Legacy at Millennium Park - 819'/71 fl (U/C)

[BVictor1]

Height: 819 ft
Floor count: 71
Location: South Wabash
Construction end: 2009
Architect: Solomon, Cordwell, Buenz and Associates
Developer: Mesa Development Company

Website (http://www.thelegacyatmillenniumpark.com/)

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/516/legacyxk9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

West facade
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1563/legacywestfacezn3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2808/legacygrantparktw2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Business
Landmark group fights 67-story Jewelers Row tower

February 4, 2005

BY DAVID ROEDER Business Reporter


Taking a stand against a project backed by mayoral allies, a landmarks preservation group is opposing a proposed 67-story tower developers would attach to three buildings in the historic Jewelers Row district along Wabash Avenue.

The Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois said a building of that scale is inappropriate for Wabash Avenue and an adjoining landmark district covering Michigan Avenue.

"We think the building shouldn't be that high. This is really the most historic part of downtown," said David Bahlman, the organization's president.

The group outlined its concerns in a letter to Denise Casalino, commissioner of the city's Department of Planning and Development. Her agency is reviewing a zoning proposal that would allow the condominium project. Approval from the city's landmarks panel also would be required.

The building would rise at 21-35 S. Wabash, site of three small buildings that date from the construction boom following the 1871 Chicago Fire. Plans call for the front portions of the structures to be preserved, with the high-rise starting at a 30-foot setback.

The proposal is from the same development team responsible for the 57-story Heritage at Millennium Park at the southeast corner of Randolph and Wabash, just outside the historic district. That project entailed the preservation of building facades along Wabash, and drew Mayor and Mrs. Daley as condo buyers.

The investment team includes construction firm Walsh Group, whose owners have long-standing ties to the Daley family, and Mesa Development LLC. To present their zoning case to the city, they hired the firm Daley & George, where mayoral brother Michael is the lead partner.

Mesa Principal Richard Hanson said the project is in keeping with the mayor's goal of a lively, 24-hour downtown. But he said he's received no explicit or clandestine support from Daley.

"I haven't spoken with the mayor about this," Hanson said. "We are going through the proper channels with the city. We've got a long way to go."

Criticism of the project ignores the presence of skyscrapers already part of the Wabash district or just outside of it, Hanson said. Among them are the 50-story building at 55 E. Monroe and the 44-story CNA Plaza, 325 S. Wabash.

He also argued that the buildings he would take over are mostly empty now above the first floor, and they would be renovated to provide space for the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. The developers have a contract to buy the property from the institute under a deal that's been talked about for years.

"Those empty buildings don't do Jewelers Row any good," Hanson said.

Downtown's alderman, Burton Natarus (42nd), voiced unreserved support for the plan. "I have no problem with that at all. We're going to blend it in with Jewelers Row," Natarus said.

A spokeswoman for Casalino had no comment other than that her department is studying the zoning application.

While acknowledging that high-rises co-exist with Jewelers Row, Bahlman said they all pre-date enactment of the historic district in 2003. The designation recognized the district's role in the growth of downtown's retail trade. Adding a high-rise now would open the door for new construction in historic areas nationwide, he said.

His organization is the largest private group in the state that supports preservation, and its board is dominated by leading architects and lawyers.

Hanson said that while the building, which would contain about 335 homes, is tall, its narrow profile would minimize its impact. The architectural firm Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates Inc., responsible for the well-received Heritage at Millennium Park, has been commissioned for the design.

[geoff_diamond]

I say go for it!!! The work done to preserve the facades on the west side of the Heritage has been a resounding success. They look fantastic and will surely enjoy a new lease on life.

Now, naturally, I'm going to push for SCB to actually finish painting this building unlike the Heritage.

[oshkeoto]

Good to hear that they'll preserve the front sections of the buildings, but I'd like to see a rendering before I decide whether it's good or not.

[The Urban Politician]

That article makes it sound as if Daley and Natarus think like we do, ie "keep on buildin um and f**k the NIMBY's"

[ChicagoLover]

Bahlman's group isn't NIMBYs... They are certainly an incredibly valuable -- and necessary -- voice to have.

Geoff_diamond--are you implying that Heritage is not going to be all white.. that they're going to leave part of that exposed?!??!

[The Urban Politician]

^Actually, I'm all for preservation. I am not against a group that feels the same way. But seriously, why can't they recognize concientious development when they see it?

[BVictor1]

Landmark's friends battle Loop tower

By David Mendell
Tribune staff reporter
Published February 4, 2005


Historic preservationists are fighting to severely cut the size of a proposed 67-story luxury condominium tower in the Loop that they believe will overwhelm a landmark district and disfigure the South Michigan Avenue skyline.


But the advocates seem to be waging an uphill battle: The final touches are being put on a nearby residential tower of similar scale, The Heritage at Millennium Park, soon to be home to Mayor Richard Daley. Also, the development group proposing the tower is represented by John George, an attorney with immense City Hall clout. George is a law partner of the mayor's brother, Michael.

This intersection of influential forces sets up a timeless battle in Chicago: the interests of powerful developers who want to make money and entice new residents downtown versus preservationists who want to maintain the city's architectural heritage.

Preservationists worry that this tower would give developers carte blanche to construct such buildings anywhere in the city, especially during a period when controversial residential condo towers are proposed throughout the Downtown region. Developers argue that the city would be unwise to freeze the current architecture in place, that progress must be embraced and not stymied.

"It's a horrible precedent to be setting," said David Bahlman, president of the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, a non-profit advocacy group. "You can just see condo tower after condo tower along Wabash. And for South Michigan Avenue, the skyline would wind up being a steppingstone to Wabash. It's all just a terrible idea."

Preservationists primarily oppose the tower because it is located in the Jewelers Row Landmark District, which was designated by the city to protect the architecture in a corridor along Wabash Aveune known for its history of jewelry makers.

The 67-story tower would rise one block behind South Michigan from the back of three buildings in the district that run from 21 to 29 S. Wabash. The facades of those historic former jewelry stores likely would be preserved, and retail businesses would fill the first floor of the high-rise, according to the development plan.

But the tower also would alter the South Michigan skyline, as well as add a skyscraper to the surrounding mix of medium-rise buildings along Wabash that are mostly under a dozen stories. The Art Institute of Chicago put the properties on the market last spring.

"You see these kinds of towers all over the city, but we don't think it is compatible in that corridor," said Jim Peters, planning director for the preservation council. "This is a 67-story building added to a three- or four-story building. What does it do to these two historic districts? It would be wedged in between the two."

City planning and landmark officials ultimately must settle the fight. The developers are seeking a zoning change from a mixed-use area to a residential-business planned development area.

The city's Commission on Landmarks also would have to approve the development because it falls inside a landmark district and would visually impact another district, the South Michigan Avenue Historic District.

Preservationists contend that such a tower is a clear violation of city laws governing landmark districts.

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

[ChicagoLover]

I share Bahlman's concerns about marring the South Wabash / South Michigan landscape. But on the other hand, these areas hvae to be made viable for development. Maybe instead of just a "yes/no" sort of stamp on the building, the LPCI and the city should demand unbelievably good design before they approve the project. And of course maintenance of the Wabash facades, whenever they are worth keeping.

[24gotham]

It's all about balance and the willingness to aknowledge that time marches forward whether we like it or not. We are not living in a vacuum, and must be willing to find viable alternatives to keep the city alive while preserving it's past.
I think that the results of how they kept the feel of Wabash between Washington and Randolph where the Heritage was built turned out well. When your on the sidewalk, you would never know that a 57 story condo tower looms above. If this new project accomplishes the same thing, than I see nothing wrong with it.
As for interrupting the skyline along Michigan.... Come on, it's not as if there are no other highrise buildings in the back ground. This is a city dammit, it is supposed to be dense. Were not talking about building this in Galena or something.

[BVictor1]

These are the facades in question.

You decide!!!

http://images.snapfish.com/342%3A887523232%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E2329%3D959%3D583%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3B4%3A54%3B6%3Bot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/342%3A887523232%7Ffp7%3Enu%3D3238%3E868%3E492%3EWSNRCG%3D32327%3A5964%3B44nu0mrj

[lazar22b]

Well they seem to be mostly boarded up anyway. The building might revitalize that area, while preserving the facades. I don't see a problem with that. I would like there to be a good design there though so that it doesn't ruin the history of the area. Other then that i say the tower should be built, those buildings are just standing there empty.

[24gotham]

The plan is to do the same thing they did at Heritage (I hate that name...), which is to preserve the facades at street level. This will preserve the feel at the sidewalk level, which I think is important, while allowing for a highrise, just out of your sightline when standing in front of the buildings.
They plan to do retail on the ground floor, and they will hide parking behind the upper floors of the old facades. I can tell you that at this time, the vast majority of the space on the upper floors of these buildings is vacant.
I think this worked out well at the Heritage, and I think it will work out fine here.

[geoff_diamond]

I'm all about reusing historic facades on new buildings. I think this is a practice that could be very widely used around the loop.

Now... to answer ChicagoLover's question: YES... they are leaving that god-aweful color (I like to call it "ran-outta-money-gray") all over the Heritage. Okay, I'm not trying to hijack this thread... but, god damn... I'm NEVER going to let this one go:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/geoff_diamond/Chicago%20-%20Construction/heritage_02050501.jpg

The areas consistent with the two lower red circles are staying grey... as far as the mechanical space on the roof... I'm not sure what they're going to do with the southern portion (it sure has been a LONG time since I've seen painters up there). It just looks like shit... honestly looks unfinished to me.

[ChicagoLover]

That is bizarre... How did you find out they were staying grey? How do you know? Can the developer seriously keep in Daley's good graces if he doesn't finish the place where Daley himself will live? The Heritage (despite its name) is a pretty solid building. Looks great in general, but those are pock marks. How could they have run out of money? Aren't they making a a substantial amount on that project?

[ChicagoLover]

It seems like the new development on Wabash would be positive, not negative, for preservation. I imagine they'll clean up those facades, and un-board them. It'll look great as long as the tower is set back far from the facades.

[lazar22b]

That is bizarre... How did you find out they were staying grey? How do you know? Can the developer seriously keep in Daley's good graces if he doesn't finish the place where Daley himself will live? The Heritage (despite its name) is a pretty solid building. Looks great in general, but those are pock marks. How could they have run out of money? Aren't they making a a substantial amount on that project?

I think that the original plan called for those sections to stay grey. Looking back at old renderings of the building you can see that those sections were colored grey. It wasn't a lack of money.

[BVictor1]

Actually, I believe that that portion of The Heritage will be painted. We must remember what time of year it is. I don't think that this is the best painting weather :)
Who the hell want's to be 600' up in the air whan it's 25 degrees. It's windier and colder the higher up you go. Lets see how it looks but June or july.

[24gotham]

^I agree with Butler, I think the weather has a lot to do with the unfinished paint job on the mechanical housing at the top. When I lived up on the far north side, the building at 5320 N Sheridan went condo from apartment and they planned a new painting scheme going from plain white to a nice combo of grays and dark blue. They started the paint job in October, stopped in December, and finished it up in the spring when the weather warmed up enough for the paint to not freeze on the surface. In the meantime, for several months, there was about 25% of the facade that was woefully unfinished and it looked like sh*t.
As for the lower two circles, I think they are supposed to be gray as they are. I am more concerned that they still haven't installed the balcony railings. The lumber rails look worse than the lack of paint.

[geoff_diamond]

Well, first off, that picture is from four months ago and little has been done since then. I was never really serious when I joked that they had run out of money, it was a VERY profitable development. But, I maintain that it certainly looks like they came up short.

At any rate, as far as the weather goes... there was PLEANTY of time before it got too cold for them to finish if they were going to - I'm still not convinced that they are going to paint the rest of the mechanical space white :(

[BVictor1]

You know what, I don't see how they could have possibly run out of money, considering that the very same development company who's doing The Heritage has just proposed constructing a 67-story tower a few blocks to the south on the very same street.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

[24gotham]

I was sorting through my thousands of pics and came across these I took last June. Guess we now know who had the highest bid.

http://img231.exs.cx/img231/9997/walk613040898oo.jpg

http://img231.exs.cx/img231/7815/walk613040905ri.jpg

[BVictor1]

They need a tad bit of help don't they:)???

Especially getting rid of that ugly ass glass block.

These facades will look better than new once everything is completed.

[24gotham]

http://img231.exs.cx/img231/9997/walk613040898oo.th.jpg

Just a note, the red brick building on the left (also shown in the giant photo in my previous post) isn't part of the plan. It is the earliest surviving example of Louis Sullivan in the Loop, The Jewelers Bldg, built in 1882. It is on the National Historic Register, so it will remain as it should.

[BVictor1]

I thought that's what building it was. They should restore that facade as well though, even though it's not apart of the development. Also it's good because it will leave some breathing for the talller structure to the north and not block its windows.

[ChicagoLover]

This all seems like such a win-win situation. I hope Bahlman sees the potential of all of this and reverts to being a nag about simply doing it right.

[geoff_diamond]

Umm... correct me if I'm wrong (which I know I'm not :))... isn't 35 E. Wacker the Jewelers Building? How can we have two buildings with the same name?

[BVictor1]

Umm... correct me if I'm wrong (which I know I'm not :))... isn't 35 E. Wacker the Jewelers Building? How can we have two buildings with the same name?

Yes, you are correct. But buildings change names all the time. The building on Wacker I believe is now known by its address 35 E. Wacker Drive. The building in Wabash by Louis Sullivan was also known as the Jewlers Building. Like there are 2 Sears Towers, the original one on the west side built in 1904 and the 110 story one on Wacker.

It's possible for two different buildings to have the same name. I guess unless the name is copywritten.

[geoff_diamond]

Figured it was possible... it just seems sort of foolish :)

[BVictor1]

21-39 South Wabash Project


I sent this email this past Friday to the City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development


To Whom It May Concern,

My name is Butler Adams, and I am an architecture student. I was trying to find out information on 21-39 South Wabash Avenue and 52-64 East Monroe, which is a proposed condimunium tower of roughly 67-stories. I went to the City of Chicago website and in the January agenda for the
Chicago Plan Commission, it states that it was Tentatively scheduled to be heard at the February 24th meeting. The was no information about this development in this months adgenda minutes that i've just finished reading. I was wondering if you could possibly tell me the outcome of this proposal?

Butler V. Adams
Architecture Student

THE RESPONSE

Butler:

Thank you for your email.

I am an Assistant Commissioner with the Department of Planning &
Development and oversee all projects in the loop.

Right now, we are still discussing internally and reviewing the
proposal. The project has not been heard before the Chicago Plan
Commission, and will not be heard, until our review is complete.

You may obtain a copy of the Planned Development application in Room 1003 of City Hall. This is the document that was filed with the City Council and outlines the proposed project at Wabash/Monroe.

Please call me with any questions.

Nori Greenstein
Assistant Commissioner
City of Chicago
Department of Planning & Development
City Hall, 121 N. La Salle, Room 1107
Chicago, IL 60602


I will try to get downtown this Friday and obtain a packet, and i'll let you all know what it says...

[BVictor1]

21-39 South Wabash A.K.A. MINI-TRUMP (you'll see why I say that when I get the documents I have scanned in.

Well I went to the department of Planning & Development today at city hall to obtain a copy of the application for this project. I swear, I wish that I had known about being able to do this before.

As you know that this is a proposed development, so the numbers that I ab about to post are subject to change. Hopefully though, they won't.

-This building will have roughly 360 residential units.

-This building will have roughly 485 parking spaces.

-Residential floors are 15-67

-Floors 68-69 will be the mechanical penthouse

-The building will rise to the roof, a height of 776' 5"

-The buildings heighest point will rise to 796' 5"

As I said, these figures are subject to change because nothings approved. And if they do change in a direction not to your liking, don't come looking for me.

Also, I'll get those diagrams posted as soon as I can.

[FarNWburb]

Bravo BVic! Nice work. Another landmark tower for the Grant Park skyline.

[oshkeoto]

^ What's on the 21-39 S. Wabash site now?

[geoff_diamond]

A row of smaller historical buildings osh. At any rate, great info bvic... too bad about the rediculous abundance of parking though :(

At any rate... hurry up with those scans... the suspense is eating me alive!!!

[BVictor1]

^ What's on the 21-39 S. Wabash site now?


Just scroll down the page, and you'll find out.

[lazar22b]

almost 800ft?? That is larger then i thought it would be. I really hope this will go through, but being that big, I am a little skeptical if it will go through without getting scaled down. I really hope that it won't though.

[The Urban Politician]

I can't wait to see your scan, BV.

This building sound exciting--plus they plan to maintain the fronts of historic buildings at the base. I find no fault in it (except for 14 levels of parking--yuck! I wonder how those will look)

[geoff_diamond]

"Just scroll down the page, and you'll find out."

^--- FALSE ADVERTISING!!!!! STRING HIM UP!!!!

[BVictor1]

I find no fault in it (except for 14 levels of parking--yuck! I wonder how those will look)

How do you think that they look when it comes to the Heritage? The Heritage has 600 parking spaces, if you didn't know that. I personally believe that they're trying to evevate the lower residential units above the University Club building on Michigan Avenue. I don't care about the the number of parking spaces, I care about the aaesthetics of the garage. I think that SCB can pull it off.

[BVictor1]

21-39 South Wabash Scans

http://www.pbase.com/temper/image/40462849.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/temper/image/40462867.jpg

Remember, no part of this project has been approved, so anything is subject to change.

[Rivernorth]

trump tower, anyone? :) awesome scans, vic!

[geoff_diamond]

Great work Butler! Sure does look like a slender version of the original Trump proposal to me :)

[BVictor1]

This image is from the Illinois Landmark Preservation Council website

http://www.landmarks.org/images/press/lpci2005jrd1.jpg
Three low-rise loft buildings, constructed during the 1870s, were recently placed on the market for redevelopment by the Art Institute of Chicago. Even though they are located within a local landmark district, a prospective new owner has announced plans to construct a 67-story residential tower with a slight set-back from the original five- and six-story facades. The height of the tower would have a negative impact on the character of the Jewelers Row District, as well as on the historic appearance of the adjacent Michigan Avenue “streetwall,” which faces Grant Park and Lake Michigan.



And check this out.
http://landmarks.org/pdfs/jewelers_press.pdf

To be honest, I totally support the tower, and I plan on sending an email to the Council voicing my support. If you guys decide to do the same heres the contact information.

Landmarks Preservation
Council of Illinois
Suite 1315
53 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604

Telephone (312) 922-1742
Fax (312) 922-8112
E-mail: mail@lpci.org

President
David Bahlman
BahlmanD@lpci.org
Extension 224

[7 World Trade]

even though im a guy that really favors preservation, i think the landmark preservation counsel's getting rather paranoid about this development. if they don't put the site of those 3 low-rises in development, those 3 buildings are gonna remain semi ghetto-looking, and that would still ruin the "streetwall".

i hope they'll pull off another "heritage" on this site well, with a nice tower balanced in terms of use of masonry and glass, just minus the unfinished paint job...lol

[geoff_diamond]

DAAAAAAAAAAAAMN THE PAINT JOB!!! DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED!!!

At any rate, the Heritage absolutely did it right! When you're on the east side of Wabash, walking in front of those preserved facades, you're completely oblivious to the fact that a brand-new, 600 foot tower looms above.

[BVictor1]

I agree with the both of you. And like i've stated before, i'm sure when it all said and done, they'll finish the paint job eventually.

Hell, i'll call and ask if you want me to :)

[geoff_diamond]

PLEASE DO!!!! :))

[Chi_Coruscant]

Jewelers Row tower project moves ahead
Condo plan gets OK from landmark panel
By Brendan McCarthy, Tribune staff reporter. Tribune reporter Blair Kamin contributed to this report
Published May 5, 2005


Developers of a proposed 72-story luxury condominium tower on South Wabash Avenue received the go-ahead Wednesday from the city's Commission on Landmarks.

The skyscraper, planned for 21-29 S. Wabash Ave., still needs the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council.

The proposed skyscraper has been hotly debated among civic and preservation groups.

Preservationists primarily oppose the tower because it is located in the Jewelers Row Landmark District, designated by the city to protect the architecture along Wabash Avenue, known for its history of jewelry makers.

Preservationists say city leaders are fast-tracking the project, and that the 816-foot building goes against landmark district rules that limit a building's height and architecture.

Some local civic groups, and the alderman, say the tower would give a much-needed boost to the neighborhood.

The proposal is from Mesa Development LLC, the group responsible for the 57-story Heritage at Millennium Park.

The Heritage is soon to be home to Mayor Richard Daley. John George, an attorney with hefty City Hall clout and a law partner of the mayor's brother, Michael, represents the development group.

The Wabash proposal calls for a slender, wedge-shaped building to be set back about 28 feet from the street.
The tower would include shops, a parking garage, Art Institute of Chicago classrooms, condominiums and a "skypark." A bridge would connect the tower to the University Club. The Art Institute of Chicago put the property on the market last spring.
Initially, the building was planned to be 67 stories tall, but the height was increased after the city's Planning Department recommended a "skypark"--an indoor park for use by the building's condo owners.

The tower would rise at the site of three small buildings. Under the proposal, the upper facades of the three buildings would be retained and restored.

"It can be done in a way sensitive to the historic character," said Brian Goeken, deputy city planning commissioner.

Ald. Burton F. Natarus (42nd) said high-rise buildings will create more property taxes and help "liven up" the downtown area.

Several opponents asked for a delay in approving the proposal at the hourlong public meeting.

David Bahlman, president of the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, a non-profit advocacy group, said all of the buildings in the district, except for one, are under the 280-foot landmark limit.

"If this project is approved, it will send a clear message that zoning, not landmark criteria, is the only thing that matters in a local landmark district," Bahlman said.

A spokeswoman for the Planning Department said the Planning Commission would meet later this month.

[BVictor1]

This is excellent news. The tower had previously been tapped at 797' and now it's been increased by 18'.

[lazar22b]

That is awesome news! I hope this gets the go-ahead vote.

[geoff_diamond]

WOOHOO!!! BUILD THAT SHIT RIGHT NOW!

I expect to see this tower completed when I get back in town on Monday!

[The Urban Politician]

This is outstanding news.

I knew Chicago wouldn't let up on one of its greatest skyscraper construction booms.

4th Presbyterian, you're NEXT

[ChicagoLover]

I am dying to see a rendering of this.

[Frumie]

I'm no fan of "facadism" finding it hypocritical architecture, but will there be anything happening behind those facades? And what about the facades preserved in the Heritage Millenium building, is there anything happening there or is Wabash turning into a Hollywood set? :wallbash:

[chicagogeorge]

816 ft!
Right on!

[The Urban Politician]

I'm no fan of "facadism" finding it hypocritical architecture, but will there be anything happening behind those facades? And what about the facades preserved in the Heritage Millenium building, is there anything happening there or is Wabash turning into a Hollywood set? :wallbash:

There is a 2 level retail base on Wabash, which I am sure the facades are a part of.

My only concern is that the facades have a use, ie they are actual entrances to the retail portion of their projects, and they have an interior identity. It would be better if different buildings had different stores inside of them, instead of them being separate on the outside but 1 enclosed space on the inside. Does anybody know how Heritage is arranged?

[oshkeoto]

^ No. What kind of retail is Heritage gonna have?

[BVictor1]

^ No. What kind of retail is Heritage gonna have?

I will drive past there tomorrow. But I don't believe that the retail portion is open yet. I know that there's a McDonald's in the base.

[Chi_Coruscant]

Fifth Third Bank will be located at 2nd floor of retail base by the alley across the Cultural Center.

[The Urban Politician]

^????

Why is the city letting these lousy retailers take up space?

This is a major corridor for pedestrians between Millennium Park and Block 37/theatre district. They should push for some sort of high end apparel stores, entertainment, etc.

[BVictor1]

ATTENTION ALL CHICAGO SKYSCRAPER FANS, IF YOU SUPPORT THESE PROJECTS YOU MUST ATTEND THE NEXT CHICAGO PLAN COMMISSION MEETING ON THURSDAY MAY 19, 2005 AT 1PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL


1. A resolution in support of a proposed site plan submitted by 110 W. Superior, LLC for the property commonly known as 110 West Superior Street and located within Planned Development No. 946. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 26-story building containing 77 residential units and 85 parking spaces. (42nd Ward) (Nori Greenstein)


2. A proposed Residential Business Planned Development application and Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection application submitted by Monroe/Wabash Development, LLC for the property commonly known as 21-39 South Wabash Avenue and 52-64 East Monroe Street. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 71-story mixed use development including 353 dwelling units, 428 parking spaces, and retail and institutional uses. (42nd Ward) (Madeleine Doering)


3. A proposed Downtown Mixed-Use Planned Development submitted by 150 East Ontario, LLC for the property commonly known as 148-158 East Ontario Street. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 51-story residential tower with retail and commercial space at the first and second floors, 165 dwelling units and 189 parking spaces. (42nd Ward) (Kathy Caisley)


4. A proposed Residential Business Planned Development submitted by 13th & State LLC for the property commonly known as 1255 South State Street. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 19-story mixed use building containing 14,000 square feet of commercial/retail space at grade, 253 dwelling units above grade and 326 on-site parking spaces. (2nd Ward) (Madeleine Doering)


5. A proposed Residential Planned Development submitted by 1454 S. Michigan, LLC for the property commonly known as 1454-68 S. Michigan Avenue. The applicant has proposed the construction of 215 dwelling units, 240 parking spaces and retail and commercial space at the first and second floors. (2nd Ward) (Madeleine Doering)


You have a civic duty and pride of a Chicago Skyscraper geek to attend this meeting and show your full support and speak in favor of these projects and challenge the fallicous arguments of the NIMBY's and preservationists.

The Chicago Plan Commission will meet Thursday at 1 pm in the council chambers of City Hall.

Show up at least 20 minutes before 1pm so that you can sign up to speak before the commission and voice your support for these projects*********

[geoff_diamond]

I'll try to be there, but, I'm sure as hell not speaking in front of anyone :) Unless the nimbys get my blood boiling!

[BVictor1]

I'll try to be there, but, I'm sure as hell not speaking in front of anyone :) Unless the nimbys get my blood boiling!

Well, there will be quite a few preservationist combating this one. The only way you get to speak is if you sign up before the meeting begins I believe. I am certainly going to talk, because I want this tower built. Hopefully the fact that I've been giving public tours over the past several summers will help to lessen my nervousness wwhile speaking before the council members. No matter, I'M DOING IT...

Besides this gives me the opportunity to meet the developers of th project and get information about the buildiing, seeing that they have to present before the council.

[The Urban Politician]

Well, there will be quite a few preservationist combating this one. The only way you get to speak is if you sign up before the meeting begins I believe. I am certainly going to talk, because I want this tower built. Hopefully the fact that I've been giving public tours over the past several summers will help to lessen my nervousness wwhile speaking before the council members. No matter, I'M DOING IT...

Besides this gives me the opportunity to meet the developers of th project and get information about the buildiing, seeing that they have to present before the council.

If I was in Chicago, I would go in a heartbeat. I urge as many of you to go as possible. COME ON, GUYS!

And don't be scared of speaking. I always get nervous about public speaking as well, but here's an easy solution. Write down everything you want to say the night before, and just read it to them!

[geoff_diamond]

Well, just don't forget to post a reminder for us when it gets closer to the date :) At any rate, after my last design presentation, I don't think I'll be speaking in front of a group for a while :)

[24gotham]

^????

Why is the city letting these lousy retailers take up space?

This is a major corridor for pedestrians between Millennium Park and Block 37/theatre district. They should push for some sort of high end apparel stores, entertainment, etc.

Unfortunately, there is still vast amounts of vacant space along Wabash... Too much space to entice the kind of retailers I would like to see. While we don't really need yet another bank branch to open up (unless it is my bank), it is better than nothing. At least if there are bank branches it will help draw people which may assist in drawing other retailers to the empty spaces along Wabash.
The space at Heritage is still mostly empty, there is a McDonalds that opened up a couple of months ago (This is just replacing the McD's that was there before.) I suspect the space at the new sight on Jewelers Row will have small retail spaces with a hidden parking structure behind the second and third floors, which is better than the vacant space on the second and third floors that is there now.

[BVictor1]

I'll try to be there, but, I'm sure as hell not speaking in front of anyone :) Unless the nimbys get my blood boiling!

Don't be nervous, I had to overcome my public speaking issues when I first begin giving tours. It's no big deal. Besides you'll never see these people again anyway, so what do they care about your nervousness.

If you want to speak before the commission, you must sign up before the meeting starts, you just can't interject your opinion, even if that's what you're use to doing:):)...

[geoff_diamond]

Sure, I could sign up like a chump, but, at the same time, nobody can stop me from standing up and yelling out something that makes the whole crowd erupt in applause! I've seen it in movies... so that must be how it works!

[BVictor1]

[QUOTE=Marvel 33 ]Parkitecture 2005


Grant Park Advisory Council
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Daley Bicentennial Plaza, 337 E. Randolph (Grant Park's Fieldhouse)

THERE is currently a trio of high-profile, residential high-rise projects being planned facing Michigan Avenue but not directly on it. The 72-story high-rise planned for 21-29 S Wabash, the 830 S Michigan Avenue high-rise (planned for behind the YWCA Building), and the Fourth Presbyterian Church high-rise are generating both much praise and criticism. Given the cultural, economic and environmental virtues of downtown high-rise living with all its resultant energy and active street life, why the controversy? This question and others will be addressed in our continuing Parkitecture series.

The community surrounding Grant Park is a world-class community with many new residents energizing both the park and the city. The dream of making Chicago's downtown a 24-hour, 7-days-per-week community is quickly becoming a reality. We are seeing things never seen before around Grant Park. People are walking at all hours and on weekends along South Michigan Avenue, quality restaurants and retail establishments are moving in, there are more parents with young children, and dogs are being walked in many areas of Grant Park - all positive signs that there is a vibrant and significant Grant Park residential community taking hold. Grant Park with its much-improved beauty, nature, maintenance and culture is a very important catalyst to creating this vibrant community.

Please join us and our distinguished panel for this important discussion. The panel will include:

Jack Guthman, Partner, Shefsky & Froelich.

John Lahey, President, Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates.

Thomas Kerwin, President, AIA Chicago and Partner, Skidmore Owings & Merrill.

James Peters, Director of Preservation Planning, Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.

Thank you for your participation,

Bob O’Neill

Phone: 312-829-8015
Fax: 312-243-4095


I will certainly be attending this meeting, is anyone else interested in going?

[simulcra]

Oh man, can someone PM me on monday or something to remind me about this? I gotta be there!

[wrabbit]

These two images are from Lynn Becker's Repeat website:

http://img139.echo.cx/img139/782/tower3tm.th.jpg (http://img139.echo.cx/my.php?image=tower3tm.jpg)
http://img144.echo.cx/img144/3766/parkviewlarge8iz.th.jpg (http://img144.echo.cx/my.php?image=parkviewlarge8iz.jpg)

[lazar22b]

wow, that is a great looking tower. I really hope that gets built.

[Chi_Coruscant]

That is an interesting rendering! I kinda like it! Good work, wrabbit!


Addition: http://www.lynnbecker.com/repeat/awabash/wabash.htm

[geoff_diamond]

I LOVE IT.

[BVictor1]

Lets post the writings and articles that go along with the renedrings:


Slicing and Dicing the Past to Get to the Future
-by Lynn Becker

Plans to slip a sparkling new condo tower behind vintage facades spurs debate on the nature of architectural preservation.

(Originally published in slightly different and far better edited form under the title "Know When to Fold Them" in the Chicago Reader, May 13th, 2005)

How do you strike a balance in architectural preservation?

http://img132.echo.cx/img132/1685/tower0fo.jpg

Compromise too much and you wind up with an entry arch standing in a park beside the Art Institute, a forlorn remnant of Louis Sullivan's Monroe Wabash Tower, 72 stories of condos, Chicago, Illinois; Solomon Cordwell Buenz architectsdemolished 1893 Stock Exchange Building. Compromise too little and you wind up with "protected" buildings rotting away without purpose or relevance.

Last week the permit review committee of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks was considering Mesa Development's proposal to build a 72-story, 812 foot high residential tower behind four historic loft buildings, the oldest dating back to 1872, on the east side of Wabash between Madison and Monroe - a stretch that's part of the Jewelers Row Landmark District.
Mesa just finished the Heritage Millennium, a 57-story condo tower at Randolph and Wabash, where three historic buildings, including the old Blackhawk restaurant, were demolished except for their facades. Those facades became the front of a new garage, though they were restored to their original luster. It's an often-troubling approach that's become so common that a painfully clinical-sounding term has emerged to describe it: “Facadectomy.”

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/awabash/wabashcomposite.jpg

Mesa's plan for the South Wabash buildings is a bit more complex. The facades would be saved, though a garage entrance would be incorporated into one of them. The new building, designed by Solomon Cardwell Buenz, would be constructed behind the facades. At their rooflines, it would emerge as a glass skyscraper, set back 28 feet from Wabash.

At the permit-review meeting the battle lines were drawn in the usual way. In one corner were the developer; 42nd Ward alderman Burton Natarus; and the city's planning bureaucracy. In the opposite corner were representatives of Preservation Chicago, the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, and community groups such as South Loop Neighbors and Friends of Downtown.

"We see this as a real slippery slope," said David Bahlman, president of the Landmarks Preservation Council, at the permit review meeting. "We have no objections to the quality and the design of the building...[but] we can find no instance in Chicago or the U.S. where a new building has been permitted to be constructed in a local landmark district that is so completely out of scale with the heights of the surrounding historic structures. The landmarks commission's own rules and regulations state that new construction in a landmark district must respect the 'general size, shape, and scale of the features associated with the district.' We therefore find it difficult to imagine how a 70-story building can be considered respectful of the urban fabric of an historic district...[where] all but one of the tallest structures in this district are less than 280 feet high, or about one-third the height of the proposed condo tower."

"The question before you is whether a landmark district means anything," said preservation activist Martin Tangora . "How are you going to tell the owners of 20 N. Michigan-an eight-story building that's one of the oldest in the street wall-how are you going to tell them that they can't build a 70-story tower on the back all but 30 feet of that lot? How are you going to stop anything on the street wall or in the Jewelers Row district or any other district in Chicago if you allow this to go through?"

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/%20wabash/parkviewlarge.jpg

Jonathan Fine, president of Preservation Chicago, voiced a concern that was echoed by several other groups that testified. "The issue really is, why is this being rushed?" he said. "We're actually objecting on the basis of process. I found out yesterday that the reason I had not seen the drawings, the reason I was not aware of what the design looked like, is that the design has not yet been publicly released."

“Trump Tower”, Fine continued, "“which was not in a landmark district, which did not involve the facadectomies or the demolition of a historic building-that process was completely open and had the luxury of public scrutiny for months and months and months. Yet this project, which is in a historic district, which does abut a designated Chicago landmark by one of the finest architecture firms in the entire country"”-meaning Louis Sullivan's Jewelers Building-"“somehow this project is being fast-tracked. That disturbs me to no end.”

Mesa attorney John George disputed Fine's contention, saying the application for the development had been filed last November and indeed, Bahlman's group knew enough about the project to begin denouncing it in January. Yet the city clearly wanted to move the project along unimpeded, proof of which was the presence of the commissioner of planning and development, Denise Casalino, who seldom attends permit review meetings and who left as soon as the proposal was approved. Joining her in voting for the project were Ben Weese, the committee's chair, and John Baird, of Baird and Warner, who both praised the sensitivity of the design.

The sole dissenting vote came from committee member Phyllis Ellin, a National Parks Service historian. "What I'm being asked to do today," she said, "is not to give my opinion of whether I like it or not, as a matter of taste, but whether I think it meets the standards and guidelines of the commission. And I have to say I can't say that I feel that it meets the standards.... It's not in keeping with the size and scale of this particular district."

No building is ever declared a landmark down to every brick, window, or tile. Chicago's landmarking ordinances always clearly list those features being afforded protection, most commonly something like "all visible exterior elevations." If other features- such as the Palmer House lobby or the atriums in Marshall Field's-are to be protected, they have to be listed specifically. Other parts of the buildings are considered "noncontributing." Landowners, after a commission review, are generally free to renovate or remove them. In landmark districts, where buildings are protected as a group, entire buildings deemed to be without historic or architectural merit can be designated noncontributing.

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/awabash/champlain72s.jpg

The first major issue surrounding the Wabash Avenue project is whether the proposed alterations destroy the features that made the buildings landmark quality. The plan is for the fourth and fifth floors of the facade to front a parking deck, leaving the kind of "blind" windows that make preservationists cringe. But the first floors, now a jumble of unfortunate alterations, would be restored to their historic state and the space behind them returned to retail use. More importantly, behind the second- and third- floor windows would be new classrooms and offices for the School of the Art Institute, which would be linked to the school's Champlain Building to the south; the architects would also restore that building's storefronts, now a dowdy mix of glass and dulled metal, to their original appearance. The new building would also add squash and handball courts for members of the University Club, to be linked by a bridge over the alley to the club's Gothic 1909 Holabird and Roche building on Michigan Avenue.

On principle, I think preserving just the facades of old buildings is bad, but the facades of these Wabash buildings are their only distinguished feature. Their north and south walls are invisible, alley elevations along south Wabash avenue in Chicagobutting up against the adjacent buildings. The rear elevations are as ugly and inchoate as you'd expect for walls facing a narrow, dark alley. The interiors, changed numerous times down over the decades, have no landmark protection and wouldn't seem to deserve it.

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/awabash/20050504alleyfrnorth72.jpg

The second major issue is whether the new project would be out of scale with the other buildings in the landmark district. When he said the proposed tower's height would be three times that of the surrounding buildings, Bahlman was excluding both the 551-foot Pittsfield Building and the 438-foot Willoughby Tower; Mesa's building would be 816 feet high. Bahlman also said the Pittsfield and Willoughby were too "slender" to be intrusive. But Mesa's building would be a marked improvement on recent towers such as the Heritage Millennium, a massive slab of concrete and glass, set on a north-south axis, that looms over the Cultural Center. Mesa's new tower would be faced with a glass curtain wall, and it would be oriented east to west, tapering down to a thinner facade facing Michigan Avenue and thereby creating a slender profile with a lot of blue sky to the north and south of it.

Bahlman was also excluding nearby megatowers such as the 631-foot Heritage Millennium a block to the north, the 600-foot CNA tower a few blocks south, and the 582-foot tall 55 E. Monroe, right across the street. These buildings are in fact outside the landmark district, but this is the kind of blinders-on analysis only a lawyer could love. A great city like Chicago is not an atomized collection of unrelated parts. It's a continuous urban fabric whose strength lies in the way the components draw on and enrich one another. The Michigan Avenue Landmark District - quiet, dowdy, and a bit dilapidated - has exploded with renewed energy since Millennium Park opened across the street. The modernism of Frank Gehry, Jaume Plensa and Anish Kapoor didn't compromise the patrician tone of their older neighbors-it allowed us to see them with a fresh eye.

Wabash presents a tougher challenge. When State Street was King, the east side of Wabash enjoyed the spillover, with vibrant, long-lived attractions such as the Blackhawk Restaurant and Kroch and Brentano's bookstore. Both are long gone. As State Street declined, east Wabash declined harder - there's been a constant churn of The Chicago Loop L elevated structure over Wabash avenueretailers coming and going, with few displaying real staying power. The mass of the L continues to dominate the streetscape. “I was part of a movement many years ago to take down the L,” 42nd ward alderman Burton Natarus reminded hearing attendees, in what seemed a subtle dig at preservationists. “Some people think it is a landmark . . . but what it's done to the street is made it dark, and it has a negative effect, not only from the standpoint of appearance, but from the standpoint of noise. I always thought the L should have been taken down and we would have had some beautiful streets. I think that what this project does is that it livens things up a little bit. It beautifies the area.”

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/awabash/20050505under272.jpg

With over 350 units, the Mesa project could help increase pedestrian traffic and make Wabash more attractive for retailers. As for the Wabash L, the best way to neutralize its toxic effects would be to celebrate its status as an undesignated landmark. Pry some cash from the Central Loop TIF, get some architects and lighting designers involved, and come up with a plan to repaint and light up it's undercarriage in a way that not only eliminates the darkness from the avenue beneath, but makes an attraction of the beautiful intricacy of the structure, itself.

The permit-review committee's decision comes before the Chicago Plan Commission on May 19 and the full landmarks commission in June; the final decision will eventually be made by the City Council, giving opponents plenty of time to organize. There will be a lot more discussion of slippery slopes, and rightly so - the last thing anyone wants to do is set a precedent that starts demolition-hungry lawyers salivating. But the continued vitality of Chicago architecture depends on regular injections of the contemporary into the traditional - and on preservation efforts that don't descend into a kind of architectural taxidermy

lynnbecker@lynnbecker.com

[BVictor1]

What Do People Say at a Landmarks Hearing?
-by Lynn Becker

Excerpts from the May 5th Chicago Landmarks Commission Permit Review Hearing on the demolition of all but the facades of four loft buildings in Chicago's landmark Jeweler's Row District to allow for the construction of a new 72 story condo tower.


Slicing and Dicing
the Past to Get to the Future
What Do People Say
At a Landmarks Hearing?
- read the transcript




Alderman Burton Natarus of the 42nd ward, in which the proposed development would be located:

I know that there's a great deal of controversy concerning this review, especially in the light of the fact that there is being, going to be some restoration and a lot of changes. I am hopeful that the permit review committee with their expertise will be able to restore these conditions in terms of the standards that should be in place. I think that this is an important project from an altogether different point of view than just landscaping, and that is it will help Wabash avenue.

I don't know if you noticed or not, I was part of a movement many years ago to take down the L. I always thought the L should have been taken down and we would have had some beautiful streets. It was part of what we called the Franklin Street connector. We lost that battle with the federal government . . . But we could have done it, and we didn't. We were going to build a third level of the subway .

And so we have the L, which some people think is a landmark, and some people could be beautified, but what it's done to the street is made it dark, and it has a negative effect, not only from the standpoint of appearance, but from the standpoint of noise, and I think that what this project does is that it livens things up a little bit. It beautifies the area. It may bring a lot of people to Wabash to do business. And the reason I suppose that we have the height of the building, is that you've got to build a building tall to get away from the environment of the L.

Now everybody's concerned about Jewelers' Row, and I know that the architecture of Jewelers Row is important but there was another facet of Jewelers Row that no one seems to talk about, and that is Alicia Berg, the former Commissioner and I, when they were going to be rehabilitating the buildings and evicting people on Wabash Avenue. We called a meeting in the Palmer House of all the jewelers. And we got them all together, and the reason this Jewelers Row is because we persuaded all of them to stay, so it would be like a Jewelers Market, a jewelers craft area, so all of the jewelers would be in one spot, and then when you took your wife, you know, and looked for a wedding ring, you went to 20 places and got the best deal on the diamond.

But that was another purpose of the Jewelers Row, it wasn't just architecture. It was an economic, artisan, type concept. And so there's going to be a lot of criticism here from people who are the landmark motif or philosophy, I would imagine, but I would think we have to think of it in terms of not only landmarking, but I think we have to think of it in terms of restoring the street, and I think that's what it does.

And as far as the work that Art Institute is concerned, I'm certain that everyone has the faith in the Art Institute of Chicago to do the right thing in terms of remodeling or refacing or what have you. So I support the project. I think it will be good, and I'm trustworthy of this review committee and Brian Goecken [of Landmark Comission staff] and his staff to police this thing so that it's done right. After all, with all due respect, the landmark people were responsible for the rebuilding of the McGraw Hill building. That was very interesting, where they took apart a building entirely and they put it back together and through their policing efforts you have to have confidence in their ability to rebuild and restore various architecture features.

Oh, one other thing, one other thing. We have a big struggle throughout the city of Chicago as to where to build highrise buildings. If you talk to most of the people out in the neighborhoods, they don't want any high-rise buildings, at all. And we have to have high-rise buildings, because whether we know it or not, highrise buildings are very much responsible for our tax base, and so someone will say to me that's an artisan, why is it always money? Why do you always talk about money? The point of the matter is what we don't have very much in the way of revenue sources. Most of our income tax, if not all of our income tax dollars go to Washington, to pay for national defense and national safety, what have you, and so the property tax remains the major source of revenue that we control in terms of how we can spend remodeling the infrastructure and pay for our police department and our fire department, and what have you. This building will do that. This building will enhance our tax base.

And also, if you looked at that view from Lake Michigan, it's beautiful. If you're out on a boat and you look at Lake Michigan, and you look at the Chicago skyline, one of the first things that hits you is our beautiful skyline in terms of our highrise buildings, I don't care if you're out on the Lake, you're coming in from the South, in Indiana, or you're coming in from O'Hare field, the Chicago presence in terms of high-rise buildings located in the central city is a very, very outstanding feature. Finally, these high-rise buildings will be a source of residents coming down and living in the Loop, and the people want to live in the Loop now. They want the amenities of the parks, and the services, and what have you, and those are the people who are going to living in this highrise buildings, so it makes a very, very unique, a beautiful society.


David Bahlman, Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.

This has been a very important issue for us. We actually put Jewelers Row as a district on our list of Ten Most Endangered list this year. Our position on this project has been presented in two letters and a detailed analysis that we sent to the Chicago Department of Planning and Development on January 14th and February 2nd.

As a brief summary of those comments, we would like to make the following points. Only a small fraction of Chicago's Central Area , just 1.6% of the land area, is protected by protected by Chicago landmark district designation. Within the historic Loop area, the area we're talking about here, that area of percentage is less than 10%. .

The Jewelers Row district, which was designated by the City Council in 2003, is one of those very few protected areas. According to the city ordinance designating it as a local landmark, this district displays a distinct visual unity based on consistent building setbacks, overall design, use of building material and detailing, and in many cases, size and scale. Furthermore, the Chicago Central Area Plan, which was also adopted two years ago, strongly encourages preservation and re-use of as one of its principal development recommendations for the East Loop. To quote from this plan, “renovations and new development in the East Loop must respect its historic character and urban fabric.” The landmarks Commission's own rules and regulations state that new construction in a landmark district must respect the general size, shape, and scale of the features associated with the district.

We therefore find it difficult to imagine how a 72 story building can be considered respectful of the urban fabric of an historic, especially when all but one of the tallest structures in this district are less than 280 feet high, or about one third the height of the proposed condo tower. The Pittsfield Building setback tower is, I think between 400 and 500 feet.

We can find no instance in Chicago or the U.S. where a new building has been permitted to be constructed in a local landmark district that is so completely out of scale with the heights of the surrounding historic structures. Our research includes discussion with the Historic Districts Council in New York City, and staff planners in Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, all communities where landmark districts are located in high-rise zoning districts. On a much smaller scale, we would also like to also note our concerns about the proposed curb cut on Wabash Avenue, which we feel does not respect the historic character of the pedestrian oriented district, and of the Louis Sullivan design building which is an individual Chicago landmark immediately adjacent.

Finally, and perhaps most important from the standpoint of official city policy, and this is really where this got listed in our ten most, we are especially concerned about the precedent that this project would have on other landmark districts in Chicago. As you know, one of the reasons why property owners have supported the creation of landmark districts is the protection it provides against demolition and incompatible new development. If approved, this project will send a clear message that zoning, not landmark criteria, is the only thing that matters in a Chicago landmark district. This would be shocking news for owners in Chicago's other historic landmark districts, which are located in higher-density zoning districts, including Astor Street, East Lake Shore Drive, Motor Row, Printers Row, Washington Square, and historic Michigan Boulevard District. It would also send a similar message, though to a lesser extent, to the city's dozens of residential landmark districts from Longwood Drive, and Kenwood on the south, to Jackson Boulevard and Wicker park on the West Side.

We strongly urge your committee to vote to either deny this project, or to defer a decision until the policy implications of your decision can be discussed by representatives of the city's many other Chicago landmark districts. We see this as a real slippery slope. We have no objections to the quality and the design of the building. It simply is it's placement in the middle of an historic district where the prevailing height is only about 280 feet. So we're going from 280 feet, to 800 feet.

Jonathan Fine, President, Preservation Chicago.

I'm here representing my board today. Preservation Chicago cannot support this proposal, and contrary to Alderman Natarus's presumptions, we're actually objecting on the basis of process. I found out yesterday that the reason I had not seen the drawings, and I consider myself relatively well read - I read both papers cover to cover every day - the reason I was not aware of what the design looked like is that the design has not yet been publicly released.

It has been shopped to different interest groups, and it was shopped to our organization last night, and I really appreciate you guys coming by to show us the concept, but the issue really is, why is this being rushed?

The interesting thing about is that the Trump Tower, which was not in a landmark district, which did not involve the facadectomy's or the demolition of a historic building, that process was done completely open, and has the luxury of public scrutiny for months and months and months. Yet this project, which is in a historic district, which does abut a designated Chicago landmark, by one of the finest architecture firms in the entire country that was practicing in that time, somehow this project is being fast-tracked. That disturbs me to no end. What we would recommend is that the Landmarks Commission defer this until at least next month, so there can be more public scrutiny, so this process can be the transparent process that it was designed to be. Mr. Bahlman talks about the slippery slope. I believe the slippery slope here is that when one makes, when one acts in haste, one tends to make waste.


Laura Jones, Associate Director, Greater State Street Council.

I'm Laura Jones, I'm representing the newly merged Greater State Street Council and Central Michigan Avenue Association, as well as the State Street Commission. Those three entities have a redevelopment committee, which has reviewed this project, and they've written a letter of endorsement to Commissioner Casalino which I believe is contained in your packets. I wish to reiterate part of that letter - I will not read that whole letter, that our committee applauds the manner in which Mesa is contributing to the Loop neighborhood. The residents of the 340 new units in the proposed structure will bring more 24/7 activity and life to the area, and Mesa is bringing solutions to problems that local businesses and institutions have wrestled with for years. The School of the Art Institute will finally be able to have an arrival center and the use of a dock. The University Club will be able to expand and add a squash court to its amenities and attract more members. And operations for these buildings, including trash removal will be consolidated, making that alley more functional. We have also had input from Chicago Architecture Foundation and they concurred that Mesa Development's project provides a stunning addition to the Chicago skyline. The height and density of the building will add interest and balance to the other planned developments such as Trump Tower, while preserving while preserving Wabash Avenue's historic facades and street level character. Both the nearby 55 East Monroe and the CNA building would appear less squat and monolithic next to such a structure. We are pleased to endorse Mesa's development


Bob O'Neill, President, Grant Park Advisory Council.

We supported the historic Michigan Boulevard Historic District, and a lot of other preservation projects. This project is, I think, an incredibly well though out compromise to a lot of restrictions that have been put on development downtown and a lot of those in regard to historic districts. In this case, we have the facades of the buildings, which are pretty much obliterated in their current condition. I've photographed them. The area is definitely blighted on Wabash. Those will be restored by a developer who has a strong track record of doing so just to the north at Randolph and Wabash, Not only that, but there is I believe absolutely no contradiction is having a tall, beautiful slender, elegant modern building juxtaposed near and next to historic buildings.

I think there's a precedent for that. Comparing it to Millennium Park, does it elegantly with the historic Chicago Cultural Center right in front of this - it's very visible from Grant Park and Millennium Park. Another precedent is the Hancock Tower, right across the street , Michigan Avenue , from the Fourth Presbyterian Church, and another beautiful contrast does very well. And the Hancock Tower, what it has down for North Michigan Avenue, these type of buildings will do the same for the downtown area. I think that they're incredibly important to Grant Park as well. What we have seen over the years is that more and more people move to downtown Chicago, the park is rejuvenated, it's integrated into the community, has become a Grant Park community. A lot of people want to live downtown . This affords them that opportunity, beautiful views.

I think it's a really good compromise. I think that from a historic preservation standpoint, this is a win-win situation. If we don't encourage this type of redevelopment, how are we going to finance the restoration of these historic buildings. The ones we're currently talking about have been dilapidated for decades. There are a lot of other Class C buildings downtown, office buildings, that are being renovated into condos, that have to be financed, and one of the ways you do it is connecting highrises, and encouraging more and more development downtown. Chicago is a world class city. It's becoming more so, and we need people downtown. We need them living downtown, supporting the culture downtown, the restaurants . . .

Another issue that doesn't get talked about two often with high-rises is it's very important, the environmental impact of them. The high-rise is incredibly good land use. It prevents suburban sprawl. It makes it an irresistible alternative to building out in the suburbs and far-reaching areas, rather than to live in these high-rises are within walking distance of just about anything you would need on a regular basis, or a cab ride, public transportation or biking. And I think that we really need to encourage it, and this particular project takes all of that into account and I think it addresses it very well.

And the other issue is, we like to see from Grant Park, the framing of the park, and the high-rises are very beautiful. I think when they are very tall, they're more visible, and this is another reason why we support it.


John George, attorney for Mesa Development, LLC

The only point I'd like to make is, in response to Mr. Fine's comments concerning the timing of this, this was filed, this application for a planned development was filed in November of 2004. We had met with the Department of Planning before we filed it, and since that time, we've had numerous meetings with the Department of Planning staff, with various people in the community who have asked to see this project. In addition to that, we've met with the Department of Transportation, the Mayor's office for People with Disabilities, so we have had - we're now in May, and we started back in November. We filed it in November, so this is not on a fast-track. This is a normal-track event, which has gone through all the processes that are required by the City of Chicago Department of Planning.


Leslie Sturino, South Loop Neighbors

I've heard a lot of things here that we support completely. We actually are downtown residents, and do take advantage of all the wonderful downtown area has to offer, but in our area, we have two other historic districts. One at Printers Row, and one at South Michigan Avenue. The two things that concern us, and its outline in the letter that hopefully we have in your packet, is the process, which all due respect to the excellent work that has been done by the developer. We are just hearing about this, this week. We believe that, especially when it comes to the public trust that is vested with the protection of historic landmark districts, that a certain amount of publicity and broad participation is necessary to really get everybody behind what's the broader goals of this very vital project, that is bringing people downtown, revitalizing what is in the historic district now.

We can't comment on the architectural merits of it, because we haven't seen it. We can comment, though, that we believe that unless this is designated by the City Council as a similar case to Bush vs. Gore, it could set a precedent that we would not like to see implementing similarly in either Printers Row or South Michigan Avenue, that is while we're the city of broad shoulders, we're literally building towers on top of our historic buildings. So we'd like to understand a little bit more about what that sets as a precedent, what the policy implications are, and I would echo another person's comment in this room that we respectfully ask that maybe this could be deferred a month, so that others who may not have had a chance to hear the merits of this proposal might have a chance to do so and get behind it.


Dennis McClendon, Friends of Downtown

I'm here on behalf of Friends of Downtown, a citizen based advocacy group that advocates for good planning downtown. We found out about this yesterday morning, and are a little upset about the process, but more about the precedent that would be set. We had a lot a talk today about what a wonderful place as a residential district downtown Chicago is. I certainly concur. I live downtown, myself, but it's being falsely set up as somehow in opposition to Chicago's wonderful heritage of architectural treasures that are presumably one of the reasons that so many of us want to live downtown to begin with. The folks at LPCI have already pointed out - I've prepared a map that shows what a tiny proportion of downtown Chicago is actually protected by landmark designation. The percentage when you look at the entire central area is about 1.6%.

There's no need for us to force new residential development on top of these few districts that we thought had been protected by this Commission and this Commission's own regulations that say that nothing that's out of , wildly out of height, would be approved in those districts. So I'm not sure if my letter setting this out in a little bit more detail reached the Commission in time to be included in the packets. I have a copy with me, and also copies of the map. But we believe that allowing a building three times the size of other buildings in the district sets a very dangerous precedent that we hope this committee will reject.


Craig Norris

I live in the Wicker Park neighborhood. Because of a neighborhood issue eight months ago, I jumped on the internet, and I read the Penn Central case, and the St. Bartholemew case, and when this came up, it dawned on me that these facts are remarkably similar. I think that what Mr. Bahlman is saying is true, and I think the city leadership is badly underestimating the people who are able to gather this information, and make these comparisons, and I think we might be making a mistake by compromising the integrity of this district, and I think that the general population, it might quickly be able to see that, if not immediately, than maybe down the road.


Martin Tangora

I'm Martin Tangora, of course long associated with LPCI, but I'm not speaking for LPCI. I don't want to be as polite as they were. The question before you is whether a landmark district means anything, and this case, Mr. Goecken has just argued that id doesn't, because this is a unique district where there are no criteria. There is supposed to be a 40% criterion [note: refers to a provision of the landmarks law that requires proposed changes that entail demolition of 40% or more of a designated landmarks to receive special approval from the Chicago City Council] , and I can't imagine how you believe that's not violated when the setback for the new construction is less than 30 feet.

I've seen these plans. Windows will be blinded in contributing buildings in the district to accommodate parking. A parking garage of 12 stories will be built behind the Sullivan and Holabird & Roche Gage Group which is an officially designated Chicago landmark. Louis Sullivan is the most important architect in central Chicago - I think everyone takes that for granted - and, of course, his two most important buildings here are the Auditorium and Carson's , and the two next most important buildings are the two between which this 800 foot tower will be shoehorned. On this, we will have 450 cars going into a driveway that's adjacent to his designated Jewelers building, and then the parking garage will be towering over the Gage Group - not literally the Sullivan part of the Gage Group, but the other two parts of the Gage Group are only six stories high, so this is not only in a landmark district and towering over the other Michigan streetwall district, but it's right in the heart of the most important architecture in downtown Chicago.

. . . . and then the height issue. Mr. Goecken says he's not worried about 70 story buildings in Beverly. Of course not. What I would be worried about, if this goes through, is the precedent that would allow somebody to tear down the average size house in Beverly and build an enormous house. How can you turn him down? I'm worried about the millionaires that have been coming to you for 25 years with a cottage in Old Town asking to put 5,000 square feet on top and in back - how are you going to turn them down? How are you going to tell the owners of 20 North Michigan, an eight story building that's one of the oldest in the street wall - how are you going to tell them that they can't building a 70 story tower on the back all-but-30-feet of that lot? How are you going to stop anything on the street wall or in the Jewelers Row district or any other district in Chicago if you allow this to go through? .


lynnbecker@lynnbecker.com

[BVictor1]

ARCHITECTURE
The lofty stakes of putting high-rises in historic districts
Building in landmark areas presents far-reaching issues

By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic
Published May 15, 2005

There is give and take in life, and there is give and take in building cities. You hope each project gives more to the cityscape than it takes. That is why the controversial plan for a 74-story, 822-foot luxury condo tower on South Wabash Avenue is so difficult to weigh. It promises to be a distinguished addition to the skyline. Yet it also sets a dangerous precedent, one which could open the door to ungainly skyscrapers shoehorned into downtown historic districts.

The plan got a crucial go-ahead from the Commission on Chicago Landmarks on May 4 and is expected to come before the Chicago Plan Commission on Thursday. It has been designed by Chicago architects Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates for Mesa Development. The same firms are behind the handsome Heritage at Millennium Park, a Wabash Avenue condo tower where Mayor Richard M. Daley plans to move. There are other Daley connections. The developers have hired the law firm Daley & George, whose lead partner Michael is the mayor's brother. Perhaps as a result, the deal is speeding toward approval.

That's too bad because there are some far-reaching issues to deal with, especially whether a tower of such height should be permitted in a landmark district. The landmark commission's own rules state that new construction in such a district must respect its "general size, shape, and scale." Yet this tower would be more than 500 feet taller than all but one of the buildings in the Jewelers Row Historic District, a corridor along Wabash that recognizes the rich history of Chicago's jewelry makers. The Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, an advocacy group, is understandably frightened by the pattern this deal would set. And the city's behavior -- as opposed to its soothing words -- can only deepen the council's anxiety.

Typically, when preservationists object to a building's height, the city will knock a few stories off in an attempt to mollify them. Not this time. Since February, when news stories about the project surfaced, the tower grew more than 25 feet taller. Why? Because city planners encouraged the developers to add a pair of "sky gardens," or indoor parks, in the tower's upper reaches. The "sky gardens" will be available to the condo owners. You wonder when City Hall will have the gumption to prod developers to provide the same amenity for the thousands of office workers who toil in Chicago's high-rises.

Not for public consumption

I sat in the front row at last week's landmarks commission hearing, a detail I mention because, even from that vantage point, it was impossible to see drawings of the tower. They were turned away from the audience and toward landmark commissioners who sat at a conference table. Only a visit to the architects revealed the tower's contours.

The design calls for a wedge-shaped, glass-sheathed high-rise that would turn its narrow side toward Grant Park. It would be attached to three buildings that date from the post-Chicago Fire construction boom and extend from 21 to 29 S. Wabash. Roughly their front 30 feet would be preserved, including their now-scruffy Victorian, neo-classical and Chicago School facades. Their backs would be demolished. 21 S. Wabash would house the entrance to the condo complex's 12-story-tall parking garage.

The tower itself would rise immediately to the east of the three buildings, sandwiched between them and an extremely narrow alley. In every other direction, the surroundings are extraordinary. At 19 S. Wabash is the Jewelers Building of 1882, a tattered but richly ornamented structure that is the oldest surviving design of Dankmar Adler and Louis Sullivan. East of the alley, at 18, 24 and 30 S. Michigan Ave., stands the Gage Group, the great trio of steel-frame loft buildings by Holabird & Roche, with a dazzling facade (at 18 S. Michigan) by Sullivan.

This context is made even more special by the everyday sights and sounds of Wabash: the exposed steel of the elevated tracks, the roar of the elevated trains and the rainbow of ethnic and economic groups that parade down the sidewalks. There are no median planters here. This part of Chicago hasn't been gentrified or "Daley-ized."

One has to ask: Is this the right place for luxury condominiums? You half-wonder if the residents, following the lead of Yuppies who move into apartments alongside factories, will someday urge that the "L" come down because it makes too much noise. There is also the troubling question of scale: Even though it will be set back from Wabash, the tower could loom oppressively above the street.

Curbed enthusiasm

Of equal concern: the prospect of a driveway, or curb cut, on Wabash to serve the tower's parking garage. Not only would this mundane feature be a poor neighbor for Adler & Sullivan's Jewelers Building. It also threatens to disrupt the flow of pedestrians on Wabash's sidewalks. This curb cut may be necessary because the alley in back of the three buildings is so congested. But more curb cuts along Wabash will surely deaden the now-lively streetscape.

Still, only a fool would ignore the benefits this project promises: More density to promote a "24-hour downtown," a bigger property tax base and new facilities for the School of the Art Institute, which will sell the three historic buildings but get space of its own in the complex. And the design, by John Leahy and Gary Klompmaker of Solomon, Cordwell Buenz, is promising on many counts.

The planned renovation of the older buildings is better than a "facade-echtomy" that saves only a building's skin. The parking garage podium underneath the tower would form a sensitive backdrop for the Gage Group, its east-facing side an attractive composition of aluminum panels and bands of windows.

The tower smartly avoids the trap of mimicking the historic buildings on Wabash and Michigan in a facile attempt to "fit in." It is far more appropriate, as the architects suggest, to contrast new with old. Wrapped in a taut glass skin, their building could float above the skyline, recalling the subtle abstract statement made by Boston's John Hancock Tower. Nothing could be more different from 55 E. Monroe, the modernist behemoth that rises like a tombstone behind the cliff of historic masonry buildings along Michigan.

While it is true that this skyscraper would be very tall, the point is that it would be elegant and tall -- which is infinitely preferable to short and stumpy. A tower of 500 or 600 feet might sound less threatening, but it would, in reality, be far more massive, extending the wall-like presence of 55 E. Monroe rather than turning it into a foil for a gracefully narrow skyscraper.

A green giant

The chief architectural caveat is the building's glass skin, which appears to be a light blue-green in the architects' renderings. If it winds up looking too green, the Chicago skyline will be marred by a giant asparagus stalk.

The chief urban caveat is the way this project tramples on the city's standards for historic districts, though city officials dispute that view. Jewelers Row is a special case, they say -- not an isolated neighborhood district where all you see is graystones or bungalows. The perspective from City Hall is that this is a downtown district where skyscrapers are always coming into view, so adding this one will not seriously disturb it.

Yet it's not hard to imagine shrewd real estate lawyers citing the same rationale to jam far-less-attractive, out-of-scale towers in other downtown historic districts, such as Printers Row. And how could the city stop them after letting this one go through? Certainly not on aesthetic grounds. That is this tower's disturbing, double-edged sword. Seen as an isolated case, it gives more to the city than it takes. But if you value human-scaled historic districts, the example it sets could wind up taking very much away indeed.

[simulcra]

Wow, LOOONG reads.

Short story: I love that tower and any qualms I might have before (I had epsilon qualms, for you math dorks, or very little) have been cleared away.

[The Urban Politician]

I think the article makes many great points. One thing that I like is that the fronts of the buildings (30 feet) are being preserved, rather than just the facades. Therefore there will at least be some depth to what is preserved.

[geoff_diamond]

I don't know that I really care about there being any depth. It's not the glazing that makes an old structure important, it's the arrangement of those windows within the larger structure and the detailing of the structure itself. I could honestly care less if I can see through the windows or not.

[Frumie]

Where do they ever support the idea that Wabash Ave. or the so-called "Jewlers Row" are historic? Those blocks are now and always were a rather uninteresting and unsightly hodge-podge of trivial structures lacking in any significant architectural presence. The jewelers left along with the Blackhawk restaurant and dozens of other small run-of-the-mill commercial venues, and they left for sound commercial reasons. I'll wager that none of those who abandoned Wabash Ave. had any sense of a historic loss or that there were part of anything of historic significance. They plied their trades and passed on. Facadectomies pay homage to misplaced nostalgia, nothing more. Cities, like architecture itself, are new poems in the making. Let's enjoy our time under the sun, and let the future anguish over what we built. :wallbash:

[BVictor1]

This is just a repost reminder of tonights events.

Parkitecture 2005


Grant Park Advisory Council
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Daley Bicentennial Plaza, 337 E. Randolph (Grant Park's Fieldhouse)

THERE is currently a trio of high-profile, residential high-rise projects being planned facing Michigan Avenue but not directly on it. The 72-story high-rise planned for 21-29 S Wabash, the 830 S Michigan Avenue high-rise (planned for behind the YWCA Building), and the Fourth Presbyterian Church high-rise are generating both much praise and criticism. Given the cultural, economic and environmental virtues of downtown high-rise living with all its resultant energy and active street life, why the controversy? This question and others will be addressed in our continuing Parkitecture series.

The community surrounding Grant Park is a world-class community with many new residents energizing both the park and the city. The dream of making Chicago's downtown a 24-hour, 7-days-per-week community is quickly becoming a reality. We are seeing things never seen before around Grant Park. People are walking at all hours and on weekends along South Michigan Avenue, quality restaurants and retail establishments are moving in, there are more parents with young children, and dogs are being walked in many areas of Grant Park - all positive signs that there is a vibrant and significant Grant Park residential community taking hold. Grant Park with its much-improved beauty, nature, maintenance and culture is a very important catalyst to creating this vibrant community.

Please join us and our distinguished panel for this important discussion. The panel will include:

Jack Guthman, Partner, Shefsky & Froelich.

John Lahey, President, Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates.

Thomas Kerwin, President, AIA Chicago and Partner, Skidmore Owings & Merrill.

James Peters, Director of Preservation Planning, Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.

Thank you for your participation,

Bob O’Neill

Phone: 312-829-8015
Fax: 312-243-4095


I'll probably be attending the meeting. Steely and I attended one of these meetings last year and it was very interesting. If anybody else is interested, let me know so we can meet there.

[simulcra]

Stupid paper due tonight that I only found out about yesterday.

Can someone give an update on how the meeting went?

[geoff_diamond]

Hrmm... if I were to only attend one (either tonight's or Thursday's City Hall meeting), which one would you do Butler?

[24gotham]

Where do they ever support the idea that Wabash Ave. or the so-called "Jewlers Row" are historic? Those blocks are now and always were a rather uninteresting and unsightly hodge-podge of trivial structures lacking in any significant architectural presence. The jewelers left along with the Blackhawk restaurant and dozens of other small run-of-the-mill commercial venues, and they left for sound commercial reasons. I'll wager that none of those who abandoned Wabash Ave. had any sense of a historic loss or that there were part of anything of historic significance. They plied their trades and passed on. Facadectomies pay homage to misplaced nostalgia, nothing more. Cities, like architecture itself, are new poems in the making. Let's enjoy our time under the sun, and let the future anguish over what we built. :wallbash:

I have to dissagree with ya Frumie...

Wabash Ave is not about just the individual non descript buildings, but a collection of buildings that on a whole make for a unique urban space that was once so prevelant in the Loop, and is now all but gone. With the exception of a few historic 19th century buildings, you are correct in that there are several bland buildings that indivually do not contribute much. But, together they create a street space that gives us a hint of what life was like in the Loop 50, 75, or 100+ years ago. Not something that can be re-created. While there are other areas in the Loop that also posess a fine collection of nice and bland old buildings, no area has it in quite the scale which still exists on Wabash. Wabash has a feel like no other place in Chicago. It is near the top of my list of favorite urban spaces. I would be deeply saddened if any more of that character was destroyed.

I am not a fan of the Facadectomy, but if done right, it does work. When you stand on the sidewalk in front of where the Heritage is standing you have no idea that a 57 story building is above you. They did a great job of maintaining the feel of the facades from more than a century ago. (I will admit that I can't wait until they get a bit dirty as they look way too clean right now, but that will happen.) The facades on the block of Jewelers Row are not that spectacular, but next door to them is Sullivan's oldest existing design, and it would look completely wrong to have it standing next to a modern 72 story structure on Wabash. (That doesn't mean that you can't build modern next to old, but in this context, it wouldn't work.) At the same time the upper floors of those older buildings is and has been vacant for years, why not use the space to hide a parking garage?

Anybody who knows me, knows that I am all about new and modern, but I have also learned to have a healthy respect for our past, and recognize that while it is imperative to move forward, it is also imperative to not forget the past.

Just my thoughts...

[BVictor1]

Well,the meeting seemed to go quite well. There was really noone at the meeting who specifically was against the tower. It was a great panel. I was able to get a high resolution of the building earlier today, that I will post as soon as it gets posted on Emporis, I'm having troumbe uploading it. But anyway I was able to voice my opinion and speak in favor of this project and say that people need to focus more on the asthetics of buildings rather than density. Shawn stole my line and got a standing fucking and he's going to get the wrath of Victor. For the most part there was positive support for this tower, even the preservationist had to admit that the building was sleek and elegant. I'm sure that the other forum members that were in attendance will add to this. Shawn, Tom, Marvel, Dan, Steely, 2PruRocks and myself were there as forum representatives.

[BVictor1]

Jewelers Row tower sets unwelcome precedent

May 18, 2005

BY DAVID ROEDER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST



It will be 73 stories, some 776 feet tall, and will arise from the Jewelers Row historic district in the middle of downtown. And if you think it's a bit much, your big chance to be heard will be Thursday's meeting of the Chicago Plan Commission, which convenes at 1 p.m. at City Hall.

The Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois has raised the possibility of a lawsuit if the project is approved. But that's been the only public expression of opposition thus far to a plan that changes the character of Wabash Avenue. The proposal by an investment team close to Mayor Daley calls for placing the condo tower behind buildings at 21-39 S. Wabash that date from the construction boom following the 1871 fire.

It's far taller than the neighboring office giants and would add a driveway to a lively pedestrian street. The design by architecture firm Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates is attractive enough, but I'm concerned about the precedent. "I don't understand why we set up these historic districts, then ignore the guidelines that protect them,'' said David Bahlman, president of the landmarks group.

Deputy planning commissioner Brian Goeken said the building merits approval because it preserves the low-rise buildings. And he said the Jewelers Row district is based on the traditional uses of the buildings, not their height.

But that's a distinction that will be lost when future developers use this as a textbook study for how to get their way in a landmark district.

The deal has been cut and is probably unstoppable. But criticism from a few more Chicagoans would serve notice that it won't be so easy next time.

[Frumie]

I have to dissagree with ya Frumie...

Wabash Ave is not about just the individual non descript buildings, but a collection of buildings that on a whole make for a unique urban space that was once so prevelant in the Loop, and is now all but gone. With the exception of a few historic 19th century buildings, you are correct in that there are several bland buildings that indivually do not contribute much. But, together they create a street space that gives us a hint of what life was like in the Loop 50, 75, or 100+ years ago. Not something that can be re-created. While there are other areas in the Loop that also posess a fine collection of nice and bland old buildings, no area has it in quite the scale which still exists on Wabash. Wabash has a feel like no other place in Chicago. It is near the top of my list of favorite urban spaces. I would be deeply saddened if any more of that character was destroyed.

I am not a fan of the Facadectomy, but if done right, it does work. When you stand on the sidewalk in front of where the Heritage is standing you have no idea that a 57 story building is above you. They did a great job of maintaining the feel of the facades from more than a century ago. (I will admit that I can't wait until they get a bit dirty as they look way too clean right now, but that will happen.) The facades on the block of Jewelers Row are not that spectacular, but next door to them is Sullivan's oldest existing design, and it would look completely wrong to have it standing next to a modern 72 story structure on Wabash. (That doesn't mean that you can't build modern next to old, but in this context, it wouldn't work.) At the same time the upper floors of those older buildings is and has been vacant for years, why not use the space to hide a parking garage?

Just my thoughts...

I believe you articulate what the preservations mean by "historic", namely, "old" and "our own." Differently expressed: "our roots." Fair enough. I had felt that much time and recent developments had cut deeply into the fabric of Wabash Ave, despoiling most of its character. You have the advantage over me of having actually walked that cityscape recently. While I espouse the principle of "honesty in architecture," I have also to concede these 8-storey garages, presently forming the base of most new structures, are solely in need of some cosmetic treatment. In this case, then, should facadeism preserve the older "charm," I can live with that. We'll have to wait to see if it works and how much "life" returns to Wabash Ave. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Frumie]

Well,the meeting seemed to go quite well. There was really noone at the meeting who specifically was against the tower. The other forum members that were in attendance will add to this. Shawn, Tom, Marvel, Dan, Steely, 2PruRocks and myself were there as forum representatives.

Nice work gentlemen. :bowtie:

[geoff_diamond]

David Roeder is an idiot. First of all, how is this a precedent when the Heritage did the very same thing a few years ago (rather successfully I might add)? Secondly, it's been discussed time and again that it is the facades, and only the facades, of these buildings that warrant saving. The rest of the structures are completely unremarkable. A million people have said it before and I'll say it again - there is nothing wrong with facadectomy (a term that I am growing to rather enjoy).

My only concern with the project is the mention of the "driveway" in Roeder's article - this is the first I've heard of any disconnection in the street's pedestrian environment. We'll have to wait and see just how true this is - and how much of a detriment to Wabash it would become were it implemented.

[BVictor1]

Plan Commission backs Jewelers Row tower

May 20, 2005

BY DAVID ROEDER Business Reporter


A proposal for a 71-story tower within the Jewelers Row landmark district passed a key milestone Thursday when the Chicago Plan Commission endorsed the project.

The commission, which advises the City Council on major building projects, praised the architecture of the building and said the developers will revitalize a haggard section of Wabash. The condominium tower would arise from a base that will incorporate a renovation of three low-rise buildings at 21-39 S. Wabash.

The action came during a busy meeting that reflected developers' expectations of residential growth in Chicago. The commission approved projects that would add nearly 2,400 units to the city.

The largest is a plan for a new development of 1,200 homes at 3201 W. Arthington, part of the former Sears Roebuck & Co. campus on the West Side. Chicago-based Royal Imperial Group plans to convert two former Sears buildings into residential use and add other housing that will include a mix of town houses and rental properties.

Royal Imperial's president, Mordecai Tessler, said he hopes to start marketing the project late this year. He said the roughly $200 million development might take five years to complete.

Other residential projects that secured the commission's support included a thin 26-story building at 110 W. Superior, 240 units at 301 W. Ohio, a 51-story building at 148 E. Ontario, 93 new units at 2559 S. Dearborn and a 19-story building at 1255 S. State.

The Jewelers Row project comes from the same investment team that produced the 57-story Heritage at Millennium Park, which involved renovation of old storefronts at the southeast corner of Randolph and Wabash and is the new home of Mayor Daley.

The team is led by Mesa Development LLC, whose managing member, Richard Hanson, said he expects the $300 million project to take about four years. Hanson said he hopes to start marketing units next year and expects lenders will require that from 35 percent to 50 percent of the 353 dwellings be sold before construction can start.

Most of the units should be priced under $500,000, he said. Jack George, the project's attorney, said the developers will commit $1.3 million to an affordable housing fund as part of the deal with the city.

The project was opposed by representatives of the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois and Preservation Chicago. They argued that while the project has many attributes, a building that soars more than 800 feet would detract from the integrity of Jewelers Row.

A member of the commission, Ald. Burton Natarus (42nd), countered that the high-rise refreshes a dilapidated stretch of the Loop and helps Jewelers Row merchants by bringing new customers close by.

The project also had support from leading civic groups, including the Greater State Street Council and the Grant Park Advisory Council.

[chicagogeorge]

That is great news! 71 stories!

[Chi_Coruscant]

$300M Condo Tower Planned for Jeweler’s Row
By Mark Ruda (www.globest.com)
Last updated: May 19, 2005 06:45pm

CHICAGO-Rather than defacing the Jeweler’s Row landmark district, a 71-story condominium tower at the southeast corner of Wabash Avenue and Monroe Street will be a “stunning addition” to the East Loop skyline, plan commission members agreed Thursday. Mesa Development’s $300-million, 353-unit project will add 8,500 sf of ground-floor retail space, 41,000 sf for the School of the Art Institute on the next two floors, 460 parking spaces in nine stories of parking and an 18,000-sf athletic club on the 13th and 14th floors.
Mesa Development founder Richard A. Hanson expects to begin construction next year, with completion likely in 2010. However, the project still needs city council approval, and his Monroe/Wabash Development LLC must acquire the four-building property from the Art Institute, which uses some of the space for classrooms, administrative offices and storage. Although Hanson is talking with a syndicate of banks about financing, he expects there likely will be a pre-sale requirement in the 35% to 50% range for his condos, which will average about $400,000. “We have a long way to go yet,” he adds.

Although the 57-story reinforced concrete, aluminum and glass triangular condominium tower will sit atop of the retail space, parking garage, classrooms and athletic club, facades at 21-39 S. Wabash Ave. and 52-64 E. Monroe St. will be preserved. However, opponents criticize the 822-foot height of the new building, as well as nearly 1 million sf of mixed-use space.

“If an 800-foot building can be permitted in an historic district where the prevailing height is less than 300 feet, what keeps that from happening in any other historic district in Chicago?” says David Bahlman, president of the Landmark Preservation Council of Illinois. Adds Jonathan Fine, president of Preservation Chicago, “We do not condone construction of new buildings on top of historically significant ones…It opens the door to unbridled development in historic districts.”

However, 42nd Ward Alderman Burton Natarus argues Wabash Avenue already is hampered by the Chicago Transit Authority’s elevated tracks above the street, which casts shadows on Jeweler’s Row. “What everybody is forgetting is, this is Wabash Avenue,” Natarus says. “Wabash is a very, very different street because of the El. The El is an absolute shade on the street. This will make Wabash Avenue something to be proud of.”

US Equities Realty president and chief operating officer Nancy A. Pacher, also a member of the plan commission, agrees. Her firm’s office is at 20 N. Michigan Ave., a block from Mesa Development’s latest proposal as well as a block south of its Heritage at Millennium Park condominium tower. “It’s a wonderful part of the Loop, until you get to Wabash,” Pacher says. “It looks dirty, tacky and seedy.”

Hanson is being allowed to build 300,000 sf more than current zoning permits as a result of building setbacks, an environmental “green roof,” 20% of units being accessible to the handicapped and a $1.3-million donation to the city’s affordable housing fund.

[Chi_Coruscant]

A proposal for a 71-story tower within the Jewelers Row landmark district passed a key milestone Thursday when the Chicago Plan Commission endorsed the project.....

The largest is a plan for a new development of 1,200 homes at 3201 W. Arthington, part of the former Sears Roebuck & Co. campus on the West Side. Chicago-based Royal Imperial Group plans to convert two former Sears buildings into residential use and add other housing that will include a mix of town houses and rental properties. Royal Imperial's president, Mordecai Tessler, said he hopes to start marketing the project late this year. He said the roughly $200 million development might take five years to complete....

Other residential projects that secured the commission's support included a thin 26-story building at 110 W. Superior, 240 units at 301 W. Ohio, a 51-story building at 148 E. Ontario, 93 new units at 2559 S. Dearborn and a 19-story building at 1255 S. State.


I can't believe everything's happening to Chicago. God, I love this city!

[chicagogeorge]

Yeah, this is really an incredible period for Chicago. By 2008 or 09, We will have an additional 40 plus towers dotting our skyline!

[BVictor1]

#3. A proposed Residential Business Planned Development application and Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection application submitted by Monroe/Wabash Development, LLC for the property commonly known as 21-39 South Wabash Avenue and 52-64 East Monroe Street. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 71-story mixed use development including 353 dwelling units, 428 parking spaces, and retail and institutional uses. (42nd Ward) (Madeleine Doering)
http://img267.echo.cx/img267/6401/p10001423pm.jpg

Monroe-Wabash Tower: 822' 3" (top of wedge) 792' 3" (top of roof 73rd floor) Shawn and myself saw the elevations on the presentation boards.

There are a total of 73 floors if you include the 2 mechanical penthouse floors on top.

[Frumie]

$300M Condo Tower Planned for Jeweler’s Row
By Mark Ruda (www.globest.com)
Last updated: May 19, 2005 06:45pm

CHICAGO-Rather than defacing the Jeweler’s Row landmark district, a 71-story condominium tower at the southeast corner of Wabash Avenue and Monroe Street will be a “stunning addition” to the East Loop skyline, plan commission members agreed Thursday. However, 42nd Ward Alderman Burton Natarus argues Wabash Avenue already is hampered by the Chicago Transit Authority’s elevated tracks above the street, which casts shadows on Jeweler’s Row. “What everybody is forgetting is, this is Wabash Avenue,” Natarus says. “Wabash is a very, very different street because of the El. The El is an absolute shade on the street. This will make Wabash Avenue something to be proud of.”

US Equities Realty president and chief operating officer Nancy A. Pacher, also a member of the plan commission, agrees. Her firm’s office is at 20 N. Michigan Ave., a block from Mesa Development’s latest proposal as well as a block south of its Heritage at Millennium Park condominium tower. “It’s a wonderful part of the Loop, until you get to Wabash,” Pacher says. “It looks dirty, tacky and seedy.”

Amen :cheers1:

[simulcra]

What? I really like Wabash and all the shade the El casts on it.

Hanson is being allowed to build 300,000 sf more than current zoning permits as a result of building setbacks, an environmental “green roof,” 20% of units being accessible to the handicapped and a $1.3-million donation to the city’s affordable housing fund.

Yay for incentives that work!

[RockfordSoxFan]

IMHO, the el is part of what makes Chicago- well Chicago.... No other city like it, and I love the shadow it casts on Wabash too. I love the fact that the el is 100+ years old and shows its age as well, its character.

A tower thi