CHICAGO | General Developments

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

^^ speaking of, can we please get rid of that damn Tokyo Hotel?? it is a disgusting eyesore for the area. (and apparently just as disgusting on the inside)

Personally, I love it and think it adds a ton of character to the area, not to mention provides an affordable lodging choice for budget-travelers. It's not a transient slum or drug den(Mark Twain Hotel, anyone?), nor are its first floor business crappy either. I always stay at places like that when visiting Manhattan, and I'm quite glad they exist.

But yeah, TERRIBLE place for a businessman to stay!

No worries, it will probably go the same way as the Hotel Wacker before long, and receive a boutique conversion.

EDIT: pip, maybe my frame of reference is just shifted because I compare it to my local crappy hotels like the Mark Twain and Marshall, which make the Tokyo look like a Peninsula. But I didn't perceive Tokyo as bad as you describe it.

[Chicagoguy]

I was wondering if anyone has any information on possible new theaters that are in the works to go up or be rebuilt somewhere downtown. There is a pressing need for more theaters in the downtown theater district and Mayor Daley had released statements stating that he was going to be working on getting a couple new theaters. Does anyone have any new info or know of a different website or discussion board that may have more info?

[Kevin J]

Originally Posted by Chicagoguy

I was wondering if anyone has any information on possible new theaters that are in the works to go up or be rebuilt somewhere downtown. There is a pressing need for more theaters in the downtown theater district and Mayor Daley had released statements stating that he was going to be working on getting a couple new theaters. Does anyone have any new info or know of a different website or discussion board that may have more info?

This is a topic touched on occasionally by Chris Jones, the Tribune's theater critic. The article below is the last development I recall him reporting:

http://chicago.metromix.com/theater/...287571/content

[Chicagoguy]

Originally Posted by Kevin J

This is a topic touched on occasionally by Chris Jones, the Tribune's theater critic. The article below is the last development I recall him reporting:

http://chicago.metromix.com/theater/...287571/content

Thanks for the link...too bad it wasnt more exciting news!

[EarlyBuyer]

LAKESHORE EAST CAPTURES INTERNATIONAL DESIGN ‘OSCAR’

"Lakeshore East, this year’s winner in the Master Plan Design category, joins Trump World Tower in New York (2003); Harbor Point Apartments in Boston (1996) and The Woodlands in Texas (1992) as other U.S. winners in residential categories. Lakeshore East spans 28 acres, believed to be the largest parcel of downtown land under development in a major U.S. city. This $4 billion mixed-use development that, along with Millennium Park, anchors the rapidly growing New East Side."

http://www.lakeshoreeast.com/media/p...xcellence.html

[ethereal_reality]

and this is just one of the reasons why....




'Today is a good day' on FLICKR

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roe...eder04.article

Meadows plan not just for rich
REAL ESTATE |

June 4, 2008Recommend (4)

DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com

........DESIGNS ON BRONZVILLE: Sketching a plan that includes housing in a mix of styles and for a range of incomes, Draper and Kramer Inc. has gone public with its vision for the Lake Meadows complex on the South Side.

The lakefront property, some 93 acres from 31st to 35th streets and running west to King Drive, is a large feature of the Bronzeville community. Activists there are worried about whether development of its open land ultimately will make the area too expensive for all but the well-to-do.

Draper and Kramer, which has been involved with Lake Meadows since the 1950s, is trying to put those concerns to rest. Its zoning proposal submitted to the city seeks authority for 7,845 housing units, including 2,000 that are rentals, along with a new allotment of retail space that would be focused near 35th Street and King Drive. New parks also are planned along with a footbridge connection over the Metra electric tracks, giving residents access to Burnham Park.

The new construction gradually would replace the more than 1,800 apartments in the site's nine high-rises. They aren't blights but Draper acknowledges they have seen better days. Sometimes mistaken for public housing, the buildings have a unique history of mixing tenants of different incomes and even race until the federal government decided it could not support managed integration.

Donald Vitek, vice president for development at Draper, said it'll be at least five years before any of those buildings comes down. They are about 90 percent occupied and many tenants have been there for a long time.

Vitek said Draper is committed to having replacement housing done before demolition occurs. The earliest phase of the project will be about 500,000 square feet of retail space. Some of it will be in buildings with the old-neighborhood style of stores on the street level and homes one flight up.

"The ownership has a long-term commitment to the neighborhood," Vitek said. "They intend to be involved in this for as long as anyone can envision."

The plan will need 25 years to be fully realized, he estimated. The timetable will change and market trends will alter the final look.

Regardless, Vitek said the last phase would be high-rise construction close to the lake, with a couple buildings that could be in the 60-story range..............

..

[VivaLFuego]

^ Sigh. Bring in Antonuvich, I'm sure they can build something more attractive and quaint than Lake Meadows! Everyone wants to see vague and poorly executed references to a mishmash of historical styles rather than nearly flawless, sterile and soulless modernism! I can't believe anyone lives there to begin with, with no ornamentation on those buildings, why they practically look like housing projects! And let's use government mandated affordable-housing set-asides to try to force a "mixed-income" flavor to a new construction neighborhood, since that's worked so well every other time it's been tried.

I hope they get the retail portion done (especially redeveloping the ugly suburban strip mall), and the bridge over the IC, and then have the project die and the existing highrises rehabbed. If they want to build new highrises on the current surface parking lots, then by all means. If they want to generally recreate the street grid, by all means. But to demolish highrises that are nearly fully leased with a mixed-socioeconomic tenant base that developed naturally over the years, in a very fine and fully salvageable example of mid-century modernism, just seems unconscionable to me, especially in a city that supposedly prides itself on environmental friendliness. Demolition and construction are two of the least environmentally-friendly activities possible. Construction waste is generally estimated to be in the 20% range of all waste, and that's not even getting into air pollution. This environmental expense of course is very often justifiable (redeveloping parking lots, drastically underutilized parcels, etc), but not when you're demolishing an otherwise healthy residential community. I like the notion of increasing density, but this can be achieved without demolishing all of the existing highrises.

[Mr Downtown]

Draper & Kramer looked long and hard at rehabbing the existing buildings before making the reluctant decision that it would be better to start over. Some of the problems are solvable--inadequate electrical (microwaves are currently forbidden), uninsulated curtain wall, end-of-life stacks and HVAC, kitchen and bathroom stack locations--but all of them together start to add up to huge money. Others, such as very low ceiling heights, are much harder to solve.

[VivaLFuego]

^ How low are the ceilings? Aren't they 8 feet? That's certainly not high by vintage or today's luxury standards, but it ain't oppressive either. From an affordable rental perspective, lower ceiling heights = less volume to climate control per unit, which seems like a feature, not a bug. Doesn't Lake Point Tower have 8 or 8.5 foot ceilings? Guess we should tear that down too...

Clearly the utlity work would need to be done. I still don't quite see how rehabilitating or otherwise replacing the curtain wall, electric circuits, and plumbing stacks would be more expensive even on a per-unit basis than demolition + all new construction, but ok, I'll try to take your word for it. I'd be fascinated (seriously) to see the analysis and cost estimates used. Living in a mid-century modern highrise myself, I know alot of these rehabilitation expenses can be very substantial (needed major work to improve the electrical and beef up the service, the original single-pane windows with aluminum mullions are rather inefficient, and we're in the middle of a pricy concrete facade restoration right now), but it's still nothing like new construction and total replacement.

Lake Meadows' towers just don't strike me as unsalvagably deteriorated slums like the CHA highrises.

[honte]

^ Perfect summary of every developer's justification for demolition, Mr. D. The fact is, it's almost never the whole story, and sometimes completely fabricated.

From the community meetings on this subject I've been to, the people I have spoken with who are familiar with the inner workings of the proposal, etc, I have no reason to believe that D+K has "looked long and hard" about anything. I'm sure they looked at it cursorily. But their intent, no question about it, is to replace the buildings, allowing them to develop as many units as they can with the lowest possible effort. I don't believe the existing buildings are a problem at all on a building-by-building basis, but they pose certain limitations in terms of the overall scheme ($$) D+K would like to achieve and introduce complexity that the developer probably doesn't want to bother with. They also might stand in the way of political ambition.

If D+K hired one of the leading preservation architects to come to Lake Meadows (there are many), changed him or her with the task of making these buildings wonderful again, and this genuine effort failed, I might be more apt to believe the rhetoric. But as it stands now, I see buildings that were built better than most of their contemporaries, and no good reason why lesser buildings are perfectly salvageable but these are not.

[VivaLFuego]

^I'll differentiate my stance from honte's a bit, and ask merely for strong evidence that the highrises stand in the way of D+K's quest to maximize the value of their portfolio. Unlike honte (I'm assuming, may be wrong), I'm totally fine with D+K seeking approval to significantly increase density by building new highrises, and reconfiguring the street grid and of course improving the retail situation. I just don't see how demolition of the towers can be construed as a necessary step, at least until D+K demonstrates it to be so.

I mean, why is hardly anyone concerned about the demolition of about 2,000 existing units of market-rate mixed income housing? This ain't blight by any stretch of the imagination, so why eliminate them when they aren't inherently preventing another project from taking place?

[Mr Downtown]

I don't remember the details, but I went into the meeting with Draper & Kramer thinking they should save the buildings, and left satisfied that it was impractical.

The curtain wall presents a real dilemma for preservation of the recent past, which older masonry buildings didn't have. If you have to replace everything on the inside and everything on the outside, what's left? You have slabs, exit stairs, and elevator shafts. At some point it's like great-grandfather's ax, on which the head has been replaced twice and the handle four times, but honest, it's the very same axe . . .

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I don't remember the details, but I went into the meeting with Draper & Kramer thinking they should save the buildings, and left satisfied that it was impractical.

The curtain wall presents a real dilemma for preservation of the recent past, which older masonry buildings didn't have. If you have to replace everything on the inside and everything on the outside, what's left? You have slabs, exit stairs, and elevator shafts. At some point it's like great-grandfather's ax, on which the head has been replaced twice and the handle four times, but honest, it's the very same axe . . .

Yeah, I don't know how many of you have actually spent time in the buildings, but while they are reasonable examples of modernism they really aren't anything special and as a group they pose pretty big site challenges to creating a cohesive urban neighborhood. They also really don't have a lot internally to work with. I don't know about the condition of the bones of the buildings, but the skin and circulatory systems could really use some serious work. So, basically, what you're left with are a group of really expensive, unoriginal rehabs that will poorly integrate with the urban fabric and have to compete with much newer, (hopefully) better built buildings that do integrate well with the urban fabric and will also likely be more unique within the larger development.

Could it be done? Sure, it's not so far out of the range of possibilities that it's impossible. But I really don't fault the developer for not wanting to take on the risk and the challenge of selling a lipsticked-up pig.

[honte]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

^I'll differentiate my stance from honte's a bit, and ask merely for strong evidence that the highrises stand in the way of D+K's quest to maximize the value of their portfolio. Unlike honte (I'm assuming, may be wrong), I'm totally fine with D+K seeking approval to significantly increase density by building new highrises, and reconfiguring the street grid and of course improving the retail situation. I just don't see how demolition of the towers can be construed as a necessary step, at least until D+K demonstrates it to be so.

I mean, why is hardly anyone concerned about the demolition of about 2,000 existing units of market-rate mixed income housing? This ain't blight by any stretch of the imagination, so why eliminate them when they aren't inherently preventing another project from taking place?

I never said I was against increasing the density or reconfiguring the streets.... I think our positions are about the same.

Mr. Downtown is correct: The preservation of modernist, curtain-walled buildings is a challenge. But it is not insurmountable by any means, and I don't think it's the right response to run from the challenge - we have far too many of these to consider in the future simply to ignore the problem. I would point to the recent restorations of Lever House and Crown Hall as perfect examples of how steel-and-glass buildings can be brought to modern standards without compromising their exteriors. These might be bad examples, because the effort was considerable in each case, but also being landmarks, these buildings required the utmost attention to detail. While I would like the Lake Meadows towers to remain visibly as close to the original design as possible, I don't know if we exactly have to fret about 1/4" or 3/8" thick glazing here, etc, like we did at Crown Hall.

I highly disagree with emathias that these would be "lipsticked-up pigs." Foremost, never judge the history of a site or architecture before knowing the whole story. These buildings are far from unoriginal or insignificant. Second, the developer has never had a problem in this community marketing these units. They claim they want to retain an equal (or near-equal) number of rental units on the site. So, where is the challenge in attracting tenants? The new buildings and retail could make the site more desirable, not less, if they are planned correctly.

[aaron38]

While playing around with Google maps, thinking on the "reconfigure the burbs" topic and how much room is actually available out here, I realized something quite sickening. The entire Loop, and Woodfield Mall are basically the same size.

It really makes me wonder if some day all those parkinglots will be redeveloped? I mean, they could raze woodfield and put 2 dozen towers in there. We can turn Busse Woods into a new Central Park.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by honte

I highly disagree with emathias that these would be "lipsticked-up pigs." Foremost, never judge the history of a site or architecture before knowing the whole story. These buildings are far from unoriginal or insignificant. Second, the developer has never had a problem in this community marketing these units. They claim they want to retain an equal (or near-equal) number of rental units on the site. So, where is the challenge in attracting tenants? The new buildings and retail could make the site more desirable, not less, if they are planned correctly.

Amen, amen, amen. Firstly, if I'm not mistaken these were from about 1957; very early and trendsetting in their design. No inland steel, of course, but the only significant residential modernist predecessor that comes to mind is 860-880. I hear those are very expensive to maintain too, maybe they could use a little bulldozing and replacement...

Secondly, as you allude to, these are not blight. We're not talking about a rotting, decaying commercial building (soon to be my neighbor the Village Theater for example). This is a healthy vibrant community. No, not new and not luxurious, but not everything should be. By the logic presented by emathias and Mr D, nothing would be a landmark save perhaps for facadectomies of irreplaceable facades. Do I think Lake Meadows are landmark quality? *Probably* not, though within a few decades this will be debatable when people realize the scarcity of such quality examples of the style. But I'd better not here a request for a dime of TIF money by D+K if they think the most efficient use of resources to bulldoze 2000 viable units of middle income housing.

honte can probably express the thoughts more eloquently and level-headedly than I, but something about bulldozing these buildings just really grates me (and it's not like I have personal emotional attachment to these particular buildings....I'd say the same of bulldozing Prairie Shores, South Commons, etc. it just seems needlessly gratuitous).

[LaSalle.St.Station]

Lake meadows sucks..... it is a great goalie for residences preventing the rest of chi to the lake.... Be Gone.

[Busy Bee]

It really makes me wonder if some day all those parkinglots will be redeveloped? I mean, they could raze woodfield and put 2 dozen towers in there. We can turn Busse Woods into a new Central Park.

Think long term, like 40, 50+ years and that statement might be more realistic than you think.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

...
Secondly, as you allude to, these are not blight. ...

You are correct. They're not blight. But you know why they're not? Low-density and a ton of parking. They have lots and lots of parking, and next to zero density neighbors (an about-abandoned hospital, a few storage warehouses and a convention center that has almost zero traffic impact south of the Stevenson/LSD connector).

I don't have a problem with the buildings per se, but I have a big problem with the SITE of the buildings. If you show me how those buildings can be integrated into a dense, zero-surface-lot, urban neighborhood with busy adjacent areas while also paying to reskin, rewire, reventilate and replumb them, and I'd love to see them saved. I just don't think it's economically feasible to do all that and more than ANY given building (or set of buildings) I value having an urban experience in the city - especially adjacent to the urban core and a short walk to the Lakefront.