HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #10261  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2010, 1:15 AM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,480
Those meters were only put in recently (maybe 2 years ago?) to ward off people using those streets for long term car storage or free remote parking; they were never intended to raise any meaningful revenue for the city. With the power of hindsight and knowledge of the metered parking concession, simply putting in a permit parking zone to be enforced for 2 hours each day might have achieved similar goals without the impending headache of either compensating Morgan Stanley per the contractual terms (which assume meters producing revenue) or hoping that the concessionaire grants the exception out of goodwill, which is probably likely in the end but still risky to assume.

Of course, all of this begs the fundamental question of why all those streets should still exist in the first place with full supporting infrastructure if there is zero possibility of that area ever again being developed in a traditional small-lot urban fashion. If it's all destined for Planned Development autotopia, the city might as well save some bucks and vacate the unnecessary streets and infrastructure, with minimized pavement remaining to serve the 4 or 5 holdout houses. This seems even more of a slam dunk than my previous suggestion of rethinking the maintenance of curbs/gutters and full street widths in neighborhoods where all new development will have it's own bonanza of off-street accessory parking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10262  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2010, 3:36 AM
vxt22 vxt22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn View Post
^Nice



Dammit.

I love Costco, but this is the wrong place for it. I know IMD isn't best example of urbanism, but I am really tired of seeing the city suburbanized. This was an urban neighborhood and to insert this 16 acre monster, they need to cut up the street grid. 14th Place, 14th Street and Paulina will all have sections removed. This establishes even more crap context that will guide how the rest of the neighborhood and the IMD property develops. We had a clean slate to work with, and its now a lost opportunity.

Costco or IMD better pick up the tap for the loss of of the privitized meters they are replacing, as I assume they would be. The tax payers should not be subsidizing the loss of parking meters in exchange for free parking.

I know its a lease, but 20 years is a long time. Look at how much of the city has changed in 20 years, especially just east of the new Costco site.

Hey, I have a question I've been trying to find that answer to in the Recorder of Deeds office, the history museum, etc. I wonder if any of you here know the answer.

Looking at aerial photographs, the area referenced here South of the medical district used to be a dense urban neighborhood not unlike Pilsen. It was the city's Dutchtown, so to speak, and the church on Ashland is evidence of that. When the city conducted its historic resources survey numerous properties in the area were listed.

The recorder of deeds office has records indicating that the land was sold lot by lot over a period of years to the IMD. Why would they buy it lot by lot and demolish each property? Anyone know the full story on this? Did they threaten eminent domain? Did they USE eminent domain?? I can't see the justification seeing as there's nothing there now, and I don't understand their need for future expansion room since they're really intent on ripping down the buildings on their current campus and replacing them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10263  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2010, 2:07 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,419
NOW UNDER CONSTRUCTION:

06/13/10






__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10264  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2010, 2:23 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by vxt22 View Post
Why would [IMD] buy [The Valley] lot by lot and demolish each property?
To gain property for future expansion and new projects, without upsetting people by using eminent domain.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago...ent?oid=892379
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10265  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2010, 3:00 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by aic4ever View Post
Anybody know anything about the new MBC?
http://www.museum.tv/newssection.php?page=573

Governor Quinn Announces $6 Million Capital Grant for the Museum of Broadcast Communications
June 11, 2010


Governor Pat Quinn announced a $6 million capital grant to the Museum of Broadcast Communications (MBC) to assist with the completion of its new facility at 360 North State Street in Chicago at a MBC event this evening. As one of only three museums dedicated to broadcast history in the nation, completion of this project will help further enhance Illinois’ successful tourism industry. MBC anticipates this project will create approximately 200 jobs.

..."The Museum of Broadcast Communications is grateful that Governor Pat Quinn and the Illinois General Assembly have recognized and honored the significant role Chicago has played in American radio and television history with this grant. We will commence construction on our new home at State and Kinzie this coming Monday, creating over 200 jobs for the next year," said Bruce DuMont, President & CEO of MBC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10266  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2010, 5:11 PM
Baronvonellis Baronvonellis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 880
Thank you Pat Quinn. I went to the Museum of Broadcasting back when it was at the Cultural Center and I remember how cool it was then. This new location should be even bigger and better. Lots of people I know that come to Chicago would like to see this, hopefully it will be opening soon now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10267  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2010, 5:49 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 7,305
^Yeah. . . me too. . . looking forward to this project getting completed. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10268  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2010, 5:57 PM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,379
How long has this project been waiting to be completed for, and is 6 million definitely going to finish it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10269  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2010, 6:27 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baronvonellis View Post
Thank you Pat Quinn. I went to the Museum of Broadcasting back when it was at the Cultural Center and I remember how cool it was then. This new location should be even bigger and better. Lots of people I know that come to Chicago would like to see this, hopefully it will be opening soon now.
Didn't the museum used to be down by Franklin Point in the 80's? As a side note, does anyone remember the Museum of Holography?
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10270  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2010, 6:36 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,387
Yes, the Museum of Broadcast Communications was originally in River City.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10271  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2010, 7:20 PM
BWChicago's Avatar
BWChicago BWChicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
Didn't the museum used to be down by Franklin Point in the 80's? As a side note, does anyone remember the Museum of Holography?
Holography: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago...nt?oid=1103150
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10272  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2010, 7:51 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago View Post
^Yeah. . . me too. . . looking forward to this project getting completed. . .
^ Thirded
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10273  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2010, 7:56 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
To gain property for future expansion and new projects, without upsetting people by using eminent domain.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago...ent?oid=892379
^ Thanks for the interesting link.

I have mixed feelings about the IMD. On one hand leveling large areas is necessary to compete with the suburbs. On the other hand, though, IMD has otherwise created an area of the city that is completely forgettable. You go to the hospital/office, then you come home. I'm still not sure why healthcare facilities can't coexist in the setting of mixed uses to the same degree that office districts can? I don't think doctors, nurses, and administrators loathe walkable mixed-use environments any more than anybody else does..
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10274  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2010, 8:57 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Thanks for the interesting link.

I have mixed feelings about the IMD. On one hand leveling large areas is necessary to compete with the suburbs. On the other hand, though, IMD has otherwise created an area of the city that is completely forgettable. You go to the hospital/office, then you come home. I'm still not sure why healthcare facilities can't coexist in the setting of mixed uses to the same degree that office districts can? I don't think doctors, nurses, and administrators loathe walkable mixed-use environments any more than anybody else does..
The dichotomy would indeed be more of a grey area if IMD actually needed and used all the land south of Roosevelt to build new medical facilities, but since those many blocks are (a) predominantly lying fallow and will continue to do so for the forseeable future and (b) those few parcels that are seeing development are getting (TIF-subsidized) suburban craporama, wasn't the destruction of the Valley unquestionably a Bad Thing?

Let's see, an FBI facility, a senior housing building, a strip mall, and soon another strip mall... do any of these justify a government medical district acquiring and demolishing a neighborhood? Even if these were necessary/desirable developments then they should have occurred via means other than the IMD doing the dirty deed with a sledgehammer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10275  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2010, 4:43 AM
lawfin lawfin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,697
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....-home-run.html


Revised plan for Wrigleyville development: Less bland, but still no design home run
Closeupclark First, the ugly Toyota sign pops up behind Wrigley Field’s left-field bleachers. Now, a silly oversized noodle sculpture, an ad for Kraft, shows up outside the ballpark. These are dark days for good design in and around Wrigley.

But there’s at least a glimmer of hope. The architects of the much-maligned plan for a hotel, apartment and retail development across the street from Wrigley have gone back to the drawing board and injected some zip (above) into its previously bland street-level facades.

The changes are another step in the right direction for the $100 million proposal, which has come a long way since 2008 when its developers floated the idea of two towers that would have loomed menacingly over Wrigley. The project deserves a crucial re-zoning Thursday from the Chicago Plan Commission, even though it retains serious design flaws.

Clarkbefore

If that sounds self-contradictory, let me explain: Zoning regulates land use, not architectural style. This project, known as Addison Park on Clark and designed by Chicago architects Solomon Cordwell Buenz for M&R Development in partnership with SAS Equities, is an appropriate land use. It’s no longer too tall and would put its apartments next to a CTA rapid-transit stop — an eminently sustainable move. Its fundamental flaws are more fine-grained.

The design calls for tearing down a variety of funky low-rise buildings designed by different architects in different styles at different times. It would replace them with one large structure designed in one style by one architect at the same time. That’s why the version that raised such a ruckus last month, with its flat and featureless walls of brick marching down Clark and Addison Streets (above), seemed mall-like even if it wasn’t really proposing to construct a mall.

Madison What’s an architect to do? One option is to revert to Disneyesque nostalgia and tack Ye Olde Wrigleyville false fronts on the new building -- clearly a non-starter.

Another course is to break up the project’s bigness with a variety of contemporary materials and expressions, a strategy that Chicago architect Joe Valerio successfully pursued in a comparably scaled, commercial and office project next to Wisconsin’s State Capitol. The three-year-old project (left) saves old buildings and carefully inserts new ones, such as a Walgreens with a torqued roof of stainless steel. Such an approach might well have produced a design that was edgy and varied enough to fit into Wrigleyville’s appealingly eclectic jumble.

Instead, Solomon Cordwell Buenz, best known for its sleek white Crate & Barrel store on North Michigan Avenue, has tried a third way: A cluster of related pieces that strive for personality – “one that has a Mohawk,” as the firm’s president, John Lahey, jokingly put it Wednesday.

Addisonparkafter

In truth, the design remains more College Cut than Mohawk. But it does have some good strokes, such as the folded metal walls and roofs with which the architects sub-divide their Clark facade and break down its street-dulling sameness (left). Also appealing are the window bays the architects suggest along Clark, as well as the striped brickwork they propose along both Clark and Addison.

Features like these would endow Addison Park on Clark with the sort of syncopated rhythms that enliven the experience of pedestrians in Wrigleyville. The design’s mix of articulated brickwork and visible steel framing would forge a subtle link to Wrigley itself. From some vantage points, particularly along Clark looking north, the project is coming nicely into shape, its varied rooflines and materials striking the right balance between respecting the old and injecting the new.

Yet the architects have done nothing to revise the apartments and hotel that would sit atop the project’s retail base. So the overall picture remains imperfect.

Addisonfront

The continued absence of a large setback along Addison means that the project’s apartments will loom above Wrigley’s lower roofline, threatening the ballpark’s visual preeminence. If the developers and architects won’t budge on that feature, they should consider stripping the apartments of their proposed brick cladding and sheathing them in the modernist materials of metal and glass. That would make the apartments appear less bulky and the project as a whole more heterogeneous.

And it would substitute a new, non-Disneyesque urban variety for the one this project is destined to destroy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10276  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2010, 3:41 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,285
Though I still don't like a single building replacing a bunch of structures, the design at street level is an improvement, although I still think the streetwall needs to step up in height at one corner. It still has a semi continuous parapet wall the entire length.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10277  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2010, 4:25 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
http://www.suntimes.com/business/240...061710.article

Complex across from Wrigley Field wins approval from city planners
June 17, 2010
BY DAVID ROEDER


A hotel and residential complex on Addison Street across from Wrigley Field won approval today from city planners.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10278  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2010, 5:29 AM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 7,653
While the stretch along Clark looks better, I have to say I'm just happy to see trees planted! I've never found that stretch of Clark to be particularly appealing to walk down. The sidewalks are too narrow and there isn't any type of vegetation to soften the harshness of what is essentially a purely concrete & asphalt environment. I just hope the sidwalks are large enough that the trees won't take up too much space. Though I personally would love to see the trees doubled from what's shown in the renderings. Still, it's better than it is now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10279  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2010, 1:44 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawfin View Post
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....-home-run.html


Revised plan for Wrigleyville development: Less bland, but still no design home run
Closeupclark First, the ugly Toyota sign pops up behind Wrigley Field’s left-field bleachers. Now, a silly oversized noodle sculpture, an ad for Kraft, shows up outside the ballpark. These are dark days for good design in and around Wrigley.

But there’s at least a glimmer of hope. The architects of the much-maligned plan for a hotel, apartment and retail development across the street from Wrigley have gone back to the drawing board and injected some zip (above) into its previously bland street-level facades.

The changes are another step in the right direction for the $100 million proposal, which has come a long way since 2008 when its developers floated the idea of two towers that would have loomed menacingly over Wrigley. The project deserves a crucial re-zoning Thursday from the Chicago Plan Commission, even though it retains serious design flaws.

Clarkbefore

If that sounds self-contradictory, let me explain: Zoning regulates land use, not architectural style. This project, known as Addison Park on Clark and designed by Chicago architects Solomon Cordwell Buenz for M&R Development in partnership with SAS Equities, is an appropriate land use. It’s no longer too tall and would put its apartments next to a CTA rapid-transit stop — an eminently sustainable move. Its fundamental flaws are more fine-grained.

The design calls for tearing down a variety of funky low-rise buildings designed by different architects in different styles at different times. It would replace them with one large structure designed in one style by one architect at the same time. That’s why the version that raised such a ruckus last month, with its flat and featureless walls of brick marching down Clark and Addison Streets (above), seemed mall-like even if it wasn’t really proposing to construct a mall.

Madison What’s an architect to do? One option is to revert to Disneyesque nostalgia and tack Ye Olde Wrigleyville false fronts on the new building -- clearly a non-starter.

Another course is to break up the project’s bigness with a variety of contemporary materials and expressions, a strategy that Chicago architect Joe Valerio successfully pursued in a comparably scaled, commercial and office project next to Wisconsin’s State Capitol. The three-year-old project (left) saves old buildings and carefully inserts new ones, such as a Walgreens with a torqued roof of stainless steel. Such an approach might well have produced a design that was edgy and varied enough to fit into Wrigleyville’s appealingly eclectic jumble.

Instead, Solomon Cordwell Buenz, best known for its sleek white Crate & Barrel store on North Michigan Avenue, has tried a third way: A cluster of related pieces that strive for personality – “one that has a Mohawk,” as the firm’s president, John Lahey, jokingly put it Wednesday.

Addisonparkafter

In truth, the design remains more College Cut than Mohawk. But it does have some good strokes, such as the folded metal walls and roofs with which the architects sub-divide their Clark facade and break down its street-dulling sameness (left). Also appealing are the window bays the architects suggest along Clark, as well as the striped brickwork they propose along both Clark and Addison.

Features like these would endow Addison Park on Clark with the sort of syncopated rhythms that enliven the experience of pedestrians in Wrigleyville. The design’s mix of articulated brickwork and visible steel framing would forge a subtle link to Wrigley itself. From some vantage points, particularly along Clark looking north, the project is coming nicely into shape, its varied rooflines and materials striking the right balance between respecting the old and injecting the new.

Yet the architects have done nothing to revise the apartments and hotel that would sit atop the project’s retail base. So the overall picture remains imperfect.

Addisonfront

The continued absence of a large setback along Addison means that the project’s apartments will loom above Wrigley’s lower roofline, threatening the ballpark’s visual preeminence. If the developers and architects won’t budge on that feature, they should consider stripping the apartments of their proposed brick cladding and sheathing them in the modernist materials of metal and glass. That would make the apartments appear less bulky and the project as a whole more heterogeneous.

And it would substitute a new, non-Disneyesque urban variety for the one this project is destined to destroy
Approved by the plan commission yesterday
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10280  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2010, 4:10 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,419
The master plan for Lake Meadows was also approved.





King Drive is the street on the bottom of the screen






__________________
titanic1
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 7:52 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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