CHICAGO | General Developments

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by honte

Concerning the garages, I don't know what to say... certainly, I couldn't support them at the expense of historic buildings. Even if that were not an issue, it's a very hard call. Wicker Park / Bucktown is in the interesting predicament of being the first true destination "inland" neighborhood for retail / shopping (it's hard to call North / Clybourn a real neighborhood), and the choices made here are going to have a large impact on other future developments throughout the city. It's nice to see the area has "arrived" in such a large-scale economic sense, but will its success also be its total undoing?

This call for garages baffles me. We should all unequivocally oppose them. Yes, it's a busy neighborhood, but, not only is it well-served by public transportation, parking is nowhere near as difficult as it is in Lincoln Park and Lakeview (which I see as the only comparable set of neighborhoods in terms of commercial activity outside downtown), especially during shopping hours.

The problem with suburbanites is that they feel so entitled to a space on the same block as their retail destination they bristle at the idea of having to walk a few more. In my North Shore hometown, people constantly complain about parking in the business district despite the fact that there are two free underground parking garages, two recently constructed free above-ground garages and plenty of spaces on the periphery.

[honte]

^ Yeah, I agree. I certainly didn't mean to imply that I'd ever be totally in favor of a garage in that location; just that they would be less objectionable if they were on vacant property.

If I ever have trouble parking in that area, it's in the evening when the restaurants are doing a lot of business, not during the day. However, I think the garages would do acceptable business and probably would reinforce the area's commercial appeal from a certain perspective.

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Maybe someone can help me out here, but didn't Burnham's plan for Grant Park call for a more bucolic experience in the southern portion? Something pastoral and contemplative would nicely complement the theme park to its north.

I agree. Enough with the theme parks. However, the location demands something unique and wonderful, hopefully more modern in concept.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

This call for garages baffles me. We should all unequivocally oppose them. Yes, it's a busy neighborhood, but, not only is it well-served by public transportation, parking is nowhere near as difficult as it is in Lincoln Park and Lakeview (which I see as the only comparable set of neighborhoods in terms of commercial activity outside downtown), especially during shopping hours.

The problem with suburbanites is that they feel so entitled to a space on the same block as their retail destination they bristle at the idea of having to walk a few more. In my North Shore hometown, people constantly complain about parking in the business district despite the fact that there are two free underground parking garages, two recently constructed free above-ground garages and plenty of spaces on the periphery.

Indeed. Whenever I've driven there, I've never had to park more than 2 blocks from the main intersection. In addition to metered spaces there is always ample unregulated street parking south along Damen and on numerous side streets. The parking 'problem' can and should be solved through metering: more metered spaces, higher meter rates, and signage to direct drivers to metered zones where appropriate (also, as with many retail districts, lots of meters are taken up by workers feeding the underpriced meters for 8 hours, which should be rectified in short order. the workers especially should park on side streets so the meters are for shoppers and diners).

Further, as Ch G says, we shouldn't be catering to the notion that everyone can always expect parking immediately in front of their destination. If a restaurant wishes to offer valet service for storing cars off-site, that's their perogative and should be encouraged in lieu of parking garages blighting the intersection. That the proposed sites are mere steps from a rapid transit station should seal the deal. If Bucktown wants a garage, build it near the no-man's land along Ashland or North near the Kennedy Expressway where the drivers are coming from, anyway - not next to the train line.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Conceptually, I see it as Millennium Park's more movement- and family-oriented sister. I think it should be an inviting pathway from Roosevelt Road transit stations to the Museum Campus, and should include a world-class playscape that will be a memorable part of family visits to Chicago. For some reason I keep thinking of the Tuileries. Challenges include the siting of “Agora,” which is apparently difficult to alter, and the shadowing that will make that part of the park less attractive than the blocks to the north.

I attended the meeting tonight in Grant Park. The comments were actually pretty rational, considering the NIMBY-fests that GPC's meetings have broken down into before.

-There is no design ready to present yet. In fact, there was precious little concrete information given out.
-The new park aims to be on the cutting edge of sustainability, demonstrating green techniques that can be used elsewhere in the city.
-The architects from EDAW and Smith+Gill stressed "activation" of the park space, i.e. the creation of park features that draw people and compel them to take part in some activity.
-The architects also seek to make the park a destination for residents moreso than tourists, but they must balance this with the Millennium Park-style "activation" mentioned above
-The Agora sculpture will remain, and the park will grow around it
-No decision has been reached on whether the tracks will be decked over or, if so, how much of the tracks will be decked (this will largely depend on the funding available)
-O'Neill mentioned that the city is trying to put movable chairs in certain park areas along Michigan
-The presentation included several ideas from EDAW's and Smith+Gill's previous projects, as well as other architects' projects, that MAY influence the design. Among these, an innovative playground designed by a Dutch architect was shown.

The new park will be limited to the area between Roosevelt and the 11th Street pedestrian bridge, because of limited funding and the fact that this area falls within the Near South TIF district for some obscure historical reasons.

Comments were mostly positive (it's hard to disagree when the architects are merely presenting their goals). Commenters largely fell into two camps - those who wanted to see a repeat of the density and flashiness of Millennium Park, and those who wanted a quiet neighborhood park. The architects were already one step ahead, and they are striving to achieve a proper balance between the two.

The most interesting idea I heard was actually one that's been around for awhile, but I never knew about it - Kathryn Gustafson, designer of Lurie Garden in MP, suggested a kind of landscaping for the Metra trench that does not include decking. To be sure, it would involve additional bridges across the tracks at each east-west street, but between those, the trench would have every unused inch filled with resilient and attractive plant material to create a landscaped area without the tremendous cost of covering up the tracks. If you can imagine the trench walls turned into hanging gardens and the railroad's track bed transformed into a colorful plant carpet, that's what it would resemble.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

This call for garages baffles me. We should all unequivocally oppose them. Yes, it's a busy neighborhood, but, not only is it well-served by public transportation, parking is nowhere near as difficult as it is in Lincoln Park and Lakeview (which I see as the only comparable set of neighborhoods in terms of commercial activity outside downtown), especially during shopping hours.

The problem with suburbanites is that they feel so entitled to a space on the same block as their retail destination they bristle at the idea of having to walk a few more. In my North Shore hometown, people constantly complain about parking in the business district despite the fact that there are two free underground parking garages, two recently constructed free above-ground garages and plenty of spaces on the periphery.

I certainly agree with these sentiments, but unfortunately there is a lot more going on with the two developers that are proposing the garages that is ultimately going to have a substantial impact on what ends up happening. CG Development, which is proposing the garage on Damen that will end up leveling one structure if built, is the party behind the acquisition of the Midwest Bank property at the NW corner of Milwaukee and Damen. The deal that they made, for quite a bit of money I should add (near $30 mil. IIRC), also included two surface lots, one of which being the site of their proposed garage. The development of the garage was announced concurrently with their purchase of the bank and the associated lots, and this leads me to believe that they are banking on the garage to recoup some of the substantial initial investment in the properties. For its development plans, CG hired the same attorney that Karbowski used to skirt community groups and the 32nd ward alderman to forge ahead with his plans for Northwest Tower; it seems as though they plan on pulling out all the stops to get their parking garage constructed.

And speaking of Karbowski and his proposed garage, it is also quite mysterious that he would get special permission from the zoning board of appeals for his hotel construction when there is currently only 26 spaces alloted for that property on the street and in various surface lots. 26 spaces for 90 planned hotel rooms does not sound like math that would be approved by the city, unless of course they know something that we don't...

------------------------------------------------------

And thanks, Ardecila, for updating us with your notes from the meeting tonight. I am putting my faith in S&G that they will deliver a nice product, but it seems as though their plans are a little ambitious considering all of the talk of budget constraints. Miller-Coors to the rescue?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Wow, Ardecila. Thanks for the rundown. Interesting information. I'm not liking the fact that the architects are bandying about this "activation" buzzword. While I'm thrilled with the way Millennium Park turned out, and concerns for a "balanced" Grant Park aside, its success would be near impossible to replicate without the massive funds I'm certain this project will lack. I mean, Millennium Park is less innovative planning and more a simple showcase of individual, high quality attractions. I don't know how a comparably flashy counterpart would look anything but tacky on a budget. The "quiet neighborhood park" proposition is also kind of troubling. The area should be sublime, not quaint.

But I love Kathryn Gustafson's idea. One of the amazing things about Chicago is the way in which world-class institutions (housed in world-class architecture) sprung up right alongside the basest, dirtiest industries. Over the last couple of decades the city has grown self-conscious of the remnants of its industrial heritage. That's understandable. But the solution has been to raze them or cover them up. So you end up with something like Millennium Park which kind of denies the evidence of a crucial part of Chicago's history. From the sound of it, Kathryn Gustafson wants to do the opposite: embrace and adapt it. It reminds me of a larger scale version of Manhattan's High Line project. I think this could prove to be a very successful strategy if pursued and may even set a much needed precedent for the city. Plus, the Lurie Garden is one of my favorite components of Millennium Park, so I tend to trust where she's coming from.

[Mr Downtown]

Millennium Park's attractions are not "right there." They're a mile to the north. I'm thinking of things that will engage the west-to-east movement across the south end of Grant Park: families slowly making their way from Roosevelt Road CTA stations or South Michigan Avenue hotels to the Museum Campus, or Bears fans making the trek to Soldier Field. So I'd like to see the design recognize this processional component and enliven it, so the psychological distance to transit is shortened for visitors. Elements could include innovative playscapes that will appeal to older kids as well as preschoolers, water features that kids can play in (here's where shadowing becomes a big problem), and concessions that encourage visitors to sit and enjoy the passing parade. The Bears games mean this part of the park gets winter visitors as well, and they should find something other than a frozen wasteland. The elevation difference between the Roosevelt viaduct and the IC trench makes a sledding hill a natural. I also loved the Gustafson idea of carpeting the IC trench with different colored grasses and wildflowers—but Metra is notoriously hard to work with.

And Burnham's plans for Grant Park were to fill it with buildings and front the south end with an enormous train station.

[Busy Bee]

Metra is hard to work with because they are fundamentally unimaginative and disconnected from anything and everything "design related." Look at their branding, a good 25 years out of style, look at their rolling stock, look at their paint schemes. The previous operators of their lines had fantastic brand identity—CNW Green and Yellow, Rock Island Red, IC Orange, Metra took this heritage and barfed all over it with some homage to Old Glory, CTA as well for that matter. With the exception of Randolph St Station, which probably wasn't their idea, foreign rail operators make Metra look like it has the brand image of a lemonade stand.

[Mr Downtown]

Branding is one issue, but I actually give Metra a B- on that score. I mean, they could have just remained the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, or the Suburban Train Division of RTA. Instead, they created an identity and have built a well-regarded service around the idea of "the way to really fly." On the other hand, I'm mystified about why every piece of rolling stock has to display the American flag. Is there a danger that it will be shot at if it ventures into North Korean airspace?

No, Metra is most difficult when it comes to real estate. They refused to allow CDOT to construct an intermodal facility at LaSalle Street Station. Their complete intransigence over the relocation of Rock Island District tracks made both Riverside Park and the Roosevelt Collection mediocre projects. They insisted that CTA buses never be allowed to use the McCormick Place Busway. I'm sure their foot-dragging is the reason the new Roosevelt Road station took decades to get and in the end had to be built and funded by CDOT. Time after time they demonstrate that they have no interest in running a real regional rail system. Instead they think they're running a sort of mine train, allowing upstanding suburbanites to tentatively venture into a stinking pit of commerce and vice for a few hours each workday before carrying them safely back home to loving family members in Lawnland.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Millennium Park's attractions are not "right there." They're a mile to the north. I'm thinking of things that will engage the west-to-east movement across the south end of Grant Park: families slowly making their way from Roosevelt Road CTA stations or South Michigan Avenue hotels to the Museum Campus, or Bears fans making the trek to Soldier Field. So I'd like to see the design recognize this processional component and enliven it, so the psychological distance to transit is shortened for visitors. Elements could include innovative playscapes that will appeal to older kids as well as preschoolers, water features that kids can play in (here's where shadowing becomes a big problem), and concessions that encourage visitors to sit and enjoy the passing parade. The Bears games mean this part of the park gets winter visitors as well, and they should find something other than a frozen wasteland. The elevation difference between the Roosevelt viaduct and the IC trench makes a sledding hill a natural. I also loved the Gustafson idea of carpeting the IC trench with different colored grasses and wildflowers—but Metra is notoriously hard to work with.

You mean to tell me you think a mile-- one mile (and not to be picky but because we're talking about such a small distance it's worth mentioning that it's actually an eighth of a mile from Monroe to 11th Street)-- is too far for tourists to go unaided by some kind of ceremony? How about the Michigan Avenue historic streetwall? The stroll alongside provides one of the most beautiful vistas in the world of built environment. It is plenty engaging, even for the visitor with the shortest of attention spans.

I think the approach you advocate is far too didactic and caters much too much to out-of-towners and parents with young children. Playscapes? Water features? (How many more Crown Fountains do we need?) Concessions? Maybe the city could contract some of the costumed characters from Six Flags while it's at it? I get that you're aiming for a sort of Parc de la Villette experience but I really think that would be overkill given the nature of the attractions (well within walking distance) that already surround this parcel. Chicago's front yard should be sophisticated and awe-inspiring regardless of your age or relationship with the city. I don't think emulating Navy Pier will achieve this.

[honte]

I am in no way in favor of this Kathryn Gustafson proposal, except as a short-term measure.

Certainly, I count myself among the bigger fans of celebrating the city's industrial heritage. But I have my limits: When it directly interferes with one of the city's greatest public spaces, I'll side with those who want to "clean it up." We have miles and miles of lovely railroad and viaduct to look at - let's implement her plan in those areas.

For instance, I think Piano's decision (assistance) to keep the tracks uncovered by the Art Institute is a horrible and detrimental idea - except, of course, I think in actuality ARTIC is just playing the "celebrate the train" card as a way to keep that as a future development site.

If the scales were tipped to 80% coverage and the rest reworked as very clever "reveals" where the tracks became visible in an aesthetic way, I'd be OK with that. But that's about as much as I'm willing to give on this issue. The cohesiveness of the park is just much more important.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

This call for garages baffles me. We should all unequivocally oppose them. Yes, it's a busy neighborhood, but, not only is it well-served by public transportation, parking is nowhere near as difficult as it is in Lincoln Park and Lakeview (which I see as the only comparable set of neighborhoods in terms of commercial activity outside downtown), especially during shopping hours.

The problem with suburbanites is that they feel so entitled to a space on the same block as their retail destination they bristle at the idea of having to walk a few more. In my North Shore hometown, people constantly complain about parking in the business district despite the fact that there are two free underground parking garages, two recently constructed free above-ground garages and plenty of spaces on the periphery.

100% Agree!

It is time we go back to the old neighborhoods where stores served those living in the neighborhoods. No one needs a car if you live in a neighborhoods and all the stores and restaurants and medical are all within a decent walking distance.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Family-oriented? World-class playscape? You have Millennium Park (Crown Fountain, winter ice rinks, free concerts), softball fields, the entire Museum Campus, and, God forbid, a possibly relocated children's museum right there. How much more "pro-child" can that area get? Or are you actually advocating for a glorified playground?

Apologies if this sounds acrimonious but, coming from a suburb where the children are among the most coddled in the region, I find this idea absolutely repulsive. The city's done enough catering to young family-tourists.

Maybe someone can help me out here, but didn't Burnham's plan for Grant Park call for a more bucolic experience in the southern portion? Something pastoral and contemplative would nicely complement the theme park to its north.

Am tired of it too. City parks should be designed for all. Tired of the "Norman Rockwell" bull. If the city wants to make children areas...time to make child free parks too.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by honte

For instance, I think Piano's decision (assistance) to keep the tracks uncovered by the Art Institute is a horrible and detrimental idea - except, of course, I think in actuality ARTIC is just playing the "celebrate the train" card as a way to keep that as a future development site.

I don't know, honte. When I was a young one lallygagging in and around the Art Institute, I always found the sight of such a venerable institution maneuvered atop an active rail system pretty awesome (and not the general declarative kind). I still do.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

water features that kids can play in (here's where shadowing becomes a big problem)

Question, during the 4 or 5 months a year that Chicago isn't frozen solid, when one would actually be able to play in a water feature without getting hypothermia, isn't the sun far enough north that shadows from the south wall would hardly be an issue (maybe 50-150 feet long to no feet long depending how close to the solstice you are)?

If its shadows from future buildings to the west you are worried about, how does an extremely successful water feature like Crown Fountain get away with being right up against a wall of extremely tall building to the west?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Instead they think they're running a sort of mine train, allowing upstanding suburbanites to tentatively venture into a stinking pit of commerce and vice for a few hours each workday before carrying them safely back home to loving family members in Lawnland.

this statement cracked me up.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

You mean to tell me you think a mile-- one mile (and not to be picky but because we're talking about such a small distance it's worth mentioning that it's actually an eighth of a mile from Monroe to 11th Street)-- ...

Um, no. I don't know how you measure distances, but unless some weird time-space warp appeared over Michigan Avenue, it's actually 7/8ths (seven eights) of a mile from Monroe to 11th Street.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I don't know, honte. When I was a young one lallygagging in and around the Art Institute, I always found the sight of such a venerable institution maneuvered atop an active rail system pretty awesome (and not the general declarative kind). I still do.

It is awesome. But taken in totality, is it so awesome that it should be kept around exactly as-is for eternity? Is there a way to keep the "awesomeness" while enhancing the public realm, reclaiming land for useable green / public space, and reconnecting the park?

[Dr. Taco]

^ I'm sure there are some cool things you could do. Maybe an outdoor "portal" of some kind where everything is covered up nicely down south, except there is a pit where you can see the railroads. Just so you can know that everything you see is built above railroad tracks, which is not exactly a small feat

i love how eloquent I am

[aic4ever]

I wonder if whatever they do will pre-empt people from using the entire south end of grant park as a giant dog-toilet.

Nothing like the pungent aroma of dog piss baking in the summer sun on yellow grass to make for a nice stroll through the park.