CHICAGO | General Developments

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by spyguy

One 30 story tower seems awfully small for such a large site. If this isn't a very tall building or there aren't multiple towers on this site, I don't see why the corner building has to go (see honte's post above).

When I said 30 story building, I made a conservative estimate of the size of the building that they would probably put right on the corner, there would probably be 1 or 2 other towers linked by low or midrise buildings with some sort of open space like a plaza or small quad in the middle or somewhere else in the plan, maybe near the end of the stub that Pearson makes there. Loyola has plans to turn that segment of Pearson and the one between State and Wabash into a pedestrian mall anyhow. It would be a nice terminus for that.

Originally Posted by honte

I don't see why your vision for this area, which is fine, and the existing building(s) are contradictory. Does an entrance absolutely have to be at a corner? Of course not. Does the nice vintage building have something to say to students that prevents them from being sold on mass transit and urban living? I think your approach is too cut-and-dry.

Frankly, I think a 30 story building on a giant lot is an underutilization of the space - as well as the surrounding air and light at that intersection. As always, I'd rather see a thin 60 story building alongside a preserved historic one - and a solution like this would be perfectly feasible on this site.

I suspect that the desire to tear down the corner building has more to do with some boneheaded "branding" opportunity than any practical issue with a future development.

^^^ It has a lot less to do with "branding" and a lot more to do with the fact that leaving the building there and putting an akward dent in an othewise square lot would add a ton of costs that really aren't necessary in the eyes of the university. Also, what if they want to put a tower on each corner of the lot (one at Chicago/State, Pearson/State, and one on Chicago next to the YMCA) and have a quad or plaza in the middle surrounded by Midrise classroom and campus buildings? Preserving that building would make that much more expensive.

Yes, if Loyola had balls they could do something sweet like cantalever a sweet 60 story glass crystal over that building and make themselves look awesome, but unfortunately Loyola is very tame in their tastes. I've been trying to convince them that building a radical iconic building would be well worth the money because of the attention it would give them. I also told them to look at University of Chicago and Northwestern and other high caliber Universities the ranks of which LUC strives to someday join and see the groundbreaking and radical designs that grace their campus'. I argue that getting a renowned building would be a great way of saying "we've arrived" as a university, but I just don't think they are ready to spend money on that kind of thing yet.

[spyguy]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.....html#comments

Restoring the "God Box": Harboe discusses the project today at CAF
Blair Kamin

The official name is the Robert F. Carr Memorial Chapel of St. Savior, but architecture buffs know it as the "God Box." The building in question is at 3201 S. State St. at the Illinois Institute of Technology. It's Mies van der Rohe's only building designed specifically for religious services. And it has always been, well, very controversial. Postmodernists lambasted it for having all the spiritual presence of a factory.

On Wednesday, January 21, Gunny Harboe, principal at Harboe Architects, will speak about the chapel's planned restoration at the Chicago Architecture Foundation, 224 S. Michigan Ave. His 12:15 p.m. talk is free and open to the public.

[Nowhereman1280]

I just got word from a friend that works at the Sears Sky Deck that they are knocking out the windows on the west side of the deck and pushing them out 4 feet over Wacker Drive. The extension from the building will basically be a glass cube, even the floor will be glass.

These renovations are going to happen ASAP, as in NOW.

[pyropius]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

MORE FOR RENTERS: BJB Partners LLC, a major property owner in Lincoln Park and Lake View, has asked the city for permission to expand a building at 554 W. Diversey, the northeast corner of Diversey and Broadway. That's where a one-story retail structure is in front of a 20-story apartment building.

BJB wants to replace the low-rise with an eight-story building with 57 apartments. Sean Barry, partner at BJB, said the new configuration would allow an expansion of an existing Walgreens while also adding to a parking garage. Plans call for the spaces to increase to 315 from 191.

If this is profitable now then maybe there's hope for the stripmall crapfest on Clark between Wellington and Halsted.

[spyguy]

^What the hell? How did such a major alteration go unnoticed until now? I wonder how it will affect the look of Sears from certain angles.

[Jibba]

^I was literally about to type exactly "What the hell?" to that as well. I presume they are trying to recreate a looking-down-from-above experience a la CN Tower. Interesting, but sounds compromising to the looks of the building.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I doubt it will seriously alter the looks of the building, its only one floor and only 4 feet out from the side. Remember, this is going to 1350' off the ground, its going to be very hard to see a glass enclosure from the ground.

[honte]

^ No, this sucks. Sorry, that's all I have patience for typing at the moment.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ I doubt it will seriously alter the looks of the building, its only one floor and only 4 feet out from the side. Remember, this is going to 1350' off the ground, its going to be very hard to see a glass enclosure from the ground.

I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it. This doesn't sound good.

[the urban politician]

Image is in the article (I still don't know how to cut and paste images in an iMac)

1/21/2009 10:00:00 PM
Owners seek to draw renters to refurbished building

By KATE GARDINER
Medill News Service

A former appliance warehouse built in 1924 has been declared the city's first landmark of 2009.

The owners of the Lindmann and Hoverson Company Showroom and Warehouse, located at 2620 W. Washington in East Garfield Park, applied to the Commission on Chicago Landmarks in August for the status, giving its approval in January.

Owner and developer Lawrence Kerner said he combined the city's historic landmark preservation ordinance and the U.S. Green Building standards to expedite permits needed to build-out the warehouse.

Kerner said his motivation, other than his concern for the environment, was to reduce costs of the building's construction. He said given the state of the economy, he was extremely concerned with the financing behind the project. The project almost didn't get started.

"We finally got funding approved in July," Kerner said. "We had financing arranged several times, but until JP Morgan Chase approved a loan for the full construction costs, we were wavering."

Kerner said he and his partner, Bold Ventures, intend to keep the 68-unit apartment building, and that the renovation shows that consideration. "We're putting quality into the building to save ourselves the money later," he said.

According to a preliminary report filed by the landmarks commission, the warehouse was constructed by Chicago architect Paul Gerhardt, Sr., who designed reinforced concrete buildings including Cook County Hospital.

The U.S. Green Building standards required the developers to invest in energy-efficient heating and air conditioning, as well as insulation and new windows.

Kerner said the hardest part of the renovation was bringing the requirements of the Landmarks Commission together with those environmental standards, "They just don't match up," he said. "It's really hard to coordinate."

"The units have great light because of the windows - they're seven by 15 feet, and on the corner units, the walls are all windows," said Kerner.

Such amenities could help draw artists and other creative professionals to the structure. "We expect to attract creative types from nearby," he said.

Kerner said he expects the apartments and a 3,800 square-foot retail space will be available for lease in April or May.

Rent for the one-bedroom loft apartments will be between $900 and $1,000 per month; the two-bedroom units will go for about $1,400.

[the urban politician]

^ Here's the image:

[wrab]

^ Great news.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I just got word from a friend that works at the Sears Sky Deck that they are knocking out the windows on the west side of the deck and pushing them out 4 feet over Wacker Drive. The extension from the building will basically be a glass cube, even the floor will be glass.

These renovations are going to happen ASAP, as in NOW.

The World Financial Center in Shanghai has a glass-floored observation deck - also, the Grand Canyon skywalk. This is a trendy option. They must want the refresh to keep their ticket sales up.

I wonder why the West face? Maybe this is the most vertiginous view down. Or did Sears think that the alteration would be less noticeable there?

[Nowhereman1280]

Great news about the landmarking! There's one example of economic incentives to landmark working out well!

In other news:
There is a construction fence up around that 1 story retail next to Loyola's 25 E. Pearson Building. This is where that short retail/classroom project is going to be built. Here is the rendering again if you don't remember:

Originally Posted by wrabbit

I wonder why the West face? Maybe this is the most vertiginous view down. Or did Sears think that the alteration would be less noticeable there?

The West face of the Sears tower is the only face that is uninterrupted by setbacks. In other words, its the only side you can see straight down.

I understand Honte's concerns and feel like I've just been losing major preservation points around here lately, but I just don't see what is so bad about punching out one row of the original windows at the very top of the building. I suppose there is the slippery slope argument that "if you let them do that than something far worse is bound to happen later". Also, I don't view the Sears as a once in 1000 years masterpiece as I do the Hancock. If they tried this with the JHC I would flip shit. But I do, in principle agree that the Sears should be protected, I just think that this is such a minor modification that it shouldn't be a big deal. Interested to hear what Honte has to say.

[Mr Downtown]

The west side is also generally the least crowded with visitors. At peak times, it's hard to get to an eastern or northern window, but for some reason that's seldom a problem on the west wall.

[ardecila]

I was walking around in the South Loop a few weeks ago and I had an idea... what if the asphalt was stripped away to reveal the old cobbles, on Dearborn, Financial, and Plymouth between Congress and Polk (basically Printers' Row). You can still see these cobbles on a little stub of LaSalle Street across from Folio Square.

This would accomplish two goals: 1) it would add character to the neighborhood without resorting to the sorts of ugly fake-brick that one typically sees, and 2) it would slow traffic through the neighborhood, and who can disagree with that?

I can see a few potential problems... crosswalks would need to be paved with a better material for ADA compliance, and the cobbles would have to be grouted to avoid problems with snow-plowing.

This has been done successfully on St. Joseph Street here in New Orleans. It's a little anachronistic to see modern yellow lane dividers on an old cobbled street, but the result is beautiful. I understand it's also been done in NY (I've seen photos) and they have similar problems with snow, so clearly the problem can be dealt with.

Also, I don't know if there are streetcar tracks underneath the asphalt, but those would be cool to see as well if they in fact exist there.

[EarlyBuyer]

Photos taken by EarlyBuyer

[Tom Servo]

god those are absolutely pathetic.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by ardecila

what if the asphalt was stripped away to reveal the old cobbles

I think a fair number have been removed over the years as the street was opened up for utility work. Though streetcar tracks remain under the asphalt on some Chicago streets, the ones in South Dearborn were torn out shortly after service ended.

Be sure you're not confusing brick pavers with cobblestones. Chicago has a few remaining brick streets (and Wilmette has a bunch). Bricks are tolerable, but cobblestones are pretty miserable for bicyclists and for folks living nearby (from the tire noise).

[HowardL]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Be sure you're not confusing brick pavers with cobblestones.

What's the difference between the two? I sort of always, mistakenly, used the terms interchangeably.

[honte]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I was walking around in the South Loop a few weeks ago and I had an idea... what if the asphalt was stripped away to reveal the old cobbles, on Dearborn, Financial, and Plymouth between Congress and Polk (basically Printers' Row). You can still see these cobbles on a little stub of LaSalle Street across from Folio Square.

This would accomplish two goals: 1) it would add character to the neighborhood without resorting to the sorts of ugly fake-brick that one typically sees, and 2) it would slow traffic through the neighborhood, and who can disagree with that?

I can see a few potential problems... crosswalks would need to be paved with a better material for ADA compliance, and the cobbles would have to be grouted to avoid problems with snow-plowing.

This has been done successfully on St. Joseph Street here in New Orleans. It's a little anachronistic to see modern yellow lane dividers on an old cobbled street, but the result is beautiful. I understand it's also been done in NY (I've seen photos) and they have similar problems with snow, so clearly the problem can be dealt with.

Also, I don't know if there are streetcar tracks underneath the asphalt, but those would be cool to see as well if they in fact exist there.

I believe that Wilmette's experience with the brick pavers has been quite positive - they retain them and recycle them when work is done on their streets. This is time consuming, but apparently the pavers are actually quite expensive, so it's preferable. They were one of the very best bricks ever manufactured.

The city's policy, as Mr. D says, has been to rip these out. I see this happening quite often, to my dismay. The pavers are a natural deterrent to crazy driving (instead of the dangerous and annoying humps you find all over the city now), are aesthetic, and very durable.

I think the problem with them in the city is that the roads get torn up and worked on in such an incredibly frequent manner. I can't see a policy working that would allow them to exist on very many Chicago streets. Just look at how many patches there are in any street around Chicago.

I believe there might be a campaign going on now in Maywood to bring back the pavers in a major way. Keep your eyes peeled.