HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8821  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2009, 12:51 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,384
What's with the two floors of retail? I can only think of a few two-story retail outlets, unless you start looking at the urban-format big box and grocery stores. I guess some cafes have second-floor eating areas...

Is that second story just meant for storage, then?
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8822  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2009, 1:34 AM
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
Chicago Shawn Chicago Shawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,815
BW Chicago, thanks for posting that old article on the Firestone Building.

-----------
From the Chicago Journal..
http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/1...jection,_boats

Boats and slips are on the agenda of this month’s Plan Commission meeting, according to a legal notice. The Chicago Park District is seeking approval from the Plan Commission to build a 2,000-foot-long pier with 240 boat slips and 11,5000 square feet of retail and restaurant space near 600 E. Grand and 703-715 E. North Water St. in the 42nd Ward. Farther south, the park district wants permission to build a marina with 850 boat slips, 335 below-grade parking spaces, two acres of new green space and 15,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and community space near 31st and S. Lake Shore Drive. The Plan Commission is scheduled to convene Dec. 17 at 1 p.m. in city hall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8823  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2009, 1:49 AM
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
Chicago Shawn Chicago Shawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
For whatever it's worth, this practice is rampant - but not so much as a planning tool, but rather as a power play. Aldermen do this as soon as there is a hint of development, so that they maintain 'control' over anything that gets built. I'm not sure if it was approved (maybe Shawn knows?) but a month or two ago one of the proposed rezonings was the NE corner of 35th & Halsted to RS-1, which is for large-lot single family houses (think Kenwood, Norwood Park). Same reason - control, moreso than planning. Similarly, Manny Flores recently downzoned a bunch of land around the California Blue Line stop to the lowest possible classification so he could maintain control the rumored mid-rises someone is cooking up there.

Granted, if the downzoning happens and becomes de facto permanent, well, that's the new precedent density for the neighborhood, and further, if the neighborhood ever develops any sort of organized community voice, that voice will agitate for nothing but townhouses and parking lots as acceptable development - which can be enforced via the low zoning, but which can be ignored with appropriate dense urban zoning like the R5 (generally allowing 3 or 4 units per lot depending on lot size) that used to surround the entire south green line. The clowns telling Ald. Daley that the Grossinger site at Division/Wells should be townhouses can be rightfully ignored because of the very high density underlying zoning - but if a previous alderman had pulled this trick and the current zoning only allowed single-families, it would probably be enforced given the relative political power of the neighbors.
Exactly. Once an area is downzoned, it is very hard to go back the other way. Already, more than half of the pre WWII city is non-conforming due to neighborhood zoning becoming more restrictive over time.

What is even more concerning is that the two-step process in PD approval has been challenged in court and the city is now on the defense with an appeal. If upheld and the city is forced to abide by the ruling, then increasing density will become nearly impossible in the neighborhoods under current the zoning code. 'Two step' is the process of upzoning a property to a new zoning class while approving the PD. The reason this is done is because the PD has to coincide with the underlying zoning of the site, even when the PD process gives you some flexibility.

For example, lets say a developer wants to build a 6 story mixed use building near a L station. The property is zoned B2-1, and the project is large enough to trigger a PD. In order to accommodate the height of the building, a rezoning to B3-5 (or like classification) would occur, and then a PD would overlay the site and become the official zoning ordinance for the property in question.

I don't about 35th and Halsted, but if it was downzoned, I doubt it went all the way down to RS-1. That request is just so ludicrous, I don't know where to begin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8824  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2009, 4:16 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
What's with the two floors of retail? I can only think of a few two-story retail outlets, unless you start looking at the urban-format big box and grocery stores. I guess some cafes have second-floor eating areas...

Is that second story just meant for storage, then?
^ Didn't you read the article?

They are seeking medical office space for the second story
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8825  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2009, 9:15 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn View Post
a 2,000-foot-long pier with 240 boat slips and 11,5000 square feet of retail and restaurant space near 600 E. Grand and 703-715 E. North Water St.
...
a marina with 850 boat slips, 335 below-grade parking spaces, two acres of new green space and 15,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and community space near 31st and S. Lake Shore Drive.
Sweet. I'm not a boat person at all, but activating the south lakefront, expanding boating in the city, and bringing in out-of-towners by boat to Navy Pier / Streeterville is great. Maybe increased usage at Navy Pier will help critical mass for Carroll Transitway extension there?

Are these capital projects essentially self-funded via user fees?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8826  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2009, 4:10 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,387
^Not just self-funding, but pretty big profitmakers for the Park District and the marina concessionaire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8827  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2009, 5:17 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,419
On Wednesday, November 18, 2009, Roosevelt University completed the sale of bonds paving the way for construction of our new building on Wabash Avenue. We are now ready to begin construction in early February, following demolition of the Herman Crown Center.

You are invited to attend a Town Hall meeting in Chicago or in Schaumburg to learn all about our 32-story tower, which is certain to be the talk of Chicago and beyond. You will see the latest architectural renderings and hear how the building was designed, what it will contain, how it will complement the Auditorium Building, how it will be financed and how long it will take to construct.

Please join your Roosevelt University colleagues
at one of these Town Hall meetings:

Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Chicago Campus
Ganz Hall
12 noon until 1 p.m.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8828  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2009, 5:34 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ Excellent news. Good to hear that the city is going ahead with new marinas and piers and that Roosevelt has got funding finalized for their new, and pretty interesting, tower. Again, I don't see why that tower is in this thread though. A 32 story building belongs in the Boom rundown...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8829  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2009, 8:26 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ So Roosevelt University will go from being a rather less-than-well-known University to being a University with the tallest dorm in the world (and a pretty flashy one at that, judging by the renderings)?

I'd call that a bold step--a very Chicago kind of thing to do. That's what they mean by "make no small plans"
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8830  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2009, 3:09 AM
wrab's Avatar
wrab wrab is offline
Deerhoof Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,670
At least we know where the buck stops on this one:

The Chicago Tribune
Clout Street
December 05, 2009

Daley says Michael Reese demolition will continue despite historic sites push
Share


Posted by John Byrne at 1:02 p.m.

Demolition work will continue on architecturally significant buildings at the Michael Reese Hospital campus, Mayor Richard Daley said today, despite a move by the Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Council to have the site named to the National Register of Historic Places.....


Read entire entry at: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/...ites-push.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8831  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2009, 5:52 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,384
^^ Was there ever any doubt?

Da Mare's been behind this for several years now, acquiring the site for the Olympic Village, and he has said all along that redevelopment on the site would proceed with or without an Olympics - redevelopment involving the major demolition of most of the site.

On a related note, does anybody know how open the site is? Is it completely closed off, or can you still walk down the public streets through the site? I really want to go get some pictures before everything is gone.

I'm not getting too emotional about this. Clearly, the mayor has decided to strike a compromising position by preserving two buildings that are emblematic of both phases of MRH's development (Main Reese and Singer). These buildings will act as a marker to commemorate the high-quality architecture as well as the medical innovations made at Michael Reese. The record of Gropius' involvement will not be completely obliterated. There have been far worse losses to the world's architectural heritage. In my mind, the sheer fact that Gropius' involvement was not well-documented confirms that these buildings do not represent a unique and consequential development in architecture.

Unlike the crop of surviving ancient buildings, there are a select few buildings of the last century that are "turning points". Since Modernism has been such a diverse movement, it's difficult to pin architectural progress on a select handful of buildings. Clearly, none of the buildings at MRH fall under that category. Historians must therefore confer significance onto the small number of truly influential "turning point" buildings, and then out of the myriad rest, choose buildings that are consistent and well-designed examples, emblematic of their time but not influential in themselves. The preservation of Singer is just this - the conscious preservation of an excellent example of Gropius' collaboration with Loebl Schlossman & Bennett, with the understanding that total preservation of that collaboration in a dense, changing city is unrealistic and impractical.

Daley clearly is making a decision here in favor of a quick, clean-slate redevelopment. Other adaptive-reuse projects in the city have dragged on for years with no hope in sight (eg Old Post Office). By clearing the land, he makes it more appealing to developers who can impose their own patterns onto the site, making redevelopment more likely, and sooner rather than later. I imagine to a strong-willed leader like Daley, the people protesting MRH's demolition must seem like the reactionary crowd that protests any major decision, not out of reason but out of a fear of change. If MRH's significance was well-established for many years like IIT's, then the preservationist arguments would not seem so groundless and almost NIMBYish.

The demolition decision, IMO, must also take into account the value of whatever will be replacing MRH. So far, SOM's master plan for the site seems logical, well-planned, and integrated with the areas to the east in a way that neither apes the historic neighborhoods or the mid-century MRH/Prairie Shores system. If, like at Lakeshore East and in Central Station, projects are handed out to multiple architects, the end result is sure to be a high-quality modern community in the mold of those two above, and a proud step forward in the development of the south lakeshore.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; Dec 7, 2009 at 6:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8832  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2009, 2:29 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,546
^ I think the main problem is that there isn't a realistic, feasible, near-term plan for what is going to go there - despite anything anyone from the public sector, or private sector for that matter, might represent, the SOM plan is not going to be built - there's no market for it, and there won't be for some time..........so this is another example of a demolition of at least potentially significant structures in which nobody truly knows with any degree of certainty what will go there when....we do not know what the payoff will be for this demolition and if it will outweigh this action....
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8833  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2009, 2:48 PM
aic4ever aic4ever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWChicago View Post
$8.6 Million seems pretty high for converting an existing building to restaurants.
Nice to meet you BW. What developer are you?
__________________
Don't be a left wing zombie!

Free Nowhereman...fat girls need lovin' too
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8834  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2009, 4:29 PM
wrab's Avatar
wrab wrab is offline
Deerhoof Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
.....Daley clearly is making a decision here in favor of a quick, clean-slate redevelopment. Other adaptive-reuse projects in the city have dragged on for years with no hope in sight (eg Old Post Office). By clearing the land, he makes it more appealing to developers who can impose their own patterns onto the site, making redevelopment more likely, and sooner rather than later.....
It's like death by a thousand cuts - a single demolition here and there, maybe a Goldberg up in Streeterville, maybe a small SOM box on the South Side, maybe a mid-century campus. The cuts add up.

I can't quite get the specter of Block 37 out of my head. Proactive city demolition is always a crap shoot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8835  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2009, 5:56 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
By clearing the land, he makes it more appealing to developers who can impose their own patterns onto the site, making redevelopment more likely, and sooner rather than later.
Yea, because Block 37 went so well by using that logic

The fact of the matter is there ISNT a legitimate plan for the site. You are very naive if you think the SOM design is still on the table. Who is going to pay for/develop it? The Olympics plan is obsolete, and there is no developer on board for something outside of that scenario. We're in the midst of one of the worst real-estate downturns ever, and the city is already having incredible difficulty absorbing the glut of condos and office space out there, which will continue for many years due to over-development. It could very well be decades before something goes up on this site. So why the rush to obliterate a heritage that could possibly be creatively re-used down the line? When we found out about the history of the buildings is irrelevant..we know NOW.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8836  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2009, 6:24 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,480
The irony is that if Balkany et al hadn't raised a huge preservation stink, the property would have been more likely to stand vacant rather than succumb to a fast-track demolition.

"No man, no problem."

That said, without said preservation stink, we may not have even been so lucky as to have Singer saved, so perhaps it was worth it.

It's not like this city has any shortage, past or present, of huge of large desolate patches of nothing that came to exist due to government clear-cutting. Block 37 speaks for itself, but what about:

Still extant government-sponsored desolate urban prairies
1. Cabrini-Green
2. Robert Taylor
3. Medical District
4. Many other CHA sites (smaller than 1 and 2 but still large gaping holes in urban continuity with zero prospect of redevelopment)

Other large land clearances also took decades to develop. Even Clark Street and patches of LaSalle were a prairie until the 1980s after clearance as part of the Sandburg Village project in 1960:

And of course, the stuff that finally did get built along Clark is criminally awful gated townhouse crap and a stripmall style grocery store.

Some of the area around South Commons has never redeveloped. Slum clearance along Madison's "Skid Row" basically resulted in the parking lots around Presidential Towers.

In fact, when was the last large scale government-led clearance of large swaths of land that didn't result in decades of nothingness? UIC-Circle Campus?

As stated, there is no market pressure to redevelop MRH nor is there any such pressure anywhere in sight. This will be a blighted pocket of nothingness for decades, just like all the others before it. But hey, at least Heneghan got their contract, and when the time comes to make the really big deal there won't be anyone in the way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8837  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2009, 7:07 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
Yea, because Block 37 went so well by using that logic

The fact of the matter is there ISNT a legitimate plan for the site. You are very naive if you think the SOM design is still on the table. Who is going to pay for/develop it? The Olympics plan is obsolete, and there is no developer on board for something outside of that scenario. We're in the midst of one of the worst real-estate downturns ever, and the city is already having incredible difficulty absorbing the glut of condos and office space out there, which will continue for many years due to over-development. It could very well be decades before something goes up on this site. So why the rush to obliterate a heritage that could possibly be creatively re-used down the line? When we found out about the history of the buildings is irrelevant..we know NOW.
Well, last time I checked they were totally seperate entaties

The MR site can be developed section by section. Yeah, Block 37 could have been also, but it wasn't. This site, because of it's massiveness will be.

Personally, I'd like to see the current zoned density doubled.

Yes, there is currently a glut of condos, but seeing as development of the site is probably several years off, there's a chance for things to have recovered somewhat by then. This will also allow for comprehensive site plans to be drawn. Besides, the land is more profitable cleared than not.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8838  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2009, 8:13 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
Well, last time I checked they were totally seperate entaties
Government should not be involved in real-estate development, period.

And again, the senseless RUSH, as if our lives depended on it, to demolish every last trace of MRH without exploring opportunities to re-use the existing structures is what bothers me the most. Its the complete unwillingness of the mayor (one who purports to be a major supporter of architecture) to explore other options to save these structures, or even reasonably listen to those who support the preservation effort...its that fact which disturbs me more than anything else.

The most interesting urban neighborhoods are those that include both the old and new. Clear cutting was a horrible policy during the urban renewal era, and its a horrible policy today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8839  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2009, 8:17 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
Government should not be involved in real-estate development, period.

And again, the senseless RUSH, as if our lives depended on it, to demolish every last trace of MRH without exploring opportunities to re-use the existing structures is what bothers me the most.

The most interesting urban neighborhoods are those that include both the old and new. Clear cutting was a horrible policy during the urban renewal era, and its a horrible policy today.
Thank you. Now that the Olympics are not on the table, the city should have limited itself to coordinating redevelopment, rezoning, and/or subsidizing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8840  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2009, 8:21 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,384
^^ All of the above happened in a era of big government-led redevelopment. The climate today favors the private sector. Daley would much rather flip this property to a developer with deep pockets than keep it under city ownership and have to deal with the political consequences and construction hassles of the redevelopment using city staff. He sold the parking meters and the Skyway to a private company, after all.

And no, it won't be redeveloped into a massive dense community overnight. Lakeshore East/New Eastside has continued development pretty much continuously through several market cycles over the last 50 years. Central Station is newer, but it has developed much faster than LSE due to its mix of high-rises, mid-rises, and townhomes that fill up the land much more quickly than a high-rise community can.

Block 37 was complicated by too many hands in the pot, with ComEd's spiderweb of power lines under the site and a new subway tunnel that everyone thought was a good idea until it came in hundreds of millions over budget. It's also such a visible project - directly across from City Hall and Daley Plaza - that it became a signature project for the mayor, which meant years' worth of red tape and complications.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:11 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.