CHICAGO | General Developments

[Rizzo]

My first thought was why can't they renovate at least the one on the left.... But the more I look at them, the more challenging they appear. This area needs modern flexible retail space.

I wish it could be taller though. Stack 3 more floors on top that are full floor luxury condos and sell them for a million or more. Most new condos in the area are in towers, when a couple could be lowrise buildings.

What's interesting about the elevation is the height of the proposed building is nearly the same as the existing structures....about 40' tall.

[ChiTownCity]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Any thoughts on the changes? Any buildings or businesses that were destroyed in the process that you'd like to see back?

I just don't understand this at all. Okay maybe the existing buildings are dilipidated or somehow does not have the space the people need or something (which would strange). I understand that being extremely cheap is the new trend here lately but seriously? Is it that much more expenisive to build the new buildings at the same height? This type of stuff really does irritate me because it just keeps on looking like a big step backwards...

well maybe (hopefully) in the near future, if the downtown area continues to grow, then this would be an easy location for a mixed use midrise...

^ I agree with these being suburban designs.

actually it could look even worse than suburban if they use those ugly cinderblocks like they use on some walgreens, which the drawing looks like thats the route they're going in...

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I wish it could be taller though. Stack 3 more floors on top that are full floor luxury condos and sell them for a million or more. Most new condos in the area are in towers, when a couple could be lowrise buildings.

Umm definitely no. Once you go condo its almost impossible to go back. This is a future location for a highrise, under no circumstances should be encourage our city to be filled up with 5 story condo buildings with 3 Br $1,000,000 condos in them. That would be asking for a low density, dead, city. Go big or go home when you are within 2 miles of a Supertall IMHO...

This retail will be a great placeholder by combining three smaller lots into a single lot while still being a productive use of the neighborhood. None of the existing buildings appear to have any significance, so I say great, but no shitty ass 5 story condo buildings please!

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Loss of the Gino's east pizzeria building kind of sucked.

Otherwise, nah... All in all the changes were a 2000% improvement

I agree about the loss of the Gino's building. But I'd add the Scholl medicine building that was lost due to NIMBYs. I also wish they could have incorporated the Papa Milano's facade into the new Barneys.

I think 10 E Delaware is the one I dislike the most for replacing a street of human-scale buildings for a pretty lame Lagrange. Although I do also miss Cafe Luciano on Chestnut/Rush. Hmm...times have certainly changed.

[ardecila]

My only problem with the retail structure is the faux-French decoration.

It makes Chicagoans look very nouveau riche and unsophisticated, bluntly and poorly copying French architecture in an attempt to get instant class.

This is part of the reason why Chicago, to many high-end fashion houses, is just another American city full of pocketbooks and gullible consumers on par with Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Las Vegas, etc. (Actually Miami for one is improving... Lincoln Road keeps getting cool modern additions)

Chicago's luxury-retail industry hasn't really pushed for a strong architectural statement unique to Chicago... they just covet the good examples of 1920s architecture and then try (and fail) to build more of it.

[Mr Downtown]

^ . . . and who are the retailers to judge what will appeal to their target market?

[SamInTheLoop]

^ It pains me to say it, but I'm not sure the average high income consumer here has that much more refined design sensibility than their counterparts in Atlanta, Dallas or Houston. Isn't the nauseating popularity of LaGrange a testiment to that? (Again, I can't stress enough what a great decision retirment is for him, and kudos on the bankruptcy and a job...........done)
I think it's up to our institutions - the integrity and relentless reach for design excellence by our esteemed architectural community to guide developers and tenants down a path that maintains their own work being held to a high standard, also it would help to have an educated and enlightened government and neighborhood groups (for the most part, I do not know that we have this).....we need some sort of local public/private initiative that cooperates with local architecture and design firms and promotes innovation and excellence in architecture for new construction and refurbishment programs

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^ . . . and who are the retailers to judge what will appeal to their target market?

I'm gonna agree with Mr. D. here, and Sam, not really sure that high-end clients in any of the cities you mentioned, including Chicago are really that concerned with how a retailers' store looks as much as with the interior, and more importantly, what they're selling.

Some high-end retailers, like LVMH, Burberry, Prada, Chanel can spend the money to create a comprehensive look that fits their specific brand idea because they have the money to build gorgeous, design-centric flahship stores (look at the proposed, and potentially awesome new Burberry building on Boul. Mich), but if a commercial space is spec-designed, perhaps a smaller, specialty retailer will prefer to lease into that, and spend more money designing the interior to their specific brand needs.

Personally, I'm not overly offended by the sketch of the building that is replacing the three storefronts on Walton, which have perhaps seen better days and might be too cost-prohibitive to re-hab.

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I wish it could be taller though. Stack 3 more floors on top that are full floor luxury condos and sell them for a million or more. Most new condos in the area are in towers, when a couple could be lowrise buildings.

But then you would need to dedicate some of the ground floor space to a lobby/entrance for the upper-floor condos. This makes the space less attractive to the retailer.

Also, the retailer/building owner would have a more difficult time redeveloping the site for a future project if other people owned/lived there.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^ . . . and who are the retailers to judge what will appeal to their target market?

The fashion industry is responsible in large part for defining the taste of the high-end market.

It works just as well for architecture as it does for clothes.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by brian_b

But then you would need to dedicate some of the ground floor space to a lobby/entrance for the upper-floor condos. This makes the space less attractive to the retailer.

Also, the retailer/building owner would have a more difficult time redeveloping the site for a future project if other people owned/lived there.

No. A loss of 6' of linear frontage for an elevator vestibule would not make the building any less desirable for retailers. I also disagree with the idea that it would make redevelopment efforts impractical. Are you saying any mixed use structure ever built in this city is disposable? The first two levels are your flexible space. You can outfit the lower floors anyway you please, and even modify the storefront facade if need be without disrupting the residential floors above. We've been building mixed use for a very long time.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Lots of parking vs. a tall building - what's the WLCO to do?

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roe...ct-garage.html

16-level structure would be all parking
DAVID ROEDER Feb 1, 2011

...The building for 290 cars would rise at 124 N. Halsted and consist entirely of 16 levels for parking. Developer Bruce Michael said the height will be closer to that of an eight-to-10-story building.

Elevators and mechanical systems would direct the cars into stacked slots, without a human hand touching them. The garage would be part of a residential rehab of an adjacent former factory at 113 N. Green, with some spaces reserved for the tenants and the rest available for patrons of Greektown and Randolph Street businesses.

...Michael, owner of Michigan-based Ojibway Development, said he hopes he can begin construction this summer. The six-story Green Street building, a onetime Allis-Chalmers factory, would get a seventh floor added and be reconfigured for 112 apartments.

Looks like the fire department is loosening their opposition to automated garages. CFD has been the biggest impediment to getting any garages like this proposal built in Chicago. Automated garages are standard development options elsewhere, especially in Japan. CFD's main concern was stacking vehicles with flammable fluids in such close proximity to each other while not having a way to readily access the interior spaces. I assume garages in earthquake ridden Japan have developed design techniques and fire suppression systems to alleviate such a concern.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Stack 3 more floors on top that are full floor luxury condos and sell them for a million or more.

Unfortunately, these days this is considered problematic from an ownership and management standpoint. High-end retailers don't want to be under the thumb of a condo association, while the kind of institutional owners who would own national-credit retail space aren't interested in managing a small apartment building on top, and consider it a hard-to-value and hard-to-trade asset. That's why mixed-use has become increasingly rare, and why condo developers would rather put the bike and exercise rooms on the ground floor than a rent-paying retailer.

[Rizzo]

Ok, I can see that then. It's unfortunate because there's no way we'll see any new towers going up on the Walton and Oak blocks anytime soon. At least some decent 5-6 story stuff would reduce the radical height differences between...say Elysian and Lululemon.

I do like my open views at the moment though.

[Mr Downtown]

It's also pretty tricky to do a luxury-market tower (the only thing that would ever be built on Walton or Oak) on a mid-block site less than 100 feet wide.

[Chicagoguy]

I was curious but has anyone heard anything more on that proposed mixed use plan near the Ravenswood Metra stop that would be built in the empty parking lot? I know Marianos had talked about being the grocer originally!

[spyguy]

In addition to Five Guys for part of the retail portion, the actual theater building is going to reopen as a 5 screen cinema:

http://news.uchicago.edu/news.php?asset_id=2266

New five–screen movie theater coming to 53rd Street
February 24, 2011

The University of Chicago plans to bring The New 400 Theaters, an independent movie operator that will offer a mix of art, children’s and wide–release films, in the soon–to–be renovated buildings at 53rd Street and Harper Avenue.

Officials said the 10,149–square–foot theater plan includes five screens with state–of–the–art digital projection. One screening room will have tables placed between the seats for future lunch and dinner options.

The New 400 Theaters plans to discount tickets for students, seniors and children. General–admission seating will be below market prices, said theater officials.

“We believe students, faculty, staff and our neighbors will be very excited about having a new movie theater within walking distance,” said Kimberly Goff–Crews, Vice President for Campus Life. “As we talk to members of our community about how to enhance campus life, this is one of the ideas that comes up frequently.”

The agreement with The New 400 Theaters is part of a broader effort to revitalize the 53rd Street corridor as a focus of commercial, retail and entertainment activity.

Last month, the University unveiled plans to begin a major renovation of the commercial and theater buildings at 53rd Street and Harper Avenue, which are currently vacant. Five Guys restaurant, scheduled to open by year’s end, will be the first tenant. Additional tenants will be announced in the upcoming months. The University is also partnering with the City and community leaders to lead an ambitious redevelopment of the adjacent Harper Court property as a mixed–use complex.

“The theater, along with other strategic revitalization efforts, will bring added value to the area. It is one more piece of our ongoing conversations with the City and the neighborhood to build Hyde Park as a key destination on the South Side of Chicago,” said Susan Campbell, Associate Vice President of Civic Engagement.

...The movie theater has a targeted opening date of fall 2012.

[ardecila]

Cool. I wonder if this is a viable model for resurrecting the city's vast collection of old theaters? Many of the old ones have several hundred seats, getting into the thousands, while a modern theater has maybe 70-90.

The old single-screen model doesn't work because many moviegoers like the cineplex model where they have a wide range of movies to choose from. But these are huge buildings and they tend to be pretty far apart in the city, even further in the suburbs. A five-screen theater is sort of the best of both worlds... it offers enough choice to entice casual moviegoers while being small enough to fit inside historic theater buildings.

The theaters that have architecturally-important interior spaces should be preserved, but it's really tricky to find a profitable use for a 3000-seat space. There are only so many massive concert venues the city can absorb, and even these need to have good accessibility, since those large shows need to draw from all over Chicagoland.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Cool. I wonder if this is a viable model for resurrecting the city's vast collection of old theaters? Many of the old ones have several hundred seats, getting into the thousands, while a modern theater has maybe 70-90.

The old single-screen model doesn't work because many moviegoers like the cineplex model where they have a wide range of movies to choose from. But these are huge buildings and they tend to be pretty far apart in the city, even further in the suburbs. A five-screen theater is sort of the best of both worlds... it offers enough choice to entice casual moviegoers while being small enough to fit inside historic theater buildings.

The model you describe has been used extensively for decades, with mixed outcomes --- it fully describes the Davis and Logan theaters, still extant with approximately 5 screens, as well as a few suburban cinemas such as the LaGrange and the Lake (in Oak Park). There's also, of course, the New 400.

It's also how the Hyde Park Theater was laid out throughout the 70s through the 90s when it finally closed. The Village on Clark was a similar conversion which closed when it's market was diluted by the nearby AMC River East.

It partially comes down to details (many of those I listed were cheap chop-ups rather than partial restorations, so they weren't the most pleasant locations) and also simply comes down to whether the market will support it. 10 years ago, Hyde Park couldn't support it, but the theater was remarkably dumpy and basically entered a death spiral of undesirability, so a remodeled facility may do well.

If BWChicago is lurking, I'm sure he could offer some very insightful and thorough thoughts on theater viability as it relates to the condition/size/layout/location of the facility.

[BWChicago]

It's not really a very viable model anymore outside of the already-existing ones. Too few screens, too small capacity, and without stadium seating, they can't effectively compete - and they're almost always cheaply done, with small screens, weirdly shaped rooms, sound bleed. Then you get into code issues and it makes it even trickier at this point than it was in the 70s and 80s when most of these splits occurred. It would almost be easier to build out a vacant big-box into a multiplex. Assuming they're using essentially the same layout as the Hyde Park had previously rather than gutting it and re-dividing, I'm betting they'll squeeze one more screen out of the stage.

The Harper was converted much like the Evanston was, by extending the balcony floor towards stage, so it has seats in the 350 range. (That also made other reuse possibilities more difficult). So each auditorium is roughly twice the size of the screens at the 400. They've done a good job bringing the 400 back from a really bad condition, so maybe they can pull it off here - and the 400 obviously draws a lot from Loyola. The LaGrange was spruced up nicely too. It will be difficult. I'm extremely surprised that it's come back to a proposal like this after all these plans. But no, I don't think it would be a viable model elsewhere in the city.