Where would the new dorm be located? On the south campus? Also, do you know if UC has any plans to develop that empty lot at the corner of cottage grove and 61st?

It's also "historic" (where Barack and Michelle had their first kiss. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/obama-kissing-rock

1. Don't exactly know. But I am guessing South Campus because of available land and proximity to other dorms.

2. Don't know for sure, but in general there is a big push to develop South Campus / Midway.

Here is the old master plan showing the new (finally official) cancer hospital:

https://vimeo.com/77539498

Page 31

Do you guys think U of Chicago will buy up Parkway Gardens (notouriously known as O Block) and redevelop it into student housing? It's right in Woodlawn and there's been some talk about it...

Buy it. Maybe.

Student housing. I doubt it. in keeping with the University's new dorm plan, it only has two kinds of dorms:

1) Historic Gothic buildings (BJ, Snell, I-House)
2) Modern gleaming new mega dorms (Max P, North, Grossman, Woodlawn Commons).

Days of buying up old, non-Gothic buildings and refurbishing are over.

But if by redevelop you mean knock down and start over. Maybe

Oh, wait, if that's the complex off campus then no way. I can't believe they would go that far unless it's between Cottage Grove and Stony Island and 61st. Not past that.

Sorry, I live in Los Angeles. I don't know South Side outside of Hyde Park.

UChicago is not going to be developing anything south of 61st in the foreseeable future.

So the new Cancer Hospital plan says:

$663 million, 500,000 square foot, 128-bed clinical cancer center

The 2013 master plan said:

New Bed Tower / Cancer Center, 8 levels, 240 beds (same location)

Could there be additional beds not counted in the cancer center? Or perhaps the moving of the ED opened up space elsewhere?

240 beds in the 2013 master plan might be counting outpatient services. Not sure. I know patients can stay the night for observation and still be technically outpatient.

Yeah could be that the renovation of Mitchell opened up some beds they'll keep or maybe the building out of the mothballed space in the Center for Care and Discovery (which had just opened in 2013) or outpatients services filled some of that need. Or maybe they'll mothball some space in the Cancer Center that will be built out later.

Won't happen. UChicago has informal pledge to not build south of 61st

Oh shit. It’s over. They’re gonna landmark it. It will be the first strip mall in history with a landmark designation. :(

There is a way to salvage the situation. Landmark it, but turn the parking lot into a public plaza!

Why? Woodlawn would certainly benefit from UoC developing in the neighborhood.

Longstanding 61st St. Pledge...dates back to 1964. Things have obv. changed in last 10-20 years, but there's a long history to the university's relations with Woodlawn

Personally I think UChicago is wise to keep developing the core campus before expanding much outward as other schools have done. Better for students to be close to the center of things. At least while you still have the land to do it.

Not just that, but as I mentioned a while back in an older post, UC is concentrating future expansions west of Washington Park near the 55th St Green Line station, where they've been land-banking parcels since 2008-09 when Chicago was vying for the Olympics.

Speaking of local landmarks, the site of the new Cancer Hospital is the former site of the apartment Ronald Reagan lived briefly when he was a kid:

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2013...ty-of-chicago/

Has anyone else here ever read "gang leader for a day"? By Sudhir Vankateshi?

Yeah... The UofC have torn down blocks upon blocks of vintage apartment buildings over the past few decades. It's kinda gross actually.

I guess the question is does building a new ER / Trauma Center, Cancer Hospital, Children's Hospital, and Adult Hospital count as a gross reuse of the property?

It's pretty hard to build something new in a densely populated city like Chicago without something else coming down.

I do agree with the general point that historic architecture should be preserved and not be torn down indiscriminately.

The University claims that some of those apartment buildings it bought were in much worse shape than the owners alleged. As I recall the University claimed some of the buildings had beams in the basement that were at risk of collapse, since they 100+ years old and poorly maintained by the owner.