacing it when they're done. Again, these are preprogrammed responses hoping that the average joe won't question what's going on.

The free fieldhouse thing is an obvious carrot with little sense behind it. They make it sound like they're being sooo generous. Rather, it's what they should do as new neighbors who will be relying on the park's beauty to better their establishment. And I do not see what's the difference between building anew, or just contributing money toward rehabbing the existing fieldhouse.

Spyguy, I do not know how much it would cost to build over the tracks, obviously. I'm sure your question is rhetorical. I think if one were smart about it, it wouldn't be too much more than screwing around with the parking lot and below-grade building, etc. But really, it's a huge public benefit to cover the tracks / connect Grant Park - I would support TIF or whatever other funds were being considered to make that happen.

If you guys don't mind, let me ask a question: Why are you so gung-ho about this proposal? BVic, you sound like you're working for the developer. Are you sure this is the ideal place for this thing? Presumably, K+S would still get the job, no matter where the building goes, so I'm not worried about a loss of good design. Are you just annoyed because my opinion happens to coincide with some of the NIMBY jerks?

What's nice or special about this fieldhouse? Throw some mildly tented glass and black mullions on something, and all of a sudden it's a modern beauty?! I don't think so. Not in this case.

I've never met the developers.

I think people are so "gune-ho" as you put it is because most of us are just sick and tired of residents trying to claim something that's "PUBLIC" as their own. It's everyones and they aren't the only ones who have a say. Their argument isn't about the architecture, it's about "800,000 kids infiltrating THEIR park", playing on THEIR CHILDREN'S" playground equipment. Their arguments are for selfish reasons, not for public benifit.

They said put it somewhere else so we don't have to deal with the kids. They were bitching that it would take away park land, but they certainly didn't have a problem saying "put it on the museum campus or another park" taking away from parkland somewhere else.

If this museum is to be build within a park, this is the most sensitive and centrally located place.

[ardecila]

I agree that this is the best spot within Grant Park to build the museum. It replaces an existing structure, and since it occupies a good number of parking spaces, it will reduce the traffic going into the Bicentennial garage. All traffic will use Lower Randolph anyway, keeping Upper Randolph delightfully sterile and devoid of traffic. It's the only 4-lane street in Chicago that I can jaywalk at any time of the day without worrying about oncoming cars.

If anything, the Metra tracks south of Adams ought to be covered and landscaped. Steely Dan made the point in another thread that Grant Park is too stiffly formal to be good for anything but photographs. We have the opportunity to add new land to the western segments of Grant Park and turn it into a park that people can enjoy. I was walking around in the South Loop a few months ago with some chicken for lunch, and to be quite honest, I had a hard time finding a nice bench in Grant Park to eat it on.

[alex1]

I agree that any new structure would probably be cost prohibitive to build above the tracks. but if it can be done, why not? it's a logical solution to a problem.

regarding the Daley Bicentennial placement debate, I really don't get it. Then again, there's plenty of dead space throughout Grant Park and the Daley bicentennial area is sort of "cute". Then again, a children's museum would be an upgrade to a building that isn't distinguished in many ways/forms.

or maybe a new Children's Museum is justification for the Ghery Bridge. It can become a bridge to "somewhere" vs. the bridge that takes you across the street only to have people migrate back to the park via sidewalk en masse.

[Via Chicago]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...i-business-hed
ICE opens new front in battle for CBOT
Offers for options rights sweetens bid

By Robert Manor, Tribune staff reporter: Bloomberg News contributed to this report
Published May 31, 2007

In an effort to outflank the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's bid for the Chicago Board of Trade, the IntercontinentalExchange Inc. has offered $665 million to settle a dispute between CBOT and the Chicago Board Options Exchange.

Although ICE already is offering substantially more money than the Merc to full CBOT shareholders, the Atlanta-based exchange on Wednesday offered $500,000 each to CBOT traders in exchange for their exercise rights to the options exchange. Half the money for the payments would come from ICE, half from the options exchange.

Chicago Board of Trade members spun off the options exchange in the 1970s, and full members retained the right to trade on the exchange without having to buy separate memberships. Traders also argue they have an ownership interest in the options exchange.

A long-simmering dispute over the right to that interest, now in the courts and before federal regulators, is complicating the option exchange's efforts to convert into a publicly held company, with CBOE claiming that the Merc's acquisition would nullify the rights. The dispute also casts uncertainty on the value of the rights for CBOT members.

On Wednesday, ICE and the options exchange said the offer would clear up those problems. If accepted by CBOT, it also could help sink Merc's efforts to merge with its longtime Chicago competitor, analysts said.

"With this offer on the table, Chicago Mercantile Exchange's offer is substantially inferior," said Nick Neubauer, a former CBOT chairman and current shareholder. "CME will have to do something to match it, otherwise IntercontinentalExchange has moved considerably farther to acquiring the Board of Trade."

"This puts IntercontinentalExchange in the catbird seat," said Larry Tabb, CEO of the Westborough, Mass.-based consultant Tabb Group. "It's a huge achievement. It's going to be more challenging for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange."

ICE has offered $11 billion for the CBOT Holdings Inc, compared with a $9.5 billion offer from the Merc. The CBOT's board of directors has endorsed the Merc's offer. But on Wednesday, the exchange was not rejecting ICE's proposal.

"The CBOT has read today's press release with interest, but we have not had any communication from ICE or CBOE on this announcement," said Maria Gemskie, a spokeswoman for the CBOT. "We look forward to seeing the details of this announcement in order to make a measured evaluation."

The offer comes at a critical time. ICE Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Sprecher is trying to convince CBOT shareholders to reject the offer from their Chicago rival. Shareholders of CBOT vote on the Merc proposal in July. ICE plans to meet today with CBOT members, who hold a vast block of shares in the exchange, to pitch its offer.

A solution to the dispute would free the CBOE to go public, said Jake Morowitz, a Board of Trade member for 33 years and head of Chicago-based USA Trading. CBOE, which trades options on individual equities, is planning a share sale and has filed with regulators to convert to a for-profit company.

"As long as it's in court, they can't go public," he said.

The offer by ICE and the CBOE gives several choices to CBOT traders in exchange for their financial interest in the options exchange. Traders simply could accept $500,000 in cash. Or they could accept $250,000 in cash and the right to $250,000 stock in the merged CBOT and ICE, or stock in the options exchange when it goes public.

The offer comes on top of a stock-for-stock offer by ICE that as of Wednesday valued CBOT at $211.17 a share. The Merc offer, in comparison, valued the CBOT stock at just $184.75 a share.

Neubauer and Morowitz said Sprecher was smart to try to resolve the exercise right issue.

"He listens and understands what the problems are," Morowitz said.

The Merc, meanwhile, sought to reassure CBOT traders.

"The Chicago Mercantile Exchange and CBOT are prepared to defend the value of CBOE trading rights to the benefit of CBOT members," said Allan Schoenberg, CME director of corporate communications.

Also on Wednesday, ICE reiterated that, if its offer is accepted, it would adopt the name of the Chicago Board of Trade, a brand known worldwide, would have headquarters in Chicago and move a substantial number of employees to the city.

One analyst said the extra money and resolution of the dispute would appeal to some CBOT traders. "It marginally strengthens ICE's argument specifically with the board of trade members," said Patrick O'Shaughnessy, equity analyst with Morningstar.

"I am not sure it strengthens ICE's case with the CBOT board of directors," he said.

Those directors say they favor the Merc merger because it presents less risk of integration, will cut costs and because the two exchanges already share back-office services.

Mark Wolfinger, a former options trader who closely follows the exchanges, said he believes traders will probably take the deal that pays the best.

"I think most people are motivated by money," Wolfinger said. "That doesn't make them selfish or mean."

"A half-million dollars is nothing to sneeze at," he said. ---------- rmanor@tribune.com


Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

[Tom In Chicago]

I HATE THESE FUCKTARD ASSHOLES!

Shawn. . . that kind of out-burst will likely kill your political career before it gets started. . . seriously though, I have the same complaints. . . but you can't reason with them because they don't show up to these things to do anything but complain. . .

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

What's nice or special about this fieldhouse? Throw some mildly tented glass and black mullions on something, and all of a sudden it's a modern beauty?! I don't think so. Not in this case.

I've never met the developers.

I think people are so "gune-ho" as you put it is because most of us are just sick and tired of residents trying to claim something that's "PUBLIC" as their own. It's everyones and they aren't the only ones who have a say. Their argument isn't about the architecture, it's about "800,000 kids infiltrating THEIR park", playing on THEIR CHILDREN'S" playground equipment. Their arguments are for selfish reasons, not for public benifit.

They said put it somewhere else so we don't have to deal with the kids. They were bitching that it would take away park land, but they certainly didn't have a problem saying "put it on the museum campus or another park" taking away from parkland somewhere else.

If this museum is to be build within a park, this is the most sensitive and centrally located place.

Yeah ^ these people are certifiable - acting like this corner of Grant Park is intended primarily for their use!! There is an article on the meeting the other night in Crains online today...one clown who runs some New Eastside website basically states that the area is becoming too developed, and the Children's Museum in this location would just encourage more development!! Oh, the horror!! What a jackass!! These morons need to be shut down asap!! I shutter to think what will happen when Magellan needs a residential unit boost at Lakeshore East.......the city needs to educate these Cretans, pronto!!

[SamInTheLoop]

I thought those Prairie Ave. Douchebags were quite safe in their position as the most congenitally insufferable NIMBYs in the city - these E. Randolph closet-exurbanites give them a run for their money....

[Mr Roboto]

^Yeah, its sickening to think that these people are trying to dictate discussions over public spaces, like they own it. And this coming from people who only moved in, what, 1-5 years ago? Last week? Where do they get the sense of entitlement? The PDNA is pretty tough to beat, but I think these guys take the title.

[honte]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

What's nice or special about this fieldhouse? Throw some mildly tented glass and black mullions on something, and all of a sudden it's a modern beauty?! I don't think so. Not in this case.

I've never met the developers.

I think people are so "gune-ho" as you put it is because most of us are just sick and tired of residents trying to claim something that's "PUBLIC" as their own. It's everyones and they aren't the only ones who have a say. Their argument isn't about the architecture, it's about "800,000 kids infiltrating THEIR park", playing on THEIR CHILDREN'S" playground equipment. Their arguments are for selfish reasons, not for public benifit.

They said put it somewhere else so we don't have to deal with the kids. They were bitching that it would take away park land, but they certainly didn't have a problem saying "put it on the museum campus or another park" taking away from parkland somewhere else.

If this museum is to be build within a park, this is the most sensitive and centrally located place.

I agree 100% with the anti-NIMBY sentiment, but I don't think that's reason to jump behind this project simply to fight their idiocy. But I accept your explanation.

Concerning the architectural merit of the plaza and fieldhouse design, it's about the overall master planning and minimalist aesthetic, not about the materials or form of the building itself. If you take a moment to think about it, there are almost no formal, Modernist park designs in the city. Alas, minimalist architecture (which Chicago helped give to the world) is rarely appreciated here any longer.

In 30 years, people will be wondering how we destroyed so much of our Modernism, just like the Prairie architecture and Chicago School that most people now cherish.

[spyguy]

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/busine...11BIZ3.article

Builder eyes land near Midway Airport for condos

May 31, 2007
By David Roeder and Fran Spielman

A mostly open five-acre tract just a couple of blocks outside the walls of Midway Airport would become a construction site for 212 homes under a zoning request filed with the city of Chicago.

Developer Glenn Azuma heads a partnership that is asking permission to build condominiums in three- and four-story buildings. The property runs from 55th to 59th streets about two blocks west of Central Avenue, which marks Midway's western boundary.

Part of the property is former right-of-way of the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad. An active rail line of the Belt Railway Co. of Chicago runs along the site.

Azuma said the new homes will appeal to seniors who want to stay in the neighborhood but give up their single-family homes. He said the complex also would serve as a sound buffer between existing homes and the railroad.

Sound from the airport is often a more pressing concern, but Azuma and Ald. Michael Zalewski (23rd), who represents the area, said that shouldn't be a deterrent to new residents. The project is not under one of the airport's flight paths.

Zalewski said residents of the Garfield Ridge and Clearing areas have learned to manage Midway noise with the help of soundproofing and quieter aircraft. He said he will require adequate soundproofing in Azuma's development.

"I'm in favor of it as long as the city signs off on all the required permits," he said.

The plan call for 12 townhouses, with the rest grouped in condo buildings. The developer also is proposing 285 parking spaces, more than the one-per-unit rule that is standard.

Azuma has invested in shopping plazas and small-scale housing developments in the Chicago area.

His zoning application will be reviewed by the city's planning department, which can recommend approval to the city council.

[wrab]

^^^ You know that Chicago must be in the midst of one of her grand transformations when even the area around Midway is getting new development.

[nomarandlee]

I gotta go with Honte on this one. No so much because of deep reverance for the FieldHouse and Plaza which I find a somewhat overesimated by some but because I like the idea of covering the tracks or even putting it on the south end somewhere to draw people the sothern end of the park.

I am not too concerned with building another building in the park especially if they would cover some of the tracks. If someone can show me plans or renders or serious discussions of covering the tracks otherwise then show me. Putting one more well designed cultural building lining Michigan Ave. and covering the tracks would be a positive.

If the choice is between the current idea and the previous then its a bit more of a toss.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

I HATE THESE FUCKTARD ASSHOLES! These complainers all act as if "The New Eastside" is some gated subdivison in Naperville. I swear I heard "we want our quiet bedroom community and our neighborhood park" at least 50 times this evening. I reminded all of them that thier community was originally APPROVED to be twice as dense, so they should not be complaining.

You told me about it, the part that astounds me the most was how there was this guy from 400 East Randolph talking about how he likes his "bedroom community". A BEDROOM COMMUNITY?! WTF?!?! This guy lives in the fucking LOOP! Thats still the largest residential building in the entire city I believe. I mean I would like to ask this guy "what is not a bedroom community to you?" A bedroom community is usually a suburb or city neighborhood that is primarily residential in character without significant commercial usage. A residential building does not count as a bedroom community, if it did then Marina City is a bedroom community, Presidential Towers, hell the Hancock from the 45th to 92nd floors is a bedroom community. If these people live in a bedroom community then who doesnt live in one? I suppose unless you are literally squatting in an office building it qualifies as a "bedroom community"

Oh and all this crap about Grant Park being their "community park" is also absurd, just because you live next to it doesnt make it "MINE" unless you are so entrenched into the exurban gated subdivision mentality to comprehend the notion that something right next to where you live is public land. I mean what next, I suppose I can say that the Magnificent Mile is "MY COMMUNITY SHOPPING DISTRICT", Oak Street Beach is "MY COMMUNITY BEACH!, the Signature lounge is "MY COMMUNITY PUB DAMNIT!"

Also this bullshit about people being hyper sensitive about people "being from the neighborhood" in order to attend these meeting and speak. People treat ward boundaries as if it is the fucking Berlin Wall or something, fuck that if I as a resident of the 42nd Ward as they are but live way out in the Hancock building would probably piss them off. Its as if these people are literally only concerned with their little corner of the universe consisting of a few square blocks and anyone like us that is concerned with something outside of our own little pods of existence no matter how public and visitied it is is viewed as the enemy, an elitest that has no business there. I am a resident of the city of Chicago, the downtown area and the 42nd Ward, it matters not if I dont have a condo facing Grant Park because it is a place that is visited by millions of city residents, suburbanities and tourists alike, this is about the interests of the entire city and not theirs. I give people who live out in the neighborhoods alot more leway but when you live downtown you must learn to give up some notions of private space and "community this and that", downtown is communal by its very nature if you dont understand that or like it then get the hell out and dont let the door hit your ass on the way out.

I suppose to some people the very notion of "residential space" whether it be single family homes or a highrise condo building is inherently supposed to be the same everywhere just like in Naperville, it must be a quiet place with privacy from outsiders and there must be plentifull parking and be easy to drive everywhere. There is no "urban residential" and "suburban residential" to them, its just "residential" which to us means auto-centric suburban style and a 50 story highrise is meant to be nothing but the suburban ideal on a vertical scale, you dont have to adapt to your environment at all in fact its the city that must adapt to your borg collective notions of existence.

[simcityaustin]

It was nice seeing the Chicago skyline during the NBC Nightly News. 340 OTP really livens things up, it's amazing. The skyline will be awesome in a couple years.

[BorisMolotov]

You told me about it, the part that astounds me the most was how there was this guy from 400 East Randolph talking about how he likes his "bedroom community". A BEDROOM COMMUNITY?! WTF?!?! This guy lives in the fucking LOOP! Thats still the largest residential building in the entire city I believe. I mean I would like to ask this guy "what is not a bedroom community to you?" A bedroom community is usually a suburb or city neighborhood that is primarily residential in character without significant commercial usage. A residential building does not count as a bedroom community, if it did then Marina City is a bedroom community, Presidential Towers, hell the Hancock from the 45th to 92nd floors is a bedroom community. If these people live in a bedroom community then who doesnt live in one? I suppose unless you are literally squatting in an office building it qualifies as a "bedroom community"

Oh and all this crap about Grant Park being their "community park" is also absurd, just because you live next to it doesnt make it "MINE" unless you are so entrenched into the exurban gated subdivision mentality to comprehend the notion that something right next to where you live is public land. I mean what next, I suppose I can say that the Magnificent Mile is "MY COMMUNITY SHOPPING DISTRICT", Oak Street Beach is "MY COMMUNITY BEACH!, the Signature lounge is "MY COMMUNITY PUB DAMNIT!"

Also this bullshit about people being hyper sensitive about people "being from the neighborhood" in order to attend these meeting and speak. People treat ward boundaries as if it is the fucking Berlin Wall or something, fuck that if I as a resident of the 42nd Ward as they are but live way out in the Hancock building would probably piss them off. Its as if these people are literally only concerned with their little corner of the universe consisting of a few square blocks and anyone like us that is concerned with something outside of our own little pods of existence no matter how public and visitied it is is viewed as the enemy, an elitest that has no business there. I am a resident of the city of Chicago, the downtown area and the 42nd Ward, it matters not if I dont have a condo facing Grant Park because it is a place that is visited by millions of city residents, suburbanities and tourists alike, this is about the interests of the entire city and not theirs. I give people who live out in the neighborhoods alot more leway but when you live downtown you must learn to give up some notions of private space and "community this and that", downtown is communal by its very nature if you dont understand that or like it then get the hell out and dont let the door hit your ass on the way out.

I suppose to some people the very notion of "residential space" whether it be single family homes or a highrise condo building is inherently supposed to be the same everywhere just like in Naperville, it must be a quiet place with privacy from outsiders and there must be plentifull parking and be easy to drive everywhere. There is no "urban residential" and "suburban residential" to them, its just "residential" which to us means auto-centric suburban style and a 50 story highrise is meant to be nothing but the suburban ideal on a vertical scale, you dont have to adapt to your environment at all in fact its the city that must adapt to your borg collective notions of existence.

I agree! Now at their next meeting, run and resay what you just said to their faces.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by wrabbit

^^^ You know that Chicago must be in the midst of one of her grand transformations when even the area around Midway is getting new development.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Lukecuj

And people wonder how transportation assets like airports get land locked. Very short sighted because I believe the city should be actively buying land around Midway as it becomes available for possible capacity increases 10 to 20 years from now.

I thought the same thing. I thought there was a long term plan to expand MDW to add additonal runnways. Perhaps these developers are looking for an overmarket bid for their developments.

Greed=ICE+COBT= We will give every member 500 K to sell your soal.

[Eventually...Chicago]

I've never started a thread or anything but i was wondering if this was possible...
It seems like i always hear about public meetings and hearings the day after they happen, is it possible to create a calendar type thread where people can post dates and times of upcoming public meetings so that way we can try to populate them with at least one or two ANT's (Anti-Nimby Team)?

I'll post this in the 12+ story thread to see if anyone has any ideas.

[BorisMolotov]

Anti-Nimby Teams... ANTs, consisting of
FANs ... Forumers Against NIMBYS (i thought of that myself)
I like it...