South Loop and Printers Row Development News [Archive] - Page 2

ErmDiego

April 29th, 2007, 12:41 AM

Ok, now you're starting to break loose some of that big time Neighborhood Organization Leader shit! Tell us more. IC RoW or St. Charles Airline?

Again, you're starting to build some Karma here, so don't blow it. Remember, that the only thing that Mr. Downtown ever tipped us off to was a hot dog stand in a mini park on Dearborn that never happened. So, here's your chance to shine.

I will not name names, but this is a direct quote from a big dog, with his Lawyer sitting next to him (November 2006). Had review meeting of Zoning variance request with folks from Central Station. Cordial and frank discussion, on current developments, infrastructure, developers, and future plans. Indicated that the next phase of the Central Station Plan will be announced in 12-18 months from then, which would be the Air-right developments over the tracks from Roosevelt to McCormick Place. This would be 7-9 towers, plus 400-700 more townhomes. I am guessing that the timing for announcement is dependent on the Museum Park Tower and the west tower completion. Now, my other guesses:

1. Property Development over Tracks - now, if you ever look at their sales center plans, contracts, or talk about the Central station, the only track covering project they ever talked confidently about is in Front of Museum Tower for about 1 or 2 blocks, which is to be greenspace. Not sure if they are funding, but this seems certain.

2. The remainder from 14th south has many spots open for towers.

3. Challenges - The challenges in my opinion:
A) TIF Funding Dates - NEar South TIF may be due in 2013. Thus, will
TIF be renewed, and since the area is not blighted (liked that ever
stopped the city before), would the city be willing to spend that
kind of money to kick in for part of this.

B) TIF Priority competition - A project for tracks, if TIF support is
needed for the public space is also competing with Olympics & the
Olympic Village for money priority. Additionally, you may be competing
with Riverside District for TIF $$. It will be interesting to see how this
works out.
Regarding Riverside District, the publicity Rezko is getting with Obama,
despite him not being owner of the property anymore ("allegedly"), may
continue to set the Riverside District project back...personally, I think
it is a sham, as all the Rezmar players have changed names to Heritage
Development Partners, and are continuing to develop the plan.
As well, you have a few well placed Governor Blagoavich's former
assistants, who have joined the Riverside development team, after
serving state positions in finance, etc.

ErmDiego

April 29th, 2007, 12:50 AM

Yeah, I agree....the Target comment is also a giveaway that he is is extremely pretentious.

Part sarcasm, part observation. On paper, some of the designs can look fine. A clean, crisp design...looks great on Paper and renderings.

However, I walk and bike the neighborhoods a lot. If you walk on Wabash and look at the back of 1720 and 1640 (CMK's projects), it looks nothing close to the rendering. If it is pretentious to hope that someone dumps
$300K into condo highrise should beable to put shades other than bedsheets and newspaper in their windows, than I am guilty.

If the design intent was to be modern, clean, and organized with crisp lines great...in reality, you see to much behind the glass (possibly cheap glass used), of people's stuff, furniture, belongs, etc. Several have commented the same, that it really detracts from the crispness and appearence of the building.

Loopy

April 29th, 2007, 02:28 AM

Sir Isaac Newton

April 29th, 2007, 03:25 AM

Part sarcasm, part observation. On paper, some of the designs can look fine. A clean, crisp design...looks great on Paper and renderings.

However, I walk and bike the neighborhoods a lot. If you walk on Wabash and look at the back of 1720 and 1640 (CMK's projects), it looks nothing close to the rendering. If it is pretentious to hope that someone dumps
$300K into condo highrise should beable to put shades other than bedsheets and newspaper in their windows, than I am guilty.

If the design intent was to be modern, clean, and organized with crisp lines great...in reality, you see to much behind the glass (possibly cheap glass used), of people's stuff, furniture, belongs, etc. Several have commented the same, that it really detracts from the crispness and appearence of the building.

It was the "$200 Target bedroom set" comment that seemed pretentious - not any of the comments against CMK. That comment makes it seem like you look down upon people who might not be as wealthy and can't afford high-end bedroom furniture.

Loopy

April 29th, 2007, 04:19 AM

Loopy

April 29th, 2007, 04:26 AM

BVictor1

April 29th, 2007, 05:15 AM

Not sure why the Prairie Town Homes get lumped in with the 1717 tower. The townhomes have yet to come up with any discovered latent defects or problems other than those that were discovered and dealt with in 2003. The town home association did not sue Warman or Barr, but instead reached an amicable settlement after turnover. I understand they are not architectural marvels but they are decent homes, not a blight on the neighborhood and have experienced property value gains equal to any other development in the area.

Town homes are necessary for any community -- I understand here the focus is on high rises, but I wonder if the constant criticism is what you really feel. Is there a town home development in the area that you would consider much better?

Prairie District Townhomes are criticised because of their architecture. I think that the townhomes east across Prairie Ave. from the Glessener House are very nice. Attention to detail was paid and the architecture is quite nice. where as the Prairie District Townhouses are shit designs. Townhomes aren't necessary for every community.

Chicagotom

April 30th, 2007, 04:12 PM

I will not name names, but this is a direct quote from a big dog, with his Lawyer sitting next to him (November 2006). Had review meeting of Zoning variance request with folks from Central Station. Cordial and frank discussion, on current developments, infrastructure, developers, and future plans. Indicated that the next phase of the Central Station Plan will be announced in 12-18 months from then, which would be the Air-right developments over the tracks from Roosevelt to McCormick Place. This would be 7-9 towers, plus 400-700 more townhomes. I am guessing that the timing for announcement is dependent on the Museum Park Tower and the west tower completion. Now, my other guesses:

Not sure this is current or accurate. But covering tracks draw alot of interest. As recently as 6 weeks ago I talked to some Fogelson guys and the feasibility study that was completed this winter put some unbelievable costs to the towers that would sit above the deck and the tracks. I understand that the towers are scraped and the decking is unlikely past 14th.

Loopy

April 30th, 2007, 04:18 PM

slooparch

April 30th, 2007, 05:14 PM

Thanks for that dose of reality. The towers will surely happen one day, but probably not until the next (Post-Olympics) business cycle.

exactly

ErmDiego

April 30th, 2007, 10:32 PM

Not sure this is current or accurate. But covering tracks draw alot of interest. As recently as 6 weeks ago I talked to some Fogelson guys and the feasibility study that was completed this winter put some unbelievable costs to the towers that would sit above the deck and the tracks. I understand that the towers are scraped and the decking is unlikely past 14th.

Than your sources are more recent than mine as the information I got was December/January. do you know if Central Station would have to privately foot the bill for the current plan showed in their models or would this be public funds?

Chicagotom

May 1st, 2007, 06:03 AM

^^ I think that you made some good point on the $$$$ potentially being diverted to the Olympic Village should we get it. I have wondered myself on what a drag that would be on the investment pool. But anyway. Enterprise and Central Station has run into several unexpected issues trying to build over these tracks. Loft 2 and OMP1 were both delayed because of the timbers from the old train tressell that had to be removed. I have a feeling that there is a ton of issues building over the tracks. I don't know the facts except that the costs were prohibitive to build the towers.

Chitowner245

May 1st, 2007, 06:45 AM

I live in central station, and i have to say that i don't give a damn about covering the tracks south of roosevelt- get them covered in grant park!!!! And take some of those damn concrete and asphalt streets out while you're at it!

Mr Downtown

May 1st, 2007, 09:18 PM

I just heard today that D2 is not planning to proceed with The Curve, and may sell the site and focus on other neighborhoods. That's a shame, I think, because the tower was pretty intriguing and the retail base would have been a significant contribution to the neighborhood.

Belacqua

May 1st, 2007, 09:56 PM

The redevelopment on the two buildings on the 600 block of S. Clark took an odd twist--Pat's Pizza has already started operating in their new space in the new building, presumably so demo can start on the 2-story building they used to occupy. So I guess they're truly not doing much to the taller of the two buildings, just adding the extra floors on top.

I'm happy about this, because the loss of Pat's Pizza for months on end would have really disrupted my lifestyle. I'd have to rely on those hacks at Edwardo's.

Loopy

May 1st, 2007, 10:34 PM

spyguy

May 1st, 2007, 11:35 PM

Yes, that's bad news coupled with the cancellation of the nearby Lennar project. Hopefully the Roosevelt Collection will spur more development.

Mr Downtown

May 2nd, 2007, 12:30 AM

Also heard today more about Terrazio, 1935 S. Wabash. 180 units and 11,000 sf retail. Seven floors of uninspiring "traditional" architecture from the same in-house folks who brought you Marquee on Michigan. Same developer: Sedgwick Properties.

Supposed to be on the May 17 Plan Commission agenda, though I don't know why they would need Plan Commission approval.

Sir Isaac Newton

May 2nd, 2007, 01:45 AM

ardecila

May 2nd, 2007, 02:52 AM

If they are adding stories to the Dwight Building across the street, perhaps they bought or rented the parking lot to use for construction staging.

southloopscotty

May 2nd, 2007, 03:50 AM

PrintersRowBoiler

May 2nd, 2007, 04:28 AM

As I was walking to work this morning, I noticed a worker and machine dismantling the "parking" sign at the parking lot at the Southeast corner of Clark and Harrison. When I came home tonight, I saw that the sign is gone, no cars had been parked there all day, and there is a a small, paper sign posted up saying that the parking lot is closed. Does anyone have any idea what is going on at this lot?

I think there has been something flying under the radar here for a while. I too noticed that going on this morning. About a year ago, I posted that a sign was posted on this property giving public notice of a public hearing to have a variance to allow a "drive-through" at this location. Not sure what it was for or if something ever came of it.

Loopy

May 2nd, 2007, 04:36 AM

Sir Isaac Newton

May 2nd, 2007, 04:40 AM

I think there has been something flying under the radar here for a while. I too noticed that going on this morning. About a year ago, I posted that a sign was posted on this property giving public notice of a public hearing to have a variance to allow a "drive-through" at this location. Not sure what it was for or if something ever came of it.

"drive-through" as in a drive-through restaurant?

Loopy

May 2nd, 2007, 05:04 AM

Chicagotom

May 2nd, 2007, 07:37 AM

What a difference in 2100 S. Michigan and 600 S. Clark - Same concept, incorporate a new tower and old loft but could they be any more different. I'm glad Printers Row ended up with this mess. :ohno:

ErmDiego

May 2nd, 2007, 11:11 AM

Seems the city is going to call the Vietnam Art Museum organization lease with sale option a sale and involk the "Right of First Option" that allows the city to buy the 1801 S. Indiana building back, instead of letting the Museum bring in Black Orchid who wants to put a wedding/banquet facility at the site. There will be an ordinance introduced "authorizing an acquisition of property located at 1801 S. Indiana Ave. and conveyance of the property to the Chicago Park District.". Had the city not done this, in 2013, when the TIF loan was due, Black Orchid (who has possible ties to MCL), would have been able to take over the building and not have to pay back the city's $1.7MM TIF Loan back, and obtain a +$5M for a song and dance.

This is a great thing for the residents!!!

PrintersRowBoiler

May 2nd, 2007, 06:41 PM

601 S CLARK ST
Description: Erect one-story banking facility with deep foundations, parking and drive through, per plans.

The Urban Politician

May 3rd, 2007, 05:18 AM

601 S CLARK ST
Description: Erect one-story banking facility with deep foundations, parking and drive through, per plans.

^ WHAT THE FUCK?

Hurry up and ban this shit from downtown, Daley. Sheesh!

PrintersRowBoiler

May 3rd, 2007, 08:08 AM

Funny you should say that. Daley's brother's firm represents the developer I believe (Daley and George). I bet it will have lots of parking too! It is interesting that they are proposing deep foundations. Definitely a "permanent" building. Maybe they will design it with a foundation system that can support future vertical expansion. I guess a bank with a parking lot is better than a parking lot...

spyguy

May 3rd, 2007, 11:45 PM

^But the parking lot can be torn up pretty easily for future development. This bank will probably be there for a long time.

Anyway, a small rendering of those bland eco18 buildings.
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/5567/90083366qx9.jpg

vttrapn

May 4th, 2007, 08:50 PM

Mr Downtown

May 4th, 2007, 09:05 PM

Sir Isaac Newton

May 4th, 2007, 09:07 PM

Has anyone heard anything lately on Astoria Tower? They were supposed to break ground in spring of 06 and they still look lifeless at the project site. Yes, they blocked it all off but doesn't look like much else. I put a downpayment on one of the units back in Oct. 05 so you could see why I would be frustrated...:bash:

I know that they have been working on the 1 east 8th, the mid-rise which is supposedly intertwined and will share parking. I think they have recently fully excavated and I am guessing will start rising soon.

Sir Isaac Newton

May 4th, 2007, 09:11 PM

I've heard nothing but I'm also kind of surprised at how slowly One Place seems to be going. There's a few people working on foundation forms, but it doesn't even seem like the crane operator is there every day.

By comparison, 900 South Clark, out my other window, seems to add a floor per week. I'm just starting to realize how much of my panoramic view of the West Side will be blocked, but at least it's a good-looking building without an ugly parking podium.

At LEAST a floor a week....maybe even a floor every 4 days....this building will really rise quickly! Even with the Curve and the Lennar high-rises faltering, it is good to see 900 South Clark go up, to give Target some company in the whole Polk/Roosevelt/Clark/Wells area. RC has started some prep work too, which is encouraging.

spyguy

May 5th, 2007, 06:37 PM

http://www.nearwestgazette.com/Archive/0507/Newsstory0507a.htm

Possible return of bronze statue to 18th and Calumet controversial

By Miriam Cintrón

The City of Chicago is filled with history, from its architecture to the very ground Chicagoans walk on. The park at 18th Street and Calumet Avenue in the South Loop, now bordered by recently constructed townhouses and condominiums, was the setting of a significant yet little known part of Chicago history. On that corner 195 years ago, a group of American soldiers and civilians, including women and children, fought a band of Potawatomi Indians at the start of the War of 1812.

Now, advocates and opponents of a statue commemorating that battle are waging one of their own.

During the War of 1812, as fighting between the British and Americans raged, the British urged their Native American allies to attack American forts. With unrest all around, Captain Nathan Heald, the American commander at Fort Dearborn (at what is now the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Wacker Drive), was ordered to evacuate the fort and head to Fort Wayne, IN.

On the morning of Aug. 15, 1812, about 100 soldiers and settlers began the journey to Indiana. As they proceeded along the lake they fought a group of 500 Potawatomi and other Native Americans nearly two miles south of the fort. Half the American soldiers and settlers were killed, with the other half taken prisoner. The fort was burned to the ground.

Native American chiefs had warned the Americans of the planned attack, but their tip went unheeded. One was Potawatomi chief Black Partridge, who had been friendly with the American settlers at Fort Dearborn and advised Native Americans to preserve their lands using peaceful methods.

Black Partridge could not prevent the attack, but several historic accounts note he was able to save some settlers, including an American officer’s wife named Margaret Helm.

The attack and Black Partridge’s heroism were commemorated 81 years later when railroad car manufacturer George Pullman commissioned a monument called "The Fort Dearborn Massacre: Black Partridge Saving Mrs. Helm." The bronze statue on a marble base features Black Partridge shielding Margaret Helm from an Indian armed with a tomahawk. On the other side of the statue, a Native American drives a spear into a downed man.

It was installed near Pullman’s mansion near 18th and Calumet, the presumed site of the attack. The statue remained there for nearly four decades and then was moved to other locations over the years before being put into storage by the Office of Public Art of the City’s Department of Cultural Affairs.

Now, nearly 200 years after the battle, this part of history intrigued Mark Kieras, chair of the Historic and Educational Committee of the Prairie District Neighborhood Alliance (PDNA) and a resident of the historic Prairie Avenue District for the past four years. Kieras is leading the PDNA’s effort to name the park at 18th and Calumet after Black Partridge and return the statue to its original site.

After learning the park had not officially been named, Kieras asked area residents for name suggestions and submitted them to the Chicago Park District. Citing its goal of naming more parks after women, the Park District replied they were leaning more toward naming the park after Chicago poet Harriet Monroe. Feeling the name should reflect the historic nature of the area, Kieras, a few neighbors, and resident historians continued brainstorming names before hitting upon Black Partridge Park, a name Kieras feels honors the chief and that important day in history.

As for restoring the 114-year-old monument, Kieras will not ask the Park District for the estimated $100,000 to $150,000 it will take. “We as a community are initially going to try to come up with funding solutions and not be looking to the Park District,” Kieras explained.

Kieras has submitted the name suggestion to the Chicago Park District’s Board of Commissioners on behalf of the PDNA; he has not received an answer yet. The board’s decision may be affected by concern over possible negative public reaction to a statue that has seen its share of controversy in the past.

The PDNA’s effort to name the park after Black Partridge and bring the statue back has received support from Preservation Chicago, the Glessner House Museum, the Historic Pullman Foundation, and others. American Indian Center Executive Director Joseph Podlasek also supports the name but is “adamantly opposed to the statue.”

“Our elders worked hard to have that removed,” Podlasek said of Native Americans’ fight to have the monument taken off display at the Chicago Historical Society in the 1970s. The statue was “properly put into storage,” he added.

For Podlasek, the statue represents an era that “was not a great time in history.” He hopes a contemporary sculpture could instead be erected at the park. “There should be a new piece of artwork that represents where we are today,” he said.

Kieras recognizes Podlasek’s view but insists the monument is the best way to educate people about a part of Chicago history. “I understand that Native Americans may not have been well represented in the past, but I feel this is an opportunity to focus on a positive act during what has been perceived as a negative event in history,” Kieras said. “I truly believe today people will embrace the statue for what it is, an heroic act by Black Partridge who advocated peace, not war.”

Preservation Chicago Vice President Michael Moran agreed, saying, “We are aware of the concern regarding the statue, however, the good of having this historic, educational, and beautiful piece of art in public view outweighs other concerns. The massacre happened. It was real. We should not sweep these things under the rug.

“The role of Black Partridge in this event is embodied in the statue in a very respectful way,” he went on. “It is a stunning piece of work.”

Kieras and Moran are eager to continue discussions with the Native American community, including the Michigan-based Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, who claim Chicago as their ancestral land.

“We want to sit with them and have a meaningful and open conversation taking into account their perspective as well as expressing our vision,” Kieras said.

As for the American Indian Center, Podlasek said, “We’re open to discussion as long as it doesn’t involve the statue.”

The statue issue is not likely to disappear, however. Brian Hosmer, director of the D'Arcy McNickel Center for American Indian History at the Newberry Library and associate professor of history at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), weighed in by saying bringing the statue to the park "would be an unfortunate thing to do. The statue re-confirms the sterotype of the savage Indian," he said, citing the statue's barely-clothed Native Americans. "It should be in storage, in my view."

Hosmer added that the statue is and examples of "non-Indians taking" Indian history "for themselves and laying claim to a version of the past" that may not ring grue.

In Hosmer's view, the PDNA should instead collaborate with Native Americans to come up with another way to commemorate Native American history in Chicago.

Kieras suspects the statue may not win everyone over, but he seems certain it can both honor the past and educate those who wish to learn.

“Although the statue may be unsettling to some upon initial viewing, once people understand what it represents they'll appreciate Black Partridge's heroic efforts in a turbulent and violent time in history,” Kieras said.

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/7600/newsst2rq7.jpg
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4469/newsst1gx6.jpg

ardecila

May 5th, 2007, 10:17 PM

Cullertonian

May 6th, 2007, 01:24 AM

The Black Partridge statue is definitely a positive for the PDNA. Adding the statue to the park would be a nice asset for the neighborhood.

On that note, what does everyone else here think about all these little "here's a little odd-shaped piece of land that we can't build on so let's donate it as a park" parks that keep popping up around new developments.
Is the triangle formed by Indiana, 16th, and the railroad tracks going to become one of these afterthought parks? Since the sales center closed on this lot, fences have been installed and what looked to be the beginnings of a park took shape, but it seems to have stalled out with a shell of a sales center remaining.

ErmDiego

May 6th, 2007, 01:59 AM

Wow, something PDNA is doing that I actually support. Where's ErmDiego? I want to congratulate his efforts.

I can understand why Native Americans might be opposed to the statue, but it's part of history, and it shows a kind, beneficial side to the tribes that lived here, as well as some of the nastier sides. I say we keep it.

The first issue is renaming the park. This should be a no brainer with the history of the site.

The longer term issue is what to do with the park. While logically the statue makes some sense, it will involve many discussions. Ft. Dearborn (and the Massacre event) is a cornerstone of Chicago History, with one of the stars on the Chicago flag dedicated to Ft. Dearborn. The event is history, and why sugarcoat the truth, which actually is more damning of the actions of the white-men than the Indians; the loyalty of Black Partridge to his word is an amazing story. The same picture is captured on the Michigan Ave bridge.

What's funny is many of those speaking against the statue may not even be the actual representatives of the Potawatomi or the Potawatomi Nation involving Black Partridge - there are many Potawatomi tribes and organizations.

In addition from an artistic standpoint, it is an amazing statue; the details are beyond comparison to anything done in the city. It is on par with anything you will see in the European museums. It is currently in a secret storage location somewhere near Roosevelt Road...the base has been destroyed, but the bronze works are in great shape.

We have also been working hard with the city on the Cul-De-Sac project at 1849 S. Prairie (hopefully done in the next two weeks), and layng groundwork for the proposed Community Center at 1801 S. Indiana (vote was deferred this week in Housing Committee hearing). Next up will be infratratructure reviews, push for zoning adjustments, and a traffic plan review for the District to include additional traffic calming options. Expect issues of the Armory to be in play on the next few months.

Loopy

May 6th, 2007, 02:03 AM

The Urban Politician

May 6th, 2007, 03:08 AM

I can understand why Native Americans might be opposed to the statue, but it's part of history, and it shows a kind, beneficial side to the tribes that lived here, as well as some of the nastier sides. I say we keep it.

^ Are you sure about that? I have heard that the statue inaccurately portrayes Natives as brutal savages. What part of the statue shows their kind, beneficial side?

ErmDiego

May 6th, 2007, 03:34 AM

I heard that the old sales trailer had a mold infestation that was required to be abated before the trailer could be removed or demolished.

And yeah, it looks like a park in the works. The dog area is already active with the "kid area" being next.

Which is the dog area, and which is the park? There is a fenced in red asphalt section, but I am not sure if that is intended to be the dog area or children area. With no signs or markings, it is hard to tell what is what.

Loopy

May 6th, 2007, 05:35 AM

ardecila

May 6th, 2007, 08:21 AM

It is currently in a secret storage location somewhere near Roosevelt Road...the base has been destroyed, but the bronze works are in great shape.

Why is it secret? Are you afraid of vandalism, or was that meant to be a joke...?

Are you sure about that? I have heard that the statue inaccurately portrayes Natives as brutal savages. What part of the statue shows their kind, beneficial side?

Did you read the article? The statue shows Black Partridge, an Indian chief, physically protecting the settle Margaret Helm from another Indian with a tomahawk. Sounds pretty beneficial to me.

Abner

May 6th, 2007, 09:45 AM

Hmmm. The issue here is not whether the statue portrays a "good Indian" or a "bad Indian" (apparently it portrays one of each, anyway). The issue is that regardless, it's a backhanded way of "honoring" a group of people by objectifying them and continuing an incredibly skewed conception of history. Here's how.

Americans used to be obsessed with Indian treachery. Any time Indians attacked Americans, it was recorded in history as a "massacre." This is a pretty problematic word for a lot of reasons. First, it ignores provocation and context. Second, it whitewashes the innumerable events committed against Indians that could also be labeled "massacres" according to the same criteria. Third, it implies that what Indians did was fundamentally different from what, say, the British did in the War of 1812, or what Americans did to each other in the Civil War. White people "battle" or at worst "sneak attack;" Indians "ambush" or "massacre."

Second, the issue of Black Partridge being a "good Indian." This is absolutely ridiculous. The British were fighting Americans in the War of 1812. Some Indian groups were allied with the British, some with the Americans. The Indian attacks during the War of 1812 were encouraged and even instigated by their British allies. How come we don't have a bunch of statues in storage of British soldiers stabbing downed men with bayonets? Because we don't objectify the British that way. We take Britain seriously as a nation with legitimate self-interests throughout history, which were at some points aligned with our own and at other points against us. We do not remember the British as being "treacherous" because they fought us in some wars. When it comes to Indian nations, though, the ones that protected white people are the good guys and the ones that fought back were the bad guys. Well, that's a lot of crap, isn't it? It delegitimizes any opposition to American actions at the time. Instead, we have a nasty historical document of a good savage protecting a white woman while a bad (but no more or less brute) savage kills a defenseless man.

It doesn't matter, then, whether the statue is on the balance depicting a "good Indian" or a "bad Indian." It's a bad history lesson that decontextualizes the events of the time, puts White colonists at the center of the universe, and depicts others according to their level of complicity with the actions of those colonists.

I frankly don't care which nation might come out in favor of or opposed to the statue. I'm a white guy, and I oppose it because it's bad history and it encourages people to think about history in the wrong way. I would support restoring the piece and putting it in a museum. It sounds like it's noteworthy for its craftsmanship and its historical significance as an indicator of attitudes toward Indians and local history at the time of its creation. But putting a statue up in public requires a lot more thought than putting it in a museum. When we place a commemorative statue in the public way, we are implicitly honoring the person or event it portrays as it is portrayed by the artist. In this case, we don't have any business honoring this portrayal of this event in this way. I say that this statue is better considered a historical document than a piece of public art deserving the city's official approval.

ErmDiego

May 6th, 2007, 04:44 PM

[QUOTE=ardecila;13017853]Why is it secret? Are you afraid of vandalism, or was that meant to be a joke...?

Yes, the city is afraid of theft and vandalism...it's like a where's Waldo adventure. It has been moved around several times from the original location at the existing park, to storage, to the Historical Society, back to Glessner & Woman's Park, and returned to storage.

I find it amazing sometimes in Chicago what gets stored, what gets lost, and what is actually tracted or found. One of my best friends was the project manager for the Cancer Survivor Garden in Grant Park around 2000. The stone 'greek style' columnades used for the project entrance where actually from the old Federal Court House demolished sometime in the 60's or 70's. The storage location - someone remembered that they were put out somewhere in Lake Michigan as rip-rap or breakwaters, and they were able to recover them and restore them for the project.

Frumie

May 6th, 2007, 04:53 PM

Your points are well taken. How many would champion a group statue showing Andrew Jackson sending forth a frightened Cherokee woman clutching a child to walk "The Trail of Tears" and a berobed Chief Justice holding up a fobidding hand? :ohno:

ErmDiego

May 6th, 2007, 04:54 PM

[QUOTE=Abner;13018349]Hmmm. The issue here is not whether the statue portrays a "good Indian" or a "bad Indian" (apparently it portrays one of each, anyway). The issue is that regardless, it's a backhanded way of "honoring" a group of people by objectifying them and continuing an incredibly skewed conception of history. Here's how.

Abner, I respect your opinion and agree in some regards. I believe the issue deserves more discussion. One point of contention is that much of the historical research is not soley relying on accounts from the "white man" perspective. Actually a great deal has come from Indian accounts and their relaying the story, as indicated in the 1899 Version of Harpers Weekly (pages 649-656) linked below.

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fharp%2Fharp0098%2F&tif=00669.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABK4014-0098-6

None the less, it is an eye opening event of Chicago History. Discretely, is does remind us of the Anglo-Euorpean contribution to changing Indian cultural behavior with introduction of weapons, alcohol, etc. - Something that should not be lost on history.

BVictor1

May 6th, 2007, 05:31 PM

^ Are you sure about that? I have heard that the statue inaccurately portrayes Natives as brutal savages. What part of the statue shows their kind, beneficial side?

I think that the statues should be brought back. Unfortunately the event of 1812 is a part of Chicago History, and I don't believe the event should be ignored.

If the Native Americans are going to bitch about the status, I don't see what they haven't bitched or haven't tried getting removed the relief sculptures on the Michigan Avenue Bridge Houses.

Every race and creed of people have their good qualities and bad qualities and neither shoild be ignored or forgotten.

Besides, I'd have fought to the death against the people trying to fuck me out of my motherland also, so i don't see why the native americans should object to the statue. They should be honored, they were fighting for their cause and their home.

Loopy

May 6th, 2007, 05:38 PM

Frumie

May 6th, 2007, 07:58 PM

Thank you for that excellent analysis.
In our pluralistic society all public art is controversial.
Because it's hard enough to get any sort of consensus on Public Art, why needlesly stoke a controversy about our nation's past? It's hard enough to get any kind of aesthetically challenging work into the public forum , why insert historical problems, such as the glossing over of virtual genocide?
:applause:

Abner

May 6th, 2007, 10:45 PM

Commemorative art is even more impossible today. There is very little consensus about who and what is important anymore. I would have no problem with the city "maintaining" the Black Partridge statue if it were in it's original position, but to take it out of storage and re-comission it in a new place is entirely another matter.

Richmond, Virginia has an "Avenue of Confederate Heros", known in the vernacular as Monument Avenue. it is a central boulevard with enormous equestrian statues of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart, and Jefferson Davis. Though provocative to some, they are important historical artifacts, and should be maintained, in my opinion. But if Richmond were to decide to comission a new Confederate monument, or take an old one out of storage would be an outrageous act that would correctly invite controversy.

I think this is a great point and a good answer to the question of why we shouldn't be removing the depictions on the Michigan Ave. bridge houses or other monuments that are questionable today (except perhaps in truly extreme cases). There is a balancing point between respecting the city's historical public art and monuments on the one hand, and respecting history on the other. It is implicitly understood that some monuments remain from an earlier time, even though it would be inappropriate to create them today; I think it's clear that re-mounting a statue that was removed implies renewed approval in modern times and is therefore ill-advised in this case.

Chicagotom

May 7th, 2007, 12:06 AM

OMP1 28th floors 1st setback
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2750.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2738.jpg

OMPW still drilling retaining wall
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2739.jpg

Looking South on Michigan Ave at Roosevelt Cranes everywere
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2753.jpg

Columbian (Roosevelt & Michigan)
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2748.jpg

1340 S. Michigan going loft
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2737.jpg

Vision 13th & State
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2723.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2724.jpg

1400MP & 1401 S State
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2747.jpg

1400MP
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2734.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2728.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2731.jpg

1401 S. State Lofts
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2725.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2722.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2721.jpg

Michigan Ave Tower 2 (14th & Michigan)
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2730.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2727.jpg

Marquee on Michigan
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2746.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2719.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2732.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2733.jpg

1600MP (16th and Prairie)
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2708.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2707.jpg

1720 S Michigan
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2745.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2709-1.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2736.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2735.jpg

Eco18 Demo started (18th & Wabash)
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2718.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2717.jpg

Lexington Tower driving sheet pile (Cermack & Indiana)
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2716.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2715.jpg

Chicagotom

May 7th, 2007, 12:24 AM

Spertus Museum
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2782.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2783.jpg

Midrise North of Astoria Tower (8th State)
I checked in with the sales office for Astoria. Everything has stopped because of a one of the 2 projects has a serious water issue and the street work on 14th.
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2781.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2780.jpg

Library Tower
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2779.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2777.jpg

Arworks Building (Sciencetology new owners) 650 s. Clark - sorry for the quality of the interior shots.
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2776.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2775.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2774.jpg

Vetro (Harrison & Wells)
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2770.jpg

Printers Row Corner (Polk & Wells)
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2760.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2769.jpg

Roosevelt Collection ready to go!!
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2767.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2764.jpg

The Curve 900 S. Clark
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2761.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2759.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2757.jpg

Burhnam Pointe (Polk & Clark) Vetro in background
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2756.jpg

NearNorthGuy

May 7th, 2007, 12:25 AM

I think this is a great point and a good answer to the question of why we shouldn't be removing the depictions on the Michigan Ave. bridge houses or other monuments that are questionable today (except perhaps in truly extreme cases). There is a balancing point between respecting the city's historical public art and monuments on the one hand, and respecting history on the other. It is implicitly understood that some monuments remain from an earlier time, even though it would be inappropriate to create them today; I think it's clear that re-mounting a statue that was removed implies renewed approval in modern times and is therefore ill-advised in this case.

I agree somewhat with the first part of your last sentence, i.e., "...re-mounting a statue that was removed implies renewed approval..." However, in contrast to your position, it seems to me that this renewed approval is a good thing.

We, as a city, approved of this statue in 1893 and we made a mistake when we did not approve of it in the 1970's, when the statue was removed. The statue was removed in an episode of political correctness run amok. It was wrong. Replacing the statue back at 18th and Calumet would right that wrong.

Furthermore, the return of the statue would add to the richness and physical beauty of our city. The suppression of this statue is the worst way to deal with public art. It is also strange to say that this statue ignores the context of the event, as suggested in one of the above posts.

What would put the themes depicted on the statue "in context?" A diorama of the entire Native American vs. European-American experience? Should we take down all of our monuments that suggest or depict violence because they do not show enough "context?"

The Urban Politician

May 7th, 2007, 01:07 AM

Great photo thread, Chicagotom!

By the way, does anybody know that status of this gorgeous old building on the right? Is it in danger?

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/2007%20Buildings/DSCN2734.jpg

spyguy

May 7th, 2007, 01:15 AM

^Trevi Square? No, I don't think it's in any danger. It has a cool little fountain in front of the main entrance.

Huge (but awesome) update Chicagotom!

Abner

May 7th, 2007, 01:32 AM

I agree somewhat with the first part of your last sentence, i.e., "...re-mounting a statue that was removed implies renewed approval..." However, in contrast to your position, it seems to me that this renewed approval is a good thing.

We, as a city, approved of this statue in 1893 and we made a mistake when we did not approve of it in the 1970's, when the statue was removed. The statue was removed in an episode of political correctness run amok. It was wrong. Replacing the statue back at 18th and Calumet would right that wrong.

Furthermore, the return of the statue would add to the richness and physical beauty of our city. The suppression of this statue is the worst way to deal with public art. It is also strange to say that this statue ignores the context of the event, as suggested in one of the above posts.

What would put the themes depicted on the statue "in context?" A diorama of the entire Native American vs. European-American experience? Should we take down all of our monuments that suggest or depict violence because they do not show enough "context?"

This is an incomplete response to the issues I brought up earlier. Simply dismissing the objections to the statue as "political correctness" is probably the laziest way of disagreeing with an argument. The monument was removed. It's up to its defenders to convince others why it should be replaced.

ErmDiego

May 7th, 2007, 04:58 AM

This is an incomplete response to the issues I brought up earlier. Simply dismissing the objections to the statue as "political correctness" is probably the laziest way of disagreeing with an argument. The monument was removed. It's up to its defenders to convince others why it should be replaced.

If I am not mistaken, the reason it was removed in the first place was the state of disrepair and the general downtrowden condition of the neigborhood.
Those contending is was removed because of Indian outcry are simply incorrect. Prove? You have an interesting conondrum with either the History that the statue implies (200 years in 2012), or the history of the statue and it's place in the neighborhood.

Excerpts from some books on the Statue History
--------------------
Fort Dearborn Massacre - 1893 • bronze statue of six figures on a marble base; commissioned by the railroad car manufacturer George Pullman; also called "Black Partridge Saving Mrs. Helm," referring to the friendly Potawatomi chief who saved Mrs. Margaret Helm`s life; another recognizable figure is that of the fort`s physician Dr. Isaac Y. Van Voorhis, who lies mortally wounded on the ground. On the original base, two bas-relief panels by the sculptor illustrated the march from the fort and Black Partridge`s return of the peace medal. The sculpture stood originally at 18th and Calumet streets, adjoining an old cottonwood tree near Pullman`s mansion, believed to have been the site of the massacre; in 1931 it was removed to protect it from vandals and eventually installed in the lobby of the Chicago Historical Society; in 1987 it was relocated to the Prairie Avenue Historical District Park near 18th Street and Prairie Avenue (now called Woman's Park), then eventually put into storage by the Office of Public Art of the Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs. Apparently the monument requires significant conservation work. [280a] [As late as this writing {December 2005}, the monument is not again publicly displayed; eds.] Sculptor: Carl Rohl-Smith.

Loopy

May 7th, 2007, 07:12 AM

Loopy

May 7th, 2007, 07:29 AM

Abner

May 7th, 2007, 09:39 AM

If I am not mistaken, the reason it was removed in the first place was the state of disrepair and the general downtrowden condition of the neigborhood.
Those contending is was removed because of Indian outcry are simply incorrect. Prove? You have an interesting conondrum with either the History that the statue implies (200 years in 2012), or the history of the statue and it's place in the neighborhood.

I was mistaken about the reason it was initially removed, but as Loopy pointed out, it makes absolutely no difference. The hangup that people seem to have about which nation made what request at what time is something that very few so-called "politically correct" people actually care about. I stated in the first place that my argument that the statue shouldn't be replaced has nothing whatsoever to do with whether some other group of people makes a specific statement about it. It's a bad representation of history, and as such belongs in a museum, where it can be viewed as a historical artifact, rather than in public, where it will be viewed as a city-approved statement about the meaning of a historical event. I've yet to hear a response to this that doesn't simply ignore the argument.

There are not very many commemorative statues or monuments in Chicago depicting historical events. (Besides the Michigan Ave. bridge houses, the Haymarket Riot statue comes to mind as an exception, but if I recall right, it's somewhat symbolic and stylized.) They usually either depict individuals (e.g. Lincoln) or symbolic representations (e.g. Ceres on the Board of Trade). When a statue that is supposed to depict a moment in time is put up, that moment in time is decontextualized, aside from the more obvious problem that it's usually a fanciful depiction.

Maybe an analogy would make the point clearer: should the US commission a new monument to be erected at Pearl Harbor depicting a small Japanese man with buckteeth and round glasses in a fighter, strafing a barracks? Would it make it better if the monument also included a small Japanese-American doctor with buckteeth and round glasses tending to the wounded? Okay, maybe the racist depiction is beside the point (although I'd be amazed if the statue of Black Partridge didn't feature something analogous). Even erecting a monument depicting Japanese people, clearly marked as such, attacking Pearl Harbor would be a bad way to memorialize that event, because it implies that what we should be remembering about the event is "THE JAPANESE ATTACKED US," even if the "good guy" in the scene is supposed to remind us "BUT THEY'RE NOT ALL BAD."

ErmDiego

May 7th, 2007, 02:20 PM

Even erecting a monument depicting Japanese people, clearly marked as such, attacking Pearl Harbor would be a bad way to memorialize that event, because it implies that what we should be remembering about the event is "THE JAPANESE ATTACKED US," even if the "good guy" in the scene is supposed to remind us "BUT THEY'RE NOT ALL BAD."

Pearl Harbor already has their statue's in the ruins like the Arizona...where is the outcry to remove it to protect the Japanese point of view? Didn't Clint Eastwood just essentially figuratively do the same thing you note by making his movies "Flags of our Father", followed by "Letters From Iwo Jima"...did we here the liberal left crying then?

Frumie

May 7th, 2007, 02:55 PM

Pearl Harbor already has their statue's in the ruins like the Arizona...where is the outcry to remove it to protect the Japanese point of view? Didn't Clint Eastwood just essentially figuratively do the same thing you note by making his movies "Flags of our Father", followed by "Letters From Iwo Jima"...did we here the liberal left crying then?
Wasn't there a huge fllap over the installation of the Enola Gay in the Smithsonian citing insensitivity issues?

Chicagotom

May 7th, 2007, 03:57 PM

^Trevi Square? No, I don't think it's in any danger. It has a cool little fountain in front of the main entrance.

Huge (but awesome) update Chicagotom!

Thanks Guys. I know I put alot of pics in. My camara was out of commission for months. We are starting to see a tremendous change in the South Loop now. Amazing to think that for years this area for the most part sat dormant outside of Printers Row and Dearborn Park.

ErmDiego

May 7th, 2007, 04:19 PM

Thanks Guys. I know I put alot of pics in. My camara was out of commission for months. We are starting to see a tremendous change in the South Loop now. Amazing to think that for years this area for the most part sat dormant outside of Printers Row and Dearborn Park.

Tevi Square is one of the original loft development conversion from a Hospital in 1998. It is surprisingly conspicous, as you indicate, especially for it's location right on Michigan Avenue. I think it is the best South Loop loft conversion in the last 10 years, with large units, and an awesome courtyard.
(any developer issues withstanding)
Here are some great close-ups...it looks like they intended to complete a roof room, but never completed.

http://www.allchicagolofts.com/rechi/properties3.nsf/0/d9ec151107affc578525716e007a2cff!open&LargeImages=1

http://**************/today/lofts/south-loop-mystery-loft-is-trevi-square_2456/

Chicagotom

May 7th, 2007, 05:57 PM

Loopy,

I didn't have a chance to catch the city poster on the front door of the Artworks building on Clark. I had an extended talk with the construction manager for the building. I'm pretty confident that it's for interior work that looked to be just under way.

southloopscotty

May 8th, 2007, 06:33 AM

"Midrise North of Astoria Tower (8th State)
I checked in with the sales office for Astoria. Everything has stopped because of a one of the 2 projects has a serious water issue and the street work on 14th."

They have actually made some progress lately on One Place. It looks like they are getting ready to start the elevator shafts.
My wife and I bought a unit there and were getting frustrated by the lack of progress over the last couple of months.( We currently live at 899 S. Plymouth) Water problems sound quite plausible. It seemed like they didn't work for a couple of weeks straight!

Chicagotom

May 8th, 2007, 07:32 PM

Latoso

May 8th, 2007, 09:01 PM

This is an incomplete response to the issues I brought up earlier. Simply dismissing the objections to the statue as "political correctness" is probably the laziest way of disagreeing with an argument.

Not true. This is the laziest way: I like it therefore it should be put up. That notwithstanding, is the reason I am for it. Also, my great grandmother was 100% full blooded Native American so please don't tell me my reason isn't good enough. Besides, 99% of the time the people "defending" Indian rights aren't even Native American, just white people trying to clear a guilty conscience of something they didn't even do, their ancestors did.

Mr Downtown

May 9th, 2007, 03:09 AM

You're saying that American Indian Center Executive Director Joseph Podlasek does not speak for American Indians, but that you, being one-eighth Indian, are capable of doing so?

Loopy

May 9th, 2007, 04:06 AM

Mr Downtown

May 9th, 2007, 04:20 AM

Church [of Scientology] tends to minister to the wealthy.
They also pretty commonly set up near big college campuses.

robituss

May 9th, 2007, 06:41 AM

Scientology?! Haha, sorry but that episode of south park still kills me. Anyways, I guess setting up in the south loop is pretty much catering to richer folks, and the college students at the same time. College students that really like science fiction, that is.

As far as the statue, well, you cant please everyone. Its tough especially with a past as bloody and ugly as our very own US. A work of art is one thing (I like most public art), but a commemorative piece, I think we should all be honest with ourselves. 'Honoring' the native americans from a eurocentric standpoint is always going to look awkward given the way, historically, this nation has treated them. From how this conversation has been going, im of the opinion at least more dialogue is needed with local Native American groups, and yes, being 'sensitive' to their concerns.

Abner

May 9th, 2007, 08:04 AM

Not true. This is the laziest way: I like it therefore it should be put up. That notwithstanding, is the reason I am for it. Also, my great grandmother was 100% full blooded Native American so please don't tell me my reason isn't good enough. Besides, 99% of the time the people "defending" Indian rights aren't even Native American, just white people trying to clear a guilty conscience of something they didn't even do, their ancestors did.

Why would you bother responding to an argument you either did not read or did not understand? I think there's such a thing as manners, even on the internet. How many times do I have to say that I don't care who is or is not Native American? This isn't about being sensitive to any organization's demands. That's a copout.

It's painfully ironic to me that this city's way of honoring history is apparently to distort it, and that the people clamoring most loudly to put up this monument to commemorate an event are the people who apparently are the least thoughtful about the event.

Latoso

May 9th, 2007, 09:12 AM

You're saying that American Indian Center Executive Director Joseph Podlasek does not speak for American Indians, but that you, being one-eighth Indian, are capable of doing so?

I doubt he's 100% with a name like Podlasek, unless there's some lost Eastern European tribe I didn't learn about. And I'm actually more than 1/8 Native American, it's just that my great grandmother was the most recent 100% Native American in my family and because of my ancestry my opinion is as valid as anyone elses, Mr, Podlasek included.

Why would you bother responding to an argument you either did not read or did not understand? I think there's such a thing as manners, even on the internet. How many times do I have to say that I don't care who is or is not Native American? This isn't about being sensitive to any organization's demands. That's a copout.

Just because I don't agree with someone's argument doesn't mean I don't understand it. Talk about bad manners. And I realize you don't care about who is or isn't Native American or being sensitive to an organizations demands. That's the real problem, not a copout.

Chicagotom

May 9th, 2007, 04:27 PM

^^ Fascinating and valuable debate on the sculpture. However, this seems to have had enough discussion to merit its own thread or to be had in the cultural development thread were other memorial and artistic sculptures reside. Anyone agree that the Black Partridge Park should have its own thread?

FreeRadical

May 9th, 2007, 05:25 PM

VOID

Loopy

May 9th, 2007, 06:47 PM

Chicagotom

May 9th, 2007, 07:53 PM

Same design, Same height. Just got this email and called to confirm that the building is exactly the same design, height and location as the Aristocrat Tower.

Thank you for registering as a VIP with HOM, the South Loop’s newest concept in condo living! For one week only, we are offering our esteemed VIP web registrants the opportunity of a special sneak preview of HOM! Included in the sneak preview are exciting exclusive offers just for you, the HOM VIP, including:

5% off the purchase price of your home
1 year of free assessments
AND
3 amenity package selections instead of 2

Can’t decide between the gourmet kitchen, smart home and spa bathroom package? You don’t have to! You can have them all, but only if you schedule your preview appointment today!

We are now making VIP appointments from Monday, May 14 through Sunday, May 20, 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sneak preview incentives will only be offered to those who schedule an appointment.

Please feel free to contact me via e-mail or at 312.528.1000 to schedule your appointment today!

Warmest regards,

Ellen Amerikan
Sales Manager

HOM
2028 S. Prairie Avenue
Chicago, IL 60616
312.528.1000
312.528.0551 (fax)

ErmDiego

May 9th, 2007, 09:29 PM

[QUOTE=Chicagotom;13082716]Same design, Same height. Just got this email and called to confirm that the building is exactly the same design, height and location as the Aristocrat Tower.

Thank you for registering as a VIP with HOM, the South Loop’s newest concept in condo living! For one week only, we are offering our esteemed VIP web registrants the opportunity of a special sneak preview of HOM! Included in the sneak preview are exciting exclusive offers just for you, the HOM VIP, including:

5% off the purchase price of your home
1 year of free assessments
AND
3 amenity package selections instead of 2

1. Tower looks to be another 2-3 stories taller
2. Looks like they eliminated the studios -
3. Some of the packages (like molding) are not worth $15K - take
the money and do it yourself.
4. I really hope his quality is better than all of his recent projects, which
almost ALL have bombed with problems (East 14th, 1717, 221 East
Cullerton, 1515 State (lofts)). We are talking major assessments for
new construction, and Warman's quote in Sun Times, 'I am the developer,
how am I supposed to control the quality of the contractors'...are you
kidding me. You may has well put $15K in savings for problems.

NearNorthGuy

May 10th, 2007, 06:24 AM

Why would you bother responding to an argument you either did not read or did not understand? I think there's such a thing as manners, even on the internet.

Please read your own posts again before you start lecturing anyone about manners.

It's painfully ironic to me that this city's way of honoring history is apparently to distort it, and that the people clamoring most loudly to put up this monument to commemorate an event are the people who apparently are the least thoughtful about the event.

Through your apparent superpowers, I see that you have been able to determine who has been thoughtful about the event. Let me guess. Hmmmmmm.....you?

southloopscotty

May 10th, 2007, 07:29 PM

SLScotty, Your right. I should have said "everything stopped" on Astoria Tower. I think the mid-rise that you bought in will be great for that stretch of State. Have you heard of any retail leases signed on the ground floor?

I haven't heard of anything other than an X-Sport Gym that is supposed to go in. More food options would be nice! A Trader Joe's would be even better!

PrintersRowBoiler

May 10th, 2007, 07:53 PM

I haven't heard of anything other than an X-Sport Gym that is supposed to go in. More food options would be nice! A Trader Joe's would be even better!

I would love to see a Trader Joe's around here. My wife and I were talking about that the other day because we hope they put one in the Roosevelt Collection.

southloopscotty

May 12th, 2007, 01:13 AM

I would love to see a Trader Joe's around here. My wife and I were talking about that the other day because we hope they put one in the Roosevelt Collection.

Surely 100,000 residents will warrant one! (I don't care where, as long as it's in walking distance)

Chicagotom

May 13th, 2007, 12:30 AM

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/DSCN2814.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/DSCN2815.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/DSCN2816.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/DSCN2817.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l221/Mansmith_2006/DSCN2818.jpg

spyguy

May 13th, 2007, 01:18 AM

Vision on State,
What a mistake.

Frumie

May 13th, 2007, 05:11 AM

Latoso

May 13th, 2007, 05:17 AM

Vision on State,
What a mistake.

I partially disagree. I think some good can come out of having such a good poster child of what can happen when you listen to NIMBYs. If you don't want tall and thin, this is what you're going to get.

Mr Downtown

May 13th, 2007, 05:57 AM

I think some good can come out of having such a good poster child of what can happen when you listen to NIMBYs.

What do you mean by "listen to NIMBYs?"

I was in the neighborhood meetings. The only questions we raised were whether the developer could put in black iron so one of the retail tenants could be a real restaurant. Vision on State is exactly as the developer envisioned it.

BorisMolotov

May 13th, 2007, 06:48 AM

Not to sound deriding, but why didn't you raise the question to have a little better design?

ErmDiego

May 13th, 2007, 03:39 PM

Not to sound deriding, but why didn't you raise the question to have a little better design?

How can you do this, when architects claim "better design" is subjective, and in the eye of the beholder?

ErmDiego

May 13th, 2007, 03:48 PM

I partially disagree. I think some good can come out of having such a good poster child of what can happen when you listen to NIMBYs. If you don't want tall and thin, this is what you're going to get.

What do "NIMBYs" have to do with this? The developer built exactly what his original design submitted for the project. If people started complaining about the design, the would be instantly labled non-educated NIMBYs. I like beautiful buildings, regardless of "tall and thin" or "short or squaty", as long as it is quality work and material, but when did developers start having the only say in development?

The use of "tall and thin" design phylosophy is a convenient phrase or excuse to throw out when DPD or developers want to go higher than what should be normal. Kind of like when they credit or praise a developer who refers to the Central plan in his presentation (Post Office), but claims the plan is not binding when it is a controversial project.

By your standards, would you consider 1712 S. Michigan "tall and thin"?

Mr Downtown

May 13th, 2007, 06:47 PM

why didn't you raise the question to have a little better design?

Well, why don't you lay out how that conversation would go? You're sitting in a room with the developer and the architect and his renderings of Vision on State. What exactly do you say?

I did ask if the architect considered making the "fins" deeper, to provide more of a reveal and greater interplay of light and shadow. As best as I remember, he responded that the developer had been concerned about the additional materials cost of doing that. I also remember that they had started the meeting by explaining that they wanted to do a "solid-looking" building that would be a counterpoint to the glassy towers of Central Station when viewed from the west.

I left the meeting knowing it would be a background building, but that it committed no horrible urban design sins. I feel the proper rôle for community groups is to look at the urban design implications of a new building--impact on pedestrians, contribution to the streetscape, microclimate effects--and impact on the surrounding infrastructure. The one instance I remember where community groups weighed in on the design of a new building was Marquee on Michigan. So the developer/architect simply amputated the features we pointed out as objectionable (namely the mansard roof capping corner balconies) without doing anything to improve the composition of the building, so we ended up worse off than before.

Chicagotom

May 13th, 2007, 06:48 PM

Mr Downtown

May 13th, 2007, 07:06 PM

I seem to remember the Printers Row or South Loop Neighborhood Associations raising hell about this one being taller. For all you Central Area Plan purist, what is the height restrictions on the vision site? I think if you look back at the Chicago Journal you'll see our new NIMBY wackjob Bonnie McGrath going off on it.

No, South Loop Neighbors (formerly Historic Printers' Row Neighbors) raised no objections to the height. Here's the text of the letter SLN sent:
We were pleased to recently review the proposed Vision on State residential project at 1255 South State. Though we understand the total FAR will exceed what is permitted by the new zoning for that parcel, we have no serious objection to the project's density or massing. In fact, we are pleased to see the developer embrace a complex mixed-use program that includes non-accessory parking and significant retail spaces.

Two issues of minor concern arose during our review. First, the setback from State Street (allowing outdoor seating) and the on-site transient parking would appear to make the retail spaces excellent restaurant venues. We urge the developer to include the ventilation required to make this possible.

Second, this stretch of South State Street is notable for its almost unbroken use of dark red brick, on both sides from 11th Street all the way to Cermak Road with few exceptions other than vacant lots. Even the new ComEd substation and the base of Dearborn Tower have used this material as an accent. We suggest that similar accent use would be an appropriate way for this project to harmonize with its surroundings.

We appreciate the attention given our concerns and look forward to welcoming a well-designed addition to our neighborhood.

The Central Area Plan does not discuss height. The Near South Community Plan sets an upper limit of 300 feet for that area.

Bonnie McGrath has so much space to fill each week in the Journal, so this week she ruminates over why none of the units at Vision on State have more than one bathroom. I certainly don't know what justifies calling her a "NIMBY wackjob."

Chicagotom

May 13th, 2007, 07:20 PM

Did you wake up and get high? You don't know why I think she is a nut. Read the article again ^^ McGrath = NIMBY NUTJOB Propogandist

These structures are robbing us of our Midwest working-class sky. They are putting an overlay of dead-end Houston cowboy real estate judgment on top of a city of big shoulders. They stink like a skunk.

Chicago Journal - Bonnie McGrath
I don't know what's more dominant on the landscape this Spring in the South Loop: irises or cranes. So far, the irises are not as tall and prolific as they will get as the weeks wear on-during the lead-up to a hot, dry summer. And the cranes, I suspect, will crowd us even more as the sun shifts to the north and the grass goes dormant.

We are used to irises in the neighborhood. We watch their flat tight birthing sheaths burst open with sheer cottony fluffs of blossoms.

But a virtual madhouse of new buildings is something that has never been here before. And may not fit in. We are people who want people. We want lights burning in windows.
We want life on the streets and businesses to follow. What we don't want are concrete pilings with little respect for our past-a rough and tumble jumble of roots and history, personality and drama.

A ruthless pile-up of concrete, glass, driveways and air vents, I'm afraid, is what we may wind up with.

Like weeds, these new buildings are going up so fast they turn neighborhood heads in every direction. They are rife with rectangular plates and some odd colors. And one can never be sure that the outer wall is properly attached to prevent the penetration of precipitation.

These structures are robbing us of our Midwest working-class sky. They are putting an overlay of dead-end Houston cowboy real estate judgment on top of a city of big shoulders. They stink like a skunk.

One new building-just about complete-contains a plethora of two bedroom apartments and one-bedrooms with dens. But for some reason, none have more than one bathroom. "Is that a new trend?" I ask my friends. "Are people sick of cleaning sinks and toilets they don't need? Is this what the cool people are doing now-sharing baths with each other, with kids and guests, for the sake of cutting down on global warming-or what?"

(Or is it a sign of getting away from excess? Probably not, because there are plenty of other expensive perks in these places.)

Maybe so little attention paid to the number of baths-almost as if fitting one in is merely an after-thought off the hall-signifies people moving in who will not luxuriate, people who would rather run in and out. And up and down. People who will come and go.

The developers are a greasy bunch-with plans for tall towers and a spreadsheet mentality. With a less than human touch, they seem more aligned with plans for their no liability corporate LLC structure than for a structure that will keep future residents secure. They are tall without stature-and rich without nutrition. They know no history here. And care little about the present, even less about the future. They are fast. They misspell. They are gluttons.

Why can't some of the developers who are hated in Lincoln Park and Lakeview and Wicker Park and Bucktown, villains who are building three flats and six-flats on steroids-of semi-decent masonry and a modicum of character-on tree-lined little avenues, come here and build? For us, those dark red, off white, muted brown brick biggies in the small neighborhoods would be delicate sweet habitats in our lot-laden laps.

But everything's relative in the city of a Soldier Field. And so the builders do their bidding and build the biggest billows. Like vapors-they will keep infusing streets that don't deserve them.

Mr Downtown

May 13th, 2007, 07:45 PM

The Chicago Journal welcomes letters from readers.

Of course, that would require constructing a cogent argument rather than mindless name-calling.

Sir Isaac Newton

May 13th, 2007, 09:21 PM

Why the #$%* does she care that Vision's condos only have one bathroom? If she doesn't like one-bathroom condos, then here is a simple solution for her: don't buy a condo at Vision. Plenty of other people are fine with 1 bathroom, as is evidenced by all of the buyers at Vision. I only have one bathroom in my condo - I really don't have a need for another one and would have considered it a waste of money to spend another $30k so that I can have a second bathroom.

Also to her comment "we are people who want people". Who is she expecting to move into all these new condos/lofts/apartments/dorms/etc? Chimpanzees? Last I checked, there weren't that many "people" who lived in the South Loop 5 or 10 years ago. If you want to have people in your neighborhood, you need to build places for these people to live. I don't think that's a difficult concept to grasp.

I'm sorry, but this Bonnie McGrath is utterly moronic. I really don't have a problem with people calling her names. Sometimes, it's just not worth the time and energy to construct a cogent argument when the argument you are countering against is completely devoid of any intelligence, logic, or common sense.

Loopy

May 13th, 2007, 10:04 PM

Sir Isaac Newton

May 13th, 2007, 10:36 PM

I often read, and usually enjoy, Bonnie's column. But I always keep in mind her Point-of-View, which is that of a Dearborn Park resident; A "Pioneer" as they call themselves.

To each his own, I guess. As for her being a DP resident - it amazes me how people can live in a gated community, with walls and gates that are completely unwelcoming and almost give off the vibe that they don't want to have anything to do with the people who live outside their walls....yet many of the DP residents are constantly complaining about the development going on outside of their walls. In my opinion, if you seclude or wall yourself off from the rest of the larger community/neighborhood, you should give up your right to have a say as to what goes on outside those walls as putting up those walls in the first place pretty much says that you don't want to be a part of the greater neighborhood. I'm not the biggest fan of gated communites, but I'm not going to rip on them either....but if people living in those communties complain about what goes on in the surrounding areas, then I feel obliged to say something.

And the fact that this woman lives in DP makes her comment "these structures are robbing us of our Midwest working-class sky" sound ten times more absurd than it already did. I mean, how dare they gentrify the neighborhood outside of her gated complex???? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Sir Isaac Newton

May 13th, 2007, 10:47 PM

I noticed that they fenced off the 2-story building at 630 South Clark where Pat's Pizza used to be located....perhaps Columbia will be starting work on this building soon!

Mr Downtown

May 13th, 2007, 11:12 PM

As for her being a DP resident - it amazes me how people can live in a gated community, with walls and gates that are completely unwelcoming and almost give off the vibe that they don't want to have anything to do with the people who live outside their walls

Huh? Bonnie lives right on State Street. No gates except the one to her front yard. But she and her neighbors have the habits of a traditional Chicago neighborhood, involving gardening and porches and walking the dogs or kids. She doesn't "fear" new neighbors, but it's clear that they won't be people who talk to each other while weeding the flowerbeds. So, to fill up space in her column, she ruminates on how times are changing.

I think it's interesting how people perceive Dearborn Park as gated, but Central Station as urban. Except for the Mews on 14th, you can walk up to the door of every townhouse in Dearborn Park I and II.

ardecila

May 13th, 2007, 11:51 PM

No, it's gated because you can't walk through it. There's three different layers of fence (steel, hedge, picket) seperating the end of 9th St from Clark. There's an awkward, dangerous-feeling, unbroken wall along Clark from Polk down to Roosevelt. Anyone who walks here is forced to endure the high speeds of cars along Clark, with nowhere to go if anything should happen.

Despite the new Target there, and the various residential developments there, Dearborn Park continues to take the isolationist stance of turning its back on what's west of it, and in doing this, it screws over the surrounding residents. This mentality is typical of the gated communities in the suburbs.

The vertical gated communities in Streeterville may be just as isolationist, but they understand their urban location and they make the necessary concessions to the people walking past on the street, with retail, landscaping, or well-lit entrances.

Mr Downtown

May 14th, 2007, 12:15 AM

No, it's gated because you can't walk through it.

I have my fingers crossed that the situation will eventually change, once there's something west of Clark to walk to, and once the Pacific Garden Mission relocates. But it's a really tough battle, a classic "tragedy of the commons." People will nearly always choose their local self-interest (privacy and perceived security) over the more nebulous good of the community as a whole.

Loopy

May 14th, 2007, 12:24 AM

Mr Downtown

May 14th, 2007, 12:41 AM

I tried to get DPD/CDOT to quietly not put back the fence when Clark Street was being rebuilt in 2002, but didn't really get anywhere (never heard anything one way or the other). What particularly chaps me is that there's no access to Roosevelt Park from the public streets to the south or west.

I suppose the legal answer would be that there's no more right to go from Clark to Park Terrace than there is to go from Roosevelt to Plymouth. You can get there by other paths along public streets. Anyway, "legal" uses of dedicated public streets have taken quite a beating in the Daley Administration, with adjacent industrial users now allowed to gate off public streets on weekends and the stairways to Lower Wacker closed at night.

Sir Isaac Newton

May 14th, 2007, 01:26 AM

I have my fingers crossed that the situation will eventually change, once there's something west of Clark to walk to, and once the Pacific Garden Mission relocates. But it's a really tough battle, a classic "tragedy of the commons." People will nearly always choose their local self-interest (privacy and perceived security) over the more nebulous good of the community as a whole.

Once Roosevelt Collection is up and running, there will definitely be a place west of Clark to walk to. Hopefully, once this happens, DP will open things up a little bit.

Mr Downtown

May 14th, 2007, 02:05 AM

Once Roosevelt Collection is up and running, there will definitely be a place west of Clark to walk to.

That's one of the reasons I'm really frustrated that Centrum has downgraded the staircase at the north end from a "Spanish Steps" gathering place with adjacent retail to mere exit stairs down into the park. If the design of the Roosevelt Collection makes it clear that all users are expected to arrive from Roosevelt Road, it lessens the interest in opening up Ninth as a pedestrian path through the neighborhood.

ErmDiego

May 14th, 2007, 02:15 AM

Mr Downtown

May 14th, 2007, 03:24 AM

you're confusing Bonnie McGrath with Bonnie Sanchez-Carlson.

Bonnie McGrath is a resident of Dearborn Park II, an attorney in private practice, who teaches journalism as an adjunct at Columbia College and writes a weekly musings column for the Chicago Journal.

Bonnie Sanchez-Carlson is Executive Director of the Near South Planning Board, which is not some evil cabal but merely an overworked chamber of commerce. Member dues and directory ads support Bonnie and two employees and the Board's Authors in the Schools program. Most of the NSPB's work is promoting the neighborhood, which runs from Jackson to 35th, as the organization's roots include the old South Side Planning Board of urban renewal days.

At sparsely attended lunch meetings, the organization's board of directors hears presentations by developers and then decides whether to send a letter of support to the Plan Commission or whoever. The discussion is often heavily influenced by who actually showed up that day, and typically not very sophisticated on points of urban design, planning, or architecture. Jeff Thomas of Blackie's often dominated the group until a year ago (when he became a new father), and his main concern was parking for customers of neighborhood businesses.

Neither of the Bonnies participates in this board.

ErmDiego

May 14th, 2007, 03:41 AM

My bad...I get my Bonnies confused! I was thinking Mcgrath!

The rest still stands! :)

Loopy

May 14th, 2007, 03:57 AM

ErmDiego

May 14th, 2007, 10:03 PM

Uhh no. You were thinking Sanchez-Carlson.

Or Bonnie Blair

Loopy

May 15th, 2007, 07:28 PM

Chicagotom

May 15th, 2007, 11:55 PM

This is kind of weird: 4 million $ for this building and land seems a little light. Does anybody have any insight into this?

Document# 0712022004
Address 1329 S WABASH Ave. CHICAGO 60605-2504
Amount $4,100,000
Recorded 04/30/2007
Executed 01/18/2007
Seller DOWNTOWN LOCK-BOX LLC
Buyer WABASH ST LLC
PIN 17221040090000
Township SOUTH CHICAGO

Isn't this one of the 2 buildings that are going up on the East side of Wabash. They both been selling for some time now. Kind of suprising that the sale wasn't completed before they began marketing it.

ErmDiego

May 16th, 2007, 01:10 AM

Isn't this one of the 2 buildings that are going up on the East side of Wabash. They both been selling for some time now. Kind of suprising that the sale wasn't completed before they began marketing it.

Quite the norm; a great deal of the property is securred on option. Per Zoning Ordinance, there is some language that the property for Planned Development needs to be under "Unified control"...usually a letter from the selling party of intent to sell will suffice with zoning and DPD. This is the case with X//O...they still may not hold all the property as Papageorge holds/held the let next to the CTA Substation on Prairie, even as the project was seeking approval.

Loopy

May 16th, 2007, 01:32 AM

ardecila

May 16th, 2007, 02:51 AM

This is kind of weird: 4 million $ for this building and land seems a little light. Does anybody have any insight into this?

Document# 0712022004
Address 1329 S WABASH Ave. CHICAGO 60605-2504
Amount $4,100,000
Recorded 04/30/2007
Executed 01/18/2007
Seller DOWNTOWN LOCK-BOX LLC
Buyer WABASH ST LLC
PIN 17221040090000
Township SOUTH CHICAGO

It's about time they got the land for Glashaus. They've been advertising it up the wazoo on the radio, but the website has yet to post floorplans or even anything besides a rendering and a VIP form.

trvlr70

May 16th, 2007, 04:41 PM

You're correct. I was off by a block and was thinking of this self-storage at 1255 S Wabash.

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/9227/p2070046ww6.jpg

This building could have made some nice loft space.

Loopy

May 16th, 2007, 05:03 PM

Sir Isaac Newton

May 16th, 2007, 05:07 PM

I looked out my window this morning and noticed that they have begun demolishing the 2-story building that is part of the 600 South Clark project (the building where Pat's Pizza used to be).

Chicagotom

May 16th, 2007, 06:42 PM

This building could have made some nice loft space.

This is was the building that I owned The World Tatto Art Gallery with Tony Fitzpatrick back in the Late 80s. It was also the original home for Looking Glass Theatre that David Schwimmer (Ross) was cofounded in 89.

slooparch

May 16th, 2007, 07:51 PM

Meeting
Saturday, May 19th
9:15 - 11:30 a.m.
Weather Mark Tavern,
1503 S. Michigan Ave.

PRELIMINARY AGENDA:
9:15-9:30-Meet and Greet
-New Business Spotlight - Weather Mark Tavern
-Bash on Wabash Update
-Meet Aldermen-elect Dowell and Fioretti
-Hear about the new McCormick Place Expansion
-New Development Panel Discussion - Topics will include planned developments vs. build by right, zoning, near south community plan and aldermanic powers. Presenters will include Benet Haller, Director of Urban Planning from the City of Chicago's Department of Planning, and other experts in the fields of zoning, urban planning and government.
-Rokas International will introduce their proposed 37 story development on 20th and Prairie.
Refreshments will be served.

Loopy

May 16th, 2007, 07:55 PM

slooparch

May 16th, 2007, 08:23 PM

The Greater South Loops Association......

Loopy

May 16th, 2007, 09:26 PM

Chicagotom

May 16th, 2007, 09:53 PM

Well, then the building should be Landmarked!

Wow, Tony Fitzpatrick is something of a legend in the Chicago art world. He was an actor too, wasn't he? He did a Studs Terkel adaptation with Schwimmer, probably under the auspices of Lookingglass. But, much later than the the period you describe.

Tony was and is one of a kind. He has been in several movies including Silence of Lamb. Buzz Killman from the LOOP. and Tony played the ambulance guys that take Hopkins down in the elivator. He also was an imigration cop in Married to the Mob along with many other.

I don't know about landmark status for the building It's not much more that a big warehouse. We brought thousands to our opening night parties. Of course we sold more beer that art but it was quite the happening. We held out though 92 and then we split ways. I would like to think that we had some small part in making the South Loop what it is today.

southloopscotty

May 17th, 2007, 06:05 AM

You're correct. I was off by a block and was thinking of this self-storage at 1255 S Wabash.

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/9227/p2070046ww6.jpg

I'm glad you were off! I have too much stuff there to move it out so soon after putting it there last winter!:omg:

Belacqua

May 17th, 2007, 11:34 PM

I looked out my window this morning and noticed that they have begun demolishing the 2-story building that is part of the 600 South Clark project (the building where Pat's Pizza used to be).

. . . and today it's gone. Somehow the gap it left really emphasizes the mass of the 10-story building next door that it will soon be stitched together with. I never really noticed how bulky that building is.

S. Clark has never been my favorite street to walk down, but now, between construction on Burnham Pointe, the Pat's Pizza dorm, and the start of the drive thru bank, it's going to be pretty much unworkable on foot for months. And between the scientologists hawking personality tests and the drive thru lane I can't imagine it's going to be a whole lot better even after construction. With all the blank walls, long blocks, and interrupted street grid, that whole corner of the South Loop really is a mess pedestrian wise. I hope the college students and other new residents along Clark will serve to humanize it a bit.

Sir Isaac Newton

May 18th, 2007, 12:16 AM

. . . and today it's gone. Somehow the gap it left really emphasizes the mass of the 10-story building next door that it will soon be stitched together with. I never really noticed how bulky that building is.

S. Clark has never been my favorite street to walk down, but now, between construction on Burnham Pointe, the Pat's Pizza dorm, and the start of the drive thru bank, it's going to be pretty much unworkable on foot for months. And between the scientologists hawking personality tests and the drive thru lane I can't imagine it's going to be a whole lot better even after construction. With all the blank walls, long blocks, and interrupted street grid, that whole corner of the South Loop really is a mess pedestrian wise. I hope the college students and other new residents along Clark will serve to humanize it a bit.

Why wouldn't Clark be better after the construction? The huge parking lot that Burnham Pointe is going up on will be replaced with about 300 new residents, a good amount of retail, and I think perhaps a restaurant as well. The Pat's Pizza dorm is going to bring tons of students to the block and students help add more vibrancy to an area more than anyone else. These two developments will do a ton for this block. I'll admit that the drive-through bank is a wasted opportunity. Will this block be the most exciting block in the city or even close? Of course not. But Burnham Point and the Pat's Pizza dorm will definitely make it considerably better.

Loopy

May 20th, 2007, 08:42 AM

ardecila

May 20th, 2007, 09:07 AM

Rokas International proposed 37 story development on 21st and Prairie: This looked like a pretty nice development. It was hard to take in this presentation as the architect was being constantly interrupted by the PDNA claque in the front row. It is a brick and glass tower that will incorporate an existing loft building and have townhouses at it's base. The design is by Fitzgerald, and it is quite good, in my opinion. In order to absorb the loft building into the design, Fitzgerald went "contextual", using some brick at the base and sides of the tower, transitioning to glass and metal with a reasonable degree of comfort. On the whole, the building comes off as modern, without any detectable historicism or PoMo ornament.

We should be seeing some renderings soon. Loopy out.

We know this building as Avalon, but it's now called 2100. Colored elevations are available at Rokas' website, or in the Boom Rundown at SSP.

Loopy

May 20th, 2007, 09:39 AM

BorisMolotov

May 20th, 2007, 02:47 PM

BVictor1

May 20th, 2007, 05:20 PM

We know this building as Avalon, but it's now called 2100. Colored elevations are available at Rokas' website, or in the Boom Rundown at SSP.

It's not the same building. You might be thinking of 2100 S. Indiana. This project is proposed for Prairie. I believe that it's the same developer, but they are 2 seperate projects.

Loopy

May 20th, 2007, 05:46 PM

The Urban Politician

May 20th, 2007, 06:03 PM

The South Loop is a very different situation, and I would be hesitant to do anything to interfere with the tremendously successful economic phenomenon that is occuring here. Many other cities would kill to have the development activity we have here, and I would be very careful before I disturbed that.

^ I mentioned this also at SSP, but this statement by Fioretti really makes my day. I'm glad that he is reasonable and intelligent enough to recognize that hare-brained schemes like the self-serving Near South Community Plan just don't fit in with economic reality. While he certainly has an obligation to make his constituents happy, he also needs to make them aware what battles are worth fighting and which ones aren't viable.

ErmDiego

May 20th, 2007, 08:52 PM

You're both right. 2100 is not the same Rokas project as the one proposed for 21st and Prairie. But, I incorrectly described the new project as incorporating a loft building, which I now believe is a mistake on my part.

The architect was probably describing the other project in comparison, and I got confused. The PDNA were peppering him with questions and it was hard to follow the presentation.

Loopy, you forgot the quote of the day by Pat Dowell who said in her opening, "I expect more community involvement and support in development revew, but, and I am sorry GSLA, but the Developers need to deal with the most direct residents impacted...", which Fioretti acknowledged as well. (something to the point that their input is great, but they are not the approving authority everywhere)

As to the 21st and Prairie proposal by Rokas, I think it is a good design, just too tall for the location. The District plan calls for 60 ft on Prairie, 285 feet off of Prairie. When we met with Rokas & Fitzgerald, they did not even know what the South Loop Community Plan was...amazing. We even originally supported a 285 feet tall for the design, even though it was on Prairie. Other than Kargil, all the other developers are building in the 285-300 ft level, so what's the problem?

The other question I heard, was in regard to Rokas's experience (which is very limited) and finacial ability. The largest project Rokas has completed to date is $15MM (and that has some issues), so with 2100 Indiana, and a possible 2nd project at 21st and Prairie, the question was in regard to them taking on two projects at $150MM, and whether they would consider including an building escrow contingent beyond developer turnover to guarantee the quality of the building.

Loopy

May 20th, 2007, 09:23 PM

hoju

May 20th, 2007, 10:03 PM

How is a plan that was developed by Architectural and Urban Planning professionals, Sponsred by the Plan Commission and Deprtment of Planning, and then veted through municiple, zoning, community and professional task forces suddenly self-serving?

It is self serving because you and your cadre of closet suburbanites endlessly spout as gospel SUGGESTED GUIDELINES in the near south plan which are clearly inconsistent with the demand for housing in the area, and are hindrances to the neighborhood's potential to be a vibrant, urban, ped-freindly environment. Thankfully, it seems that you who are suffering this serious lack of vision were dealt a decisive blow from the two alderman who aren't stupid enough to let a few NIMBYs retard the development of the central city. Now if only the west loop could wise up.

i_am_hydrogen

May 20th, 2007, 11:47 PM

ErmDiego and UP - You're both smart and knowledgeable people who shouldn't need to resort to petty bickering as a substitute for intelligent debate. Please do this thread the service of being civil and courteous toward each other.

The Urban Politician

May 20th, 2007, 11:52 PM

As to the 21st and Prairie proposal by Rokas, I think it is a good design, just too tall for the location.

^ Good for you. But did anyone vote for you?

The District plan calls for 60 ft on Prairie, 285 feet off of Prairie. When we met with Rokas & Fitzgerald, they did not even know what the South Loop Community Plan was...amazing.

^ Even more evidence how irrelevant of a plan it is. Scrap it and let the market decide this stuff. Luckily the Dept of P & D gets this

We even originally supported a 285 feet tall for the design, even though it was on Prairie. Other than Kargil, all the other developers are building in the 285-300 ft level, so what's the problem?

^ No problem at all. Height limitations are silly, fickle, and completely unjustified anywhere downtown.

The other question I heard, was in regard to Rokas's experience (which is very limited) and finacial ability. The largest project Rokas has completed to date is $15MM (and that has some issues), so with 2100 Indiana, and a possible 2nd project at 21st and Prairie, the question was in regard to them taking on two projects at $150MM, and whether they would consider including an building escrow contingent beyond developer turnover to guarantee the quality of the building.

^ Perhaps certain self-important individuals can stick their noses where they belong. The way I see it, LET THE BUYERS decide who is a good developer and who isn't. Last I checked, we live in a free market society. You're not an elected official, you don't OWN the land, and you're not the developer or hired architect for this project, are you? Didn't think so.

UGH, sorry to rant, but this is just obscenely ridiculous

ErmDiego

May 21st, 2007, 01:24 AM

I suppose that some consideration should be given to a developer's experience before granting approval. How much, I can't say. I know that the 1000 S. Michigan project for three 40 story towers should never have been granted to Guy Gardner (Harmon Development), when his only previous project was a totally botched row of townhomes. 1000 S Michigan died on the vine because Gardner didn't have a clue how to proceed with a development this large aside from hiring an architect (DeStefano).

Now, that escrow idea is crazy. Any developer who agrees to do that unilaterally is a fool. If it becomes City law, fine. But why should developers get shaken down like this in one neighborhood and not in another. I sincerely hope that you fail with this initiative.

So, where would you start with developer qualification, accountability, and the prevelant fraud issue with the quality problems? I think it would be even more widely discussed were it not for the fear of bringing issues with a development public, especially with a high percentage as investors or flippers. The tend to not care about quality as long as they can sell and get it out. Mayor Daley seems more worried about developers being liscensed...I was surpised this weekend to find out a few other major projects in litigation or settlements pending.
The escrow idea for an LLC is something used in many places, including Evanston.

BVictor1

May 21st, 2007, 01:38 AM

Loopy, you forgot the quote of the day by Pat Dowell who said in her opening, "I expect more community involvement and support in development revew, but, and I am sorry GSLA, but the Developers need to deal with the most direct residents impacted...", which Fioretti acknowledged as well. (something to the point that their input is great, but they are not the approving authority everywhere)

As to the 21st and Prairie proposal by Rokas, I think it is a good design, just too tall for the location. The District plan calls for 60 ft on Prairie, 285 feet off of Prairie. When we met with Rokas & Fitzgerald, they did not even know what the South Loop Community Plan was...amazing. We even originally supported a 285 feet tall for the design, even though it was on Prairie. Other than Kargil, all the other developers are building in the 285-300 ft level, so what's the problem?

The other question I heard, was in regard to Rokas's experience (which is very limited) and finacial ability. The largest project Rokas has completed to date is $15MM (and that has some issues), so with 2100 Indiana, and a possible 2nd project at 21st and Prairie, the question was in regard to them taking on two projects at $150MM, and whether they would consider including an building escrow contingent beyond developer turnover to guarantee the quality of the building.

Why is it too tall for the location. And don't give me any bullshit about it not following the height guidelines in the South Loop Community Plan. What's the real reason you believe it's too tall? Will it somehow effect your social skiil or mental capability? Are you upset that it will cast as shadow in your yard and your magnolias will die?

Why are people so scared of height?

Being only 5'4", I've never let height get in the way of living. If I can't reach something I get a ladder or ask someone taller to get it. 8'6" high ceilings are good enough for me.

Height shouldn't be a big deal.

BVictor1

May 21st, 2007, 01:53 AM

So, where would you start with developer qualification, accountability, and the prevelant fraud issue with the quality problems? I think it would be even more widely discussed were it not for the fear of bringing issues with a development public, especially with a high percentage as investors or flippers. The tend to not care about quality as long as they can sell and get it out. Mayor Daley seems more worried about developers being liscensed...I was surpised this weekend to find out a few other major projects in litigation or settlements pending.
The escrow idea for an LLC is something used in many places, including Evanston.

Let the condo owners deal with it. Sue the developers and put them out of business. Or if a certain developer has a bad track record, then insepctions of the construction site and the materials used should happen on a more regular basis. It shouldn't be the rule across the board, or else developers won't develop because of such strict guidelines (which is probably what you want anyway).

As for Evanston having this, fucking look at them. What the hell does Evanston have but mostly single family homes and very few highrises. It's fucking NIMBY central on steroids.

Loopy

May 21st, 2007, 02:39 AM

The Urban Politician

May 21st, 2007, 03:15 AM

The escrow idea is ridiculous. I can't believe that you asked Rokas to put up some cash in exchange for your approval. You are way out of bounds here, and coming very close to not being taken seriously by anyone. If you can't persuade Fioretti to put forth a measure in City Council mandating an escrow account for new development, then you had better give it up, because it will make you look even more insane than you do already.

^ :applause:

robituss

May 21st, 2007, 03:43 AM

Q: My husband and I bought our home in this neighborhood in 2000 because we liked the quiet low-rise loft envronment here. Now we can hardly recognize our block anymore. How can these developers be allowed to change a neighborhood this way?

A: It's always a good idea to take a look at the Zoning map for the area you are buying a home in to see if it meets you needs.

I am only a little bothered by this, but know its an inevitability that the south loop will continue to boom and build tall. Wether on prairie street on a lot that is surrounded by old warehouses and what looks like some ugly aluminum shed (preserving the character?! - what a joke), or on Cermak, or on S. michigan. I moved to the south loop for the complete opposite reason as this sorry person, I was obviously very attracted to the development here and wanted to be a part of a growing new community downtown. I think a lot of the newer residents, especially in the highrises, are like me also, and the people who moved here for "peace and quiet" will be in the minority very soon, if they are not already. Thats completely ridiculous anyway, and Im glad Fioretti seems to get this. I also loved his other responses.

Thanks for the breakdown loopy, wish I coulda been there too but was out of town, so its nice to come back and hear things went pretty well. I think it will continue to be an exciting time in the south loop.

ErmDiego

May 21st, 2007, 06:27 AM

I am only a little bothered by this, but know its an inevitability that the south loop will continue to boom and build tall. Wether on prairie street on a lot that is surrounded by old warehouses and what looks like some ugly aluminum shed (preserving the character?! - what a joke), or on Cermak, or on S. michigan. I moved to the south loop for the complete opposite reason as this sorry person, I was obviously very attracted to the development here and wanted to be a part of a growing new community downtown. I think a lot of the newer residents, especially in the highrises, are like me also, and the people who moved here for "peace and quiet" will be in the minority very soon, if they are not already. Thats completely ridiculous anyway, and Im glad Fioretti seems to get this. I also loved his other responses..

So why is she a sorry person? Because her view point disagrees with yours, and she should not express it?

ErmDiego

May 21st, 2007, 06:36 AM

As should be obvious from my posts, I don't support much interference with development and developers. I pretty much believe that the bulk of the development process should occur between developer and the Department of Planning, with minimal involvement of the Aldermen and "the Community", who usually don't know dick about what makes a great city.

However, in some cases, such as the 1000 S Michigan case, I referenced earlier, I think an Alderman should exercise some control. Should there be a standard for determining whether a developer is capable of pulling off a project without cutting corners? Probably not. I am interested in the concept. That is all.

The escrow idea is ridiculous. I can't believe that you asked Rokas to put up some cash in exchange for your approval. You are way out of bounds here, and coming very close to not being taken seriously by anyone. If you can't persuade Fioretti to put forth a measure in City Council mandating an escrow account for new development, then you had better give it up, because it will make you look even more insane than you do already.

Why, if they do good work, it won't cost them a cent? The issue is these start-up small developers and mid-size are doing crappy work through a plethura of LLC's, and then disolve them ASAP, even before the punchlist & warranty work is done. Associations are getting dimes on the dollar to settle because they are powerless, have limited reserve funding, and have a boat load of short timers who want out, and do not any bad publicity to ruin their chance to sell now. On top of that, many of the desperate association are getting pushed to sign non-disclosure agreements; as an example, who knew Dearborn Tower had so many problems until it was leaked recently. None of this ever makes it to DPD, Alderman, or Plan Commission as part of the next project approval.

ardecila

May 21st, 2007, 07:05 AM

Why don't the associations notify DPD of their grievances before they file suit? If DPD doesn't listen, then there's a serious problem.

Loopy

May 21st, 2007, 07:50 AM

robituss

May 21st, 2007, 04:25 PM

So why is she a sorry person? Because her view point disagrees with yours, and she should not express it?

What do you care anyway, and why are you only addressing that small aspect of what I said? Do you also agree that the south loop should be building highrises?

Fine, Ill explain. Shes 'sorry' that she moved anywhere in the central area for peace and quiet in the first place. What an absurd notion to have, that anywhere within downtown should stay quiet and only low-rise lofts. Anyone who thinks it should does not understand the concept of a 'city', nor the basics of urban planning and creating a healthy core. Better yet, anyone that wants a blanket limit on development in the central area solely for personal reasons such as "liking the existing character", and not functional reasons such as appropriate zoning classification and land use (ie residential vs commercial), probably shouldn't be taken seriously at all. Its basically like saying, "Yes, I want to live here, but I dont want any others to move here after me" - this mindset is plain selfish, especially since most people just moved here in the last 8-10 years and the area is still changing. Its also detrimental to the growth and improvement of the city - to miss an oppurtunity to capitalize on this underestimated growth in the south loop would be a tragedy.

And no i'm not a fan of greedy developers, I believe that they should be checked and forced to meet quality assurance standards. But Im also not a fan of backwards-minded nimbys, which, judging from her comment, is what people like this person seem to be.

PrintersRowBoiler

May 21st, 2007, 07:56 PM

Perhaps certain self-important individuals can stick their noses where they belong. The way I see it, LET THE BUYERS decide who is a good developer and who isn't. Last I checked, we live in a free market society. You're not an elected official, you don't OWN the land, and you're not the developer or hired architect for this project, are you? Didn't think so.

Sounds hypocritical when not too long ago you criticize developers for putting up parking podiums even though the buyers want parking. While it is a free market society, at some point restrictions need to be put in place for good urban planning.

BVictor1

May 22nd, 2007, 02:45 AM

Posted by Loopy in the SSP forums

21st and Prairie

Fitzgerald and Associates, Architect.

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5828/perspectivenwsmallwd5.jpg

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6096/perspectivetopsmallat5.jpg

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/5523/perspective212smallhx5.jpg

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/6404/perspective21smallqo8.jpg

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/1948/eleveastzc7.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/3370/elevnorthix2.jpg

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/3831/elevsouthfx1.jpg

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4167/elevwestxa5.jpg

robituss

May 22nd, 2007, 03:50 AM

^I can definitely dig it. I think its close enough to Cermak, and far enough away from the majority of the other townhomes and mansions in the prairie district to warrant the height, and evade the nimbys. There is really nothing by there, except the new lakeside lofts. The townhomes look like total add-ons, after thoughts really.

BTW, seems at the eco18 site theyre totally done demolishing the existing building, does anyone know when actual construction is expected to start? It really seems like they are moving fast.

The Urban Politician

May 22nd, 2007, 04:34 AM

Sounds hypocritical when not too long ago you criticize developers for putting up parking podiums even though the buyers want parking. While it is a free market society, at some point restrictions need to be put in place for good urban planning.

^ Not at all. I criticize the 1:1 requirement for parking in residential highrises downtown. Developers don't have a choice--they can (and are often strong-armed by the city to) build more parking than that, but not less. Doesn't sound like a free market to me.

I have long believed and will always believe that the highrise boom in Chicago would still have succeeded with half (or less) the amount of parking offered.

ErmDiego

May 22nd, 2007, 05:43 AM

21st and Prairie location - not a bad design except for the height, considering the 9 story planned for the other corner of 21st and Prairie, the 29 story Aristocrat, and the recently almost completed 4 story Lakeside Lofts. How would you like to be the folks in Lakeside Lofts (which Fitzgerald also was architect)? The Lakeside Lofts building is directly east behind the alley of this proposal and will be wiped of a great deal of sun for the first 1/2 of the day.
(2nd photo with shade covering their development)...it's one thing to be across the street, another to be across the alley.

This site proposed, or the property across the street is the first location of Daniel Burnham's first commission, for a Prairie Avenue house for John Sherman, a wealthy industrialist who would conveniently become Burnham"s new father-in-law.
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/10373.html

Latoso

May 22nd, 2007, 06:45 PM

The Lakeside Lofts building is directly east behind the alley of this proposal and will be wiped of a great deal of sun for the first 1/2 of the day.

As a great man once said, "So what!" No one is entitled to direct sunlight at all hours of the day in the downtown area. Plenty of people live full end satisfying lives with only diffused light through most of the day elsewhere downtown, why can't you? If sunlight is your main criteria in a new home, I suggest you look much farther from the city center for it.

ErmDiego

May 22nd, 2007, 07:32 PM

As a great man once said, "So what!" No one is entitled to direct sunlight at all hours of the day in the downtown area. Plenty of people live full end satisfying lives with only diffused light through most of the day elsewhere downtown, why can't you? If sunlight is your main criteria in a new home, I suggest you look much farther from the city center for it.

dude, take a water pill...it was a non-important whimsical comment about the rendering, pointing out the huge shadow the developer attempts to portray; I find it ironic the the same architect is doing both projects, with the extremely close proximity of both buildings being interesting, especially for the South Loop where there is relative space available. Try not to take yourself too seriously, nor try to insinuate it is of importance to my buying habits.

robituss

May 22nd, 2007, 07:58 PM

ErmDiego

May 22nd, 2007, 09:04 PM

I would be happy living in lakeside lofts knowing that tons of development was happening, boosting a blighted area and increasing the property values. And height, why did I have a feeling you, ermdiego, would have a problem with it? What exactly is the problem with the height. Its basically in downtown chicago of all places, so why would people even live here if they are scared of tall buildings? Thats like moving to antartica and complaining about snow. :| Anyway, theres the Hyatt which is what, 34+ floors?, theres going to be MPII which is around 32, theres Lexington park right across the street at 36+, so how does this not fit in again? you crack me up.

Anyway, even if there is bunch of new development in this one specific area, its all eventually going to get filled in. People need to start getting used to some shade. ;)

1. Those developments you mention are all part of the plan to direct taller structures on the edge of the District on Calumet, Cermak, South Indiana (like the Grant Park effect) surrounding the low density and open space areas...this one, like X/O is on Prairie Avenue, where the goal was a lower height and lower density to maintain a "character" scale and streetscape for a better pedestrian feel and lifestyle.
It's not the height of each building, its the sound and logical placement of those heights in context with the surrounding development, which the plans clearly identified. (Think of the outcry if you put a high rise in Dearborn Park). But alas, I know on a high rise forum, there will be little agreement - we can agree to disagree.

2. Blighted? Respectfully, the area of the Prairie District is far from blighted
since about 3 years ago, and it only took about 2 years. Maybe it is just
me, but having lived at near Roosevelt & Wabash in 1997, and seeing the
Prairie District now, the two were never close in "blightness". The "bones"
were easily resurected on Prairie, but that was not the case for
development near Roosevelt. If you remember the old St. James Hotel
that made way for the Jewel...you might agree :)

3. A question I have is it downtown Chicago? It is just as far from the loop at
most of the Near North Neighorhoods? Why is the South Loop all lumped
together and not allowed distinct development plans and character, but
the Near North is allowed character districts like Gold Coast, Streeterville,
River west, Old-Town, etc., etc. HAs not the South Loop Development
come far enough to respect and concentrate on the quality and sensitvity
of the in-fill left by the existing developments, in contect of the Districts?
It is not the wild west anymore, but some developers will have you believe
so. These are things you can't tell from a computer monitor, its things you
have to feel walking an area.

Loopy

May 22nd, 2007, 10:02 PM

ErmDiego

May 22nd, 2007, 10:21 PM

You lived at the St. James?

Cool!

:lol: I still have the shopping cart with a broken wheel to prove it!!!:lol:
That place smelled so bad, that just walking by it, with the hotel door open would knock you down and gag.

Throw in the Roosevelt Hotel, with the old liquor store where Bongo Room now sits; the urine smell really knocked you out when in line to buy a six pack of Colt 45's and a fith of Maddog! :cheers:

FreeRadical

May 22nd, 2007, 11:35 PM

VOID

The Urban Politician

May 23rd, 2007, 05:18 AM

3. A question I have is it downtown Chicago? It is just as far from the loop at
most of the Near North Neighorhoods? Why is the South Loop all lumped
together and not allowed distinct development plans and character, but
the Near North is allowed character districts like Gold Coast, Streeterville,
River west, Old-Town, etc., etc. HAs not the South Loop Development
come far enough to respect and concentrate on the quality and sensitvity
of the in-fill left by the existing developments, in contect of the Districts?
It is not the wild west anymore, but some developers will have you believe
so. These are things you can't tell from a computer monitor, its things you
have to feel walking an area.

^ What makes you think that 'character' is pre-ordained? A character district evolves over decades, perhaps a century, in a natural fashion. A vast majority of your Prarie District architecture is about 5-10 year old. What's this 'cherished' district you keep touting? It's gone! The bulldozer pretty much took care of that decades ago.

And in response to this:

HAs not the South Loop Development come far enough to respect and concentrate on the quality and sensitvity
of the in-fill left by the existing developments, in contect of the Districts?

^ Not really. Perhaps when you can say, "My Grandfather owned this house", then we'll talk. Where's the sentimental attachment for the greater Chicago community? Where does this 'district' fit into the Chicago concious? How do you expect a greater society to sympathize with homeowners that make these claims about 'character' and 'historic importance' when they haven't lived there for even half a generation?

ErmDiego

May 23rd, 2007, 03:08 PM

^ What makes you think that 'character' is pre-ordained? A character district evolves over decades, perhaps a century, in a natural fashion. A vast majority of your Prarie District architecture is about 5-10 year old. What's this 'cherished' district you keep touting? It's gone! The bulldozer pretty much took care of that decades ago.

And in response to this:

HAs not the South Loop Development come far enough to respect and concentrate on the quality and sensitvity
of the in-fill left by the existing developments, in contect of the Districts?

^ Not really. Perhaps when you can say, "My Grandfather owned this house", then we'll talk. Where's the sentimental attachment for the greater Chicago community? Where does this 'district' fit into the Chicago concious? How do you expect a greater society to sympathize with homeowners that make these claims about 'character' and 'historic importance' when they haven't lived there for even half a generation?

"What makes you think that 'character' is pre-ordained?" Wow Mr. "Development should be left up to the professionals in DPD", I guess you don't read the Plan your DPD heros have written. It is DPD that has already defined and pre-ordained the 'Character Districts' through the Chicago Central Plan and NEar South Community Plan, Not the residents. I am only using the information your 'Development and Urban Planning Officials" have developed'. Oh wait, now you will claim all of this is optional :nuts:

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/CAPchapter4_1.pdf

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/CAPchapter5c.pdf

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/NS_District_plans,_Roosevelt_Road_to_I-55.pdf

The Urban Politician

May 23rd, 2007, 04:29 PM

"What makes you think that 'character' is pre-ordained?" Wow Mr. "Development should be left up to the professionals in DPD", I guess you don't read the Plan your DPD heros have written. It is DPD that has already defined and pre-ordained the 'Character Districts' through the Chicago Central Plan and NEar South Community Plan, Not the residents. I am only using the information your 'Development and Urban Planning Officials" have developed'. Oh wait, now you will claim all of this is optional :nuts:

^ You didn't answer my question. What makes you think that character is pre-ordained?

This same DPD is letting sensible development (ie X/O condominiums) occur where it should occur, so I don't fault them in the least. They obviously see flaws in the self-serving NIMBY-endorsed Near South Community Plan and thus are basically skirting it by. Tough luck for you guys, but then again you made the mistake of expecting that your neighborhood would remain cute, quiet, and free from the kind of development that has defined the rest of the downtown area.

But I personally don't recognize your neighborhood as having any character, and yes I have actually walked through it on several occasions. Nice houses--although they're all brand new.

Oh, and nor did you come up with an answer to this:

Where's the sentimental attachment for the greater Chicago community? Where does this 'district' fit into the Chicago concious? How do you expect a greater society to sympathize with homeowners that make these claims about 'character' and 'historic importance' when they haven't lived there for even half a generation?

slooparch

May 23rd, 2007, 07:54 PM

separating the Rokas development at 21st and the actual boundaries of the historic district is an existing warehouse/loft building with an addition on top....a building type that is arguably more of the historic 'character' of the neighborhood then the rowhouses in the 1800 block....

it actually makes the rowhouses that rokas is proposing seem a little silly, but they felt obliged to add due to the nimbys....

an earlier post was quite insightful....either all highrises should be opposed, or none....

each development should be considered on its own merits in the south loop on a case-by-case basis....particularly its height....a position that the majority of those working on the South Loop Community Plan endorsed years ago....

the fact that suggested height limits entered into the plan was a bone to a few minor players that screeched the loudest and was not seriously opposed by the framers of that plan due to the realization that the limits carried no weight of law....

ErmDiego

May 23rd, 2007, 09:05 PM

Loopy

May 23rd, 2007, 10:44 PM

BVictor1

May 23rd, 2007, 10:57 PM

1. Those developments you mention are all part of the plan to direct taller structures on the edge of the District on Calumet, Cermak, South Indiana (like the Grant Park effect) surrounding the low density and open space areas...this one, like X/O is on Prairie Avenue, where the goal was a lower height and lower density to maintain a "character" scale and streetscape for a better pedestrian feel and lifestyle.
It's not the height of each building, its the sound and logical placement of those heights in context with the surrounding development, which the plans clearly identified. (Think of the outcry if you put a high rise in Dearborn Park). But alas, I know on a high rise forum, there will be little agreement - we can agree to disagree.

2. Blighted? Respectfully, the area of the Prairie District is far from blighted
since about 3 years ago, and it only took about 2 years. Maybe it is just
me, but having lived at near Roosevelt & Wabash in 1997, and seeing the
Prairie District now, the two were never close in "blightness". The "bones"
were easily resurected on Prairie, but that was not the case for
development near Roosevelt. If you remember the old St. James Hotel
that made way for the Jewel...you might agree :)

3. A question I have is it downtown Chicago? It is just as far from the loop at
most of the Near North Neighorhoods? Why is the South Loop all lumped
together and not allowed distinct development plans and character, but
the Near North is allowed character districts like Gold Coast, Streeterville,
River west, Old-Town, etc., etc. HAs not the South Loop Development
come far enough to respect and concentrate on the quality and sensitvity
of the in-fill left by the existing developments, in contect of the Districts?
It is not the wild west anymore, but some developers will have you believe
so. These are things you can't tell from a computer monitor, its things you
have to feel walking an area.

1. If the city wanted to maintain the character of Prairie Avebue they would have either A. Not allowed the destruction of all the historic structures there 50 years ago or B. Left all the vacant lots as they were 5 years ago. There's no character to preserve, only 1/2 a dozen mansions form the late 1800's. As you can obviously tell, the city's goal has changed. There's nothing wrong with more height and density. Welcome to the city. So what if new developmentisn't in accordance with the South Loop Plan. Plans change, always have and always will. Only a small portion of the Burnham Plan was ever enacted, and I say thank god for that, because in his "PLANS", there was nothing in this city over 12 floors. I'd love to see a highrise in Dearborn Park. In fact Dearborn Park should be buldozed, that shis should have never have been built in the central area. It's totally disconnected and walled off from the rest of the city.

2. 7 years ago, the area was blighted. 5 years ago the renaissance began...There were no families, no dogs, no NIMBY'S. It was a vacant industrial wasteland, forgotten 50 years ago.

3 Downtown directly, no, but indirectly yes... It's a part of the Central Area. Within the next few years though, it will be a part of downtown :) Streeterville is downtown, Old Town is "A REAL HISTORIC DISTRICT", that mostly intact. The South Loop is a story of it's own. The northern area of the Central Area is already developed, it's had it's characted for years, while the South Loop was in LIMBO. Have you not noticed the skyscrapers in Streeterville? There's one proposed there called the Chicago Spire, heard or it? There are still areas of the South Loop that need help and are ripe for development. This can't be said for it's northern counterparts, because there's not as much room there to build.

Welcome to the Central Area, Welcome to Chicago, where we lile building big and tall, the way they should be. There's 227 square miles to choose from, how dumb was it to decide to move to a developing area where highrises are being built, if you're going to have issues with that?

ErmDiego

May 24th, 2007, 04:12 AM

1. If the city wanted to maintain the character of Prairie Avebue they would have either A. Not allowed the destruction of all the historic structures there 50 years ago or B. Left all the vacant lots as they were 5 years ago. There's no character to preserve, only 1/2 a dozen mansions form the late 1800's. As you can obviously tell, the city's goal has changed.

Um, kind of lazy thinking...the cities preservation as a whole only took serious roots in the last few decades (starting with the CSAF in late 60's); even Preservation Chicago was formed in 2001, but then you probably knew this. Character is not just in the buildings remaining, but includes street & grid layout, density, height, etc.

2. 7 years ago, the area was blighted. 5 years ago the renaissance began...There were no families, no dogs, no NIMBY'S. It was a vacant industrial wasteland, forgotten 50 years ago.

Again, lazy research or you just are afraid to not provide factual context. Blighted? Not even close when compared to almost all of the South Loop. Yes, a few industrial buildings had to go, but the bones were reconstituted by the various Architectural & presevation groups in saving Glessner in 1971, while much of the other tangible borne saplings in the 80's, followed by the Clark House and the Park in the early to mid 1990's. http://glessnerhouse.org/history.html
As well, compared to the remainder of the South Loop, I do not believe any developers received 'direct TIF' funding for specific projects. I believe the only TIF project was the restoration of the 1801 S. Indiana Building as a cultural place for arts and museum use.

As to Streeterville, I did not say it did not have high rises; I just pointed out is is allowed it's unique character of buildings.

BorisMolotov

May 24th, 2007, 04:35 AM

As to Streeterville, I did not say it did not have high rises; I just pointed out is is allowed it's unique character of buildings.

Then how come they're letting all sorts of new development in? Including one that's just a wee bit out of context with everything else in Streeterville? And you know what, Streeterville still looks nice; nothings out of context, old mixes with new there just fine, shouldn't the South Loop be no different? Old mixing with new to create a new context?

Chicagotom

May 24th, 2007, 04:39 AM

ardecila

May 24th, 2007, 04:50 AM

This discussion affects ALL of the South Loop, from Congress on down. Without a clear principle to follow, high-rise development in all of the South Loop will be misguided and vulnerable to NIMBY attacks. From Burnham Pointe to Park Michigan to X/O, it seems that any reasonably tall development in the South Loop is being met with scorn.

I will agree, though, that the South Loop is a HUGE area, and that it needs to have some "sub-districts" so that people can better identify the location of a project. Until those districts are formed, however, all of the South Loop will continue to face the same issues and will continue to be part of the same discussion.

Loopy

May 24th, 2007, 05:06 AM

BVictor1

May 24th, 2007, 10:23 AM

Um, kind of lazy thinking...the cities preservation as a whole only took serious roots in the last few decades (starting with the CSAF in late 60's); even Preservation Chicago was formed in 2001, but then you probably knew this. Character is not just in the buildings remaining, but includes street & grid layout, density, height, etc.

Again, lazy research or you just are afraid to not provide factual context. Blighted? Not even close when compared to almost all of the South Loop. Yes, a few industrial buildings had to go, but the bones were reconstituted by the various Architectural & presevation groups in saving Glessner in 1971, while much of the other tangible borne saplings in the 80's, followed by the Clark House and the Park in the early to mid 1990's. http://glessnerhouse.org/history.html
As well, compared to the remainder of the South Loop, I do not believe any developers received 'direct TIF' funding for specific projects. I believe the only TIF project was the restoration of the 1801 S. Indiana Building as a cultural place for arts and museum use.

As to Streeterville, I did not say it did not have high rises; I just pointed out is is allowed it's unique character of buildings.

Not lazy thinking at all. I just tend to see things with open eyes. As I said, there was no character a decade ago. Vacant lots and 1/2 a dozen mansions. There's no character to be preserved. As you may have noticed, a new character is being created, a mixture of lowrise and highrise. How is street grid and layout not being preserved? It's actually been fucked with that cun-de-sac on Paairie Ave. There was no real density. There weren't many store, resturants or dog parks to go to, and the area is still seriously lacking on true amenities. I know Preservation Chicago is new, it the past individual neighbors took a stand to preserve something, and no one did so for Prairie Ave.

By 1971, what else was there to save? The area has alreadl lost its ture charm and population.

What do TIF funds have to do with anything?

Yes Streeterville has a unique character of buildings. Low-rises next to loft buildings, next to skyscrapers without bitching about destroyed character or context of neighborhood. You're about to have a 2,000' skyscraper next to a 30' 3-story townhouse. You'll hear rumblings about views and density, but that's all. Some people actually show common fucking sense and realize where they live. While others.....

ErmDiego

May 24th, 2007, 03:33 PM

Not lazy thinking at all. I just tend to see things with open eyes. As I said, there was no character a decade ago. Vacant lots and 1/2 a dozen mansions. There's no character to be preserved. As you may have noticed, a new character is being created, a mixture of lowrise and highrise. How is street grid and layout not being preserved? It's actually been fucked with that cun-de-sac on Paairie Ave. There was no real density. There weren't many store, resturants or dog parks to go to, and the area is still seriously lacking on true amenities. I know Preservation Chicago is new, it the past individual neighbors took a stand to preserve something, and no one did so for Prairie Ave.

By 1971, what else was there to save? The area has alreadl lost its ture charm and population.

What do TIF funds have to do with anything?

Yes Streeterville has a unique character of buildings. Low-rises next to loft buildings, next to skyscrapers without bitching about destroyed character or context of neighborhood. You're about to have a 2,000' skyscraper next to a 30' 3-story townhouse. You'll hear rumblings about views and density, but that's all. Some people actually show common fucking sense and realize where they live. While others.....

TIF funds directed to individual projects are one way to consider 'blightness', while most TIF funds go to infrastrucure, some areas have required TIF funds for the first few projects. Of course most of the residents like the Cul-de-sac, but of course by your standards, the are not allowed to enjoy it, :nuts:

ErmDiego

May 24th, 2007, 03:43 PM

I wonder if any thought has been given to adding a new thread that address the current and future development south of Oh lets say 15th to the Stevenson. I know there are many with in the thread that are passionate about new development in and around the Prairie Avenue District, Motor Row and the Cermack corridor. Please sound off if there is interest in this.

I for one would like to give a clearer spot for this ongoing discussion. I believe that it's important but I've noticed a monopoly with in the broad area that we define as the "South Loop".

CHicago Tom & Ardecila apologies for trying to clarify the position of many in the Prairie District. You are correct about the future development from 15th to Stevenson. The development in Motor Row, stagnent to date, is going to go so fast, people are going to wonder what happened. With the already projects under construction, those in sale, a new planned Hotel at 24th and Indiana(renovation of existing building) , a new wine bar, and other un-announced projects, Motor Row is primed for it's boom. What's funny, is that even with zero residents, the Historical restrictions on development are going way beyond anything in the South Loop (already the marginal developers are complaining). Not sure how much of this will be desirable information for the skyscraper forum.

ErmDiego

May 24th, 2007, 03:51 PM

Then how come they're letting all sorts of new development in? Including one that's just a wee bit out of context with everything else in Streeterville? And you know what, Streeterville still looks nice; nothings out of context, old mixes with new there just fine, shouldn't the South Loop be no different? Old mixing with new to create a new context?

Streeterville is Streeterville, and has some great space and places, if that is where people desire to be and live. Not my quote, but most from last weeks GSLA meeting, as reported here, chimed to the City Planner, Bennet Haller, that 'they wanted the South Loop be the South Loop, not Streeterville'...

slooparch

May 24th, 2007, 04:20 PM

CHicago Tom & Ardecila apologies for trying to clarify the position of many in the Prairie District. You are correct about the future development from 15th to Stevenson. The development in Motor Row, stagnent to date, is going to go so fast, people are going to wonder what happened. With the already projects under construction, those in sale, a new planned Hotel at 24th and Indiana(renovation of existing building) , a new wine bar, and other un-announced projects, Motor Row is primed for it's boom. What's funny, is that even with zero residents, the Historical restrictions on development are going way beyond anything in the South Loop (already the marginal developers are complaining). Not sure how much of this will be desirable information for the skyscraper forum.

Hey, diego, guess what? the historical restrictions in motor row are being enforced by the same beuaracrats you so love to recklessly malign....

The reason it works here is because the motor row district actually has enough existing character to actually preserve.....a quality that the Prairie Ave Historical District (much LESS the greaer Prairie Ave district in general) does not have....

The Urban Politician

May 24th, 2007, 04:33 PM

ErmDiego, What are you going to tell Alderman Fioretti about Rokas 2020 project? Are you going to ask him to block it?

^ That's laughable. Do you actually think that one guy has even remotely so much importance? Me no think so.

Also, if you read the latest Chicago Journal there's an article about the latest meeting. Per their assessment, the general consensus was approval for the Rokas project. There were a few detractors, but they sounded like the minority.

The Urban Politician

May 24th, 2007, 05:47 PM

TIF funds directed to individual projects are one way to consider 'blightness', while most TIF funds go to infrastrucure, some areas have required TIF funds for the first few projects. Of course most of the residents like the Cul-de-sac, but of course by your standards, the are not allowed to enjoy it, :nuts:

^ No, they're allowed to enjoy it.

They just aren't allowed to assume it will last forever, or that the city is in any way responsible to protect their right to keep it that way.

The Urban Politician

May 24th, 2007, 05:54 PM

from last weeks GSLA meeting, as reported here, chimed to the City Planner, Bennet Haller, that 'they wanted the South Loop be the South Loop, not Streeterville'...

^ So what?

'The South Loop should be the South Loop'

Yeah, that's a convincing statement. Bridgeport should be Bridgeport. Paris should be Paris. Doughnuts should be doughnuts, left is left, right is right, and boys will be boys! :lol:

Everybody has a different view of what the 'South Loop' is, and a growing number see highrises and dollar signs. More money for the city = a winner, always.

slooparch

May 24th, 2007, 06:13 PM

ErmDiego,

I think I speak for many in this forum that although we appreciate the dialogue, the references you make to ‘laziness’ etc., are offensive….particularly in light of the many falsehoods, inconsistencies, and ignorance of widely accepted good urban planning principles that you perpetuate:

The Prairie Avenue cul-de-sac I am sure is enjoyed by the majority of residents in the adjacent homes just as the fact that Dearborn Park (which by the way does have not one, but two, high-rises within their midst) is essentially cutoff from the rest of the city is preferred by the mass majority of its residents. This is a classic example of the negative effect of NIMBYism. The DOP and the urban planners composing the Near South Community Plan would have preferred to insert goals that would have ultimately opened up that neighborhood to the surrounding city but, alas, had to bend to the NIMBY pressure and exclude any mention of this. You should know that ANY formally trained Urban Planner will tell you that the urban condition of Dearborn Park (and to a much lesser extent, the cul-de-sac on Prairie) has a significantly negative impact on the quality of the city fabric surrounding it.

You refer frequently to the NSC Plan as well as the Chicago Central Area Plan as if these were not only law, but inspired predictors of the future…..well, let’s take a closer look at these plans (so as not to be too lazy): At closer inspection you will note that contrary to your repeated assertions, the Central Station developers have NOT followed the plan with regard to the recommended building heights but rather have consistently built much taller and usually with the strong and appropriate encouragement from the DOP.

In the Central Area Plan, you are correct in stating that the X/O site is depicted with a mid-rise, what you leave out is that it also shows the retention of the existing warehouse/office structure with what appears to be a lot-line to lot-line addition to the south – arguably this does not maintain whatever character you are seeking. More importantly, this plan depicts a high-rise on the block immediately east of the Glessner and west of Calumet! I am sure you are quite pleased that that part of the plan was not followed.:)

Furthermore, the Central Area Plan depicts high-rises within the more recently designated Motor Row District at Michigan and Cermak, clearly inconsistent with what everyone agrees should be maintained as a mid-rise block along Michigan.

As Alderman Dowell emphasized at the GSLA meeting last Saturday, the guidelines in these plans are just that, and nothing more. As with any plan, it must be broad and flexible enough to adapt to unforeseen conditions in the future growth of our great city. Would Daniel Burnham be upset to see his plan for maintaining a Washington DC type building height throughout the city with respect to a monumental city hall? Somehow I don’t think so, and rather, I think he would be pleasantly astonished at the advance of technology to allow for ever taller buildings and greater density at the core of what is a very limited resource: a well-planned and beautiful city with a dense and diverse core.

As far as maintaining or, more appropriately, building a character within your neighborhood, I would suggest that the character goal that you seek is much more elusive then you think. The kind of character that I think most want in an urban residential neighborhood is something that can’t be dictated but rather is a result of various influences, often influences that would appear to be very contradictory.

We indeed live in a very exciting city, one in which I believe we have been given an extraordinary power to influence with the various ordinances restricting development along the lakefront and such. You must realize that this is generally the exception and not the rule. Part of living in such a great city is the somewhat unpredictable nature of its growth and changing conditions – growth that generally owners and developers have a right to fulfill without answer to aesthetic concerns of their neighbors. So given this, I hope you can proceed with a little more informative dialogue with regard to the South Loop Community Plan, the Chicago Central Area Plan, and good urban planning principles.

Prairie Avenue

May 24th, 2007, 07:26 PM

I'd love to see a highrise in Dearborn Park. In fact Dearborn Park should be buldozed, that shis should have never have been built in the central area. It's totally disconnected and walled off from the rest of the city.
^^
I couldn't agree with this more. The long timers in that enclave and in Dearborn Park II are not "city dwellers" and never have been. There are more whiny self absorbed losers in that population than anywhere else in the South Loop, believing that their gated enclaves are precious and their needs and desires should trump all in the South Loop.

ErmDiego

May 24th, 2007, 07:38 PM

The Prairie Avenue cul-de-sac I am sure is enjoyed by the majority of residents in the adjacent homes just as the fact that Dearborn Park (which by the way does have not one, but two, high-rises within their midst) is essentially cutoff from the rest of the city is preferred by the mass majority of its residents. This is a classic example of the negative effect of NIMBYism. The DOP and the urban planners composing the Near South Community Plan would have preferred to insert goals that would have ultimately opened up that neighborhood to the surrounding city but, alas, had to bend to the NIMBY pressure and exclude any mention of this. You should know that ANY formally trained Urban Planner will tell you that the urban condition of Dearborn Park (and to a much lesser extent, the cul-de-sac on Prairie) has a significantly negative impact on the quality of the city fabric surrounding it..
1. Which two high rises are you talking of, the 80's stuff on State?
2. We can agree to disagree, but The Cul-de-sac while not consistent with
your theme of opening up neighborhoods to rest of city, is counter to
the same plans goals, of more pedestrian friendly routes, and open
spaces. There are many ways to achieve these balances. In this case,
they wanted to frame the remaining historic homes, Glessner House, and
the park to create a respite for the surrounding area.
As well, it is likely, due to the McCormick Place expansion traffic issues,
you may see more of these traffic calming initiatives (traffic circles, etc.)

[/QUOTE]You refer frequently to the NSC Plan as well as the Chicago Central Area Plan as if these were not only law, but inspired predictors of the future…..well, let’s take a closer look at these plans (so as not to be too lazy): At closer inspection you will note that contrary to your repeated assertions, the Central Station developers have NOT followed the plan with regard to the recommended building heights but rather have consistently built much taller and usually with the strong and appropriate encouragement from the DOP. [/QUOTE]

I do not consider them law, but simply bring these up because if the folks who claim "the plans change, they are not followed, etc.", would take a look, surpisingly up until now, especially in the Prairie District, these plans have been followed. Of course we can discuss design or material quality all day, but that is another day, and I could agree with you in some cases.

As to Central station, admitidly, this is not my location of expertise (as some here who do not even live in Chicago seem to be experts about every neighborhood or thought of what the residents needs), the height issue is logical considering the goal to create a stronger block face along Roosevelt and Lakeshore Drive. I have no problem with this, it makes sense.

[/QUOTE] In the Central Area Plan, you are correct in stating that the X/O site is depicted with a mid-rise, what you leave out is that it also shows the retention of the existing warehouse/office structure with what appears to be a lot-line to lot-line addition to the south – arguably this does not maintain whatever character you are seeking. More importantly, this plan depicts a high-rise on the block immediately east of the Glessner and west of Calumet! I am sure you are quite pleased that that part of the plan was not followed.:) [/QUOTE]
I concede that as well, but it is logical to believe almost any other developer would have done something more integrated based on FAR, and character. The assumption is that this would have been torn down.

[/QUOTE] Furthermore, the Central Area Plan depicts high-rises within the more recently designated Motor Row District at Michigan and Cermak, clearly inconsistent with what everyone agrees should be maintained as a mid-rise block along Michigan.[/QUOTE]
I am not sure I agree, as the area you speak of was always identified as transition location between McCormick Place, PRairie District, Motor Row, and the Cermak coridor as defined in the NSCP, which always called for a strong block face presence on both sides of Cermak from MLK to Clark. Instead, the property owners have placed smaller commercial space, especially on the entry to Motor Row, all though this could be changed.

[/QUOTE] "...that generally owners and developers have a right to fulfill without answer to aesthetic concerns of their neighbors." [/QUOTE]
In a fantasy world we could agree, assuming developers are always accountable, have the greater good of all residents on their mind, they do not need checks and balances or oversight, and there is no corruption in this city from developers or city officials. If you could show me all the above are true, I 100% agree. :)

dvidler

May 24th, 2007, 07:41 PM

In my opinion this arguement should be taken to the main page. The South Loop News page should be reserved for any news pertaining to the south loop and not debate. I encourage informative discussions but the page should be cleared of this so any information pertaining to construction, retail, and other sort of infomation can be placed

BVictor1

May 24th, 2007, 07:43 PM

TIF funds directed to individual projects are one way to consider 'blightness', while most TIF funds go to infrastrucure, some areas have required TIF funds for the first few projects. Of course most of the residents like the Cul-de-sac, but of course by your standards, the are not allowed to enjoy it, :nuts:

Damn straight.

There should be no cul-de-sac's within city limits. Speed-humps and traffic circles are okay, but that other shit is for the suburbs. It is the public right-of-way, even if it does go through a residential area

Mr Downtown

May 24th, 2007, 07:53 PM

Dearborn Park . . . should never have been built in the central area.

It's nice to live long enough to see one's most difficult battles--whether defeating global fascism or rescuing Chicago's Near South Side--dismissed by the next generation as unnecessary and inevitable.

slooparch

May 24th, 2007, 08:00 PM

It's nice to live long enough to see one's most difficult battles--whether defeating global fascism or rescuing Chicago's Near South Side--dismissed by the next generation as unnecessary and inevitable.

Yes, indeed their was a need to isolate Dearborn Park I in 1977 to allow for sales.....however, as with any great plan, it is time for a change....

By the way, is it just me, or does anyone else think that ErmDiego has entirely missed the point of my previous post?

BVictor1

May 24th, 2007, 08:06 PM

CHicago Tom & Ardecila apologies for trying to clarify the position of many in the Prairie District. You are correct about the future development from 15th to Stevenson. The development in Motor Row, stagnent to date, is going to go so fast, people are going to wonder what happened. With the already projects under construction, those in sale, a new planned Hotel at 24th and Indiana(renovation of existing building) , a new wine bar, and other un-announced projects, Motor Row is primed for it's boom. What's funny, is that even with zero residents, the Historical restrictions on development are going way beyond anything in the South Loop (already the marginal developers are complaining). Not sure how much of this will be desirable information for the skyscraper forum.

Motor Row is a hell of a lot more intact then Pairie Avenue

Loopy

May 24th, 2007, 08:07 PM

Prairie Avenue

May 24th, 2007, 08:16 PM

It's nice to live long enough to see one's most difficult battles--whether defeating global fascism or rescuing Chicago's Near South Side--dismissed by the next generation as unnecessary and inevitable.^^

First off, you attribute a quote to me that I did not state, but instead replied to. having lived in the area since 93 I fully understand the DMZ line that Congress was and the goal behind building the DPI enclave. The problem is that the fortress mentality once established can't be swept away when no longer needed and now the South Loop is stuck with a bunch of whiny, holier than thou, self absorbed we own this place type residents in the Dearborn Park enclaves that see themselves totally separate from City Dwellers. Both of those areas should be open up to through traffic and forced to assimilate with the areas around them. Mr. Daley, tear down those walls!

robituss

May 24th, 2007, 08:20 PM

Im not going to hate on Dearborn Park too much, since it was built at a time when unfortunately those kinds of developments were the only thing keeping people in the city. And it was successful. However, it is a little out of place now, as the downtown has expanded around it, making its closed walls seem even more pretentious - and especially when they were refusing to send their kids to school with the kids just south. I guess thats some of this 'character' that some are trying to maintain though. But, the other gated community of Dearborn Park II was probably a mistake, even if it did help draw more people further south. Maybe at least open them up a little? This aint the burbs, even if that was their original intent.

Basically everyone has their own idea for what the south loop should look like. Some seem to want the burbs (which is silly), others want the city. But most would agree that any neighborhood plan should be used only as a guideline, and that it would be in all our best interests to fully utilize the extents of this residential boom and allow the neighborhood to develop as much as possible. And to me that also means building to a height that is congruous with that of equadistant near north neighborhoods- like a river north or streeterville.

Prairie Avenue

May 24th, 2007, 08:36 PM

The character discussion is an interesting one and I think trumps TUP's point on X/O. Where is there true character in the South Loop if it is defined by ending at Cermak? Surely Printer's Row, and that has largely been preserved although it is under some attack by high rises at the periphery and the student housing in its midst. Where else? Gee, perhaps where the daily tour busses stop and unload on Prairie Avenue for viewings of Glessner House, Clark House, the Kimball mansion and the stroll down Prairie Avenue to read the various placards?
I agree the South Loop lacks character. None of us is living in our grandfathers house. I am living in a poor imitation of a prairie mansion, but that was the best of what the developer offered. Does a brick dominated tower behind me preserve the historic nature? No, but it tries to, is subservient to it and at least doesn't spit on it. Prairie Avenue is one of the few areas in the south loop with character, and X/O especially with those god awful street level townhomes doesn't fit there. It is not a testament to the historic nature, Lucien agreed with that and the new park they propose on the Glessner side was to reduce the sight line fricition between the two -- admitting that the friction is there.

I am not opposed to skyscrapers or density or towers in the South Loop. I agree the area in general has no real character, and I know where my development sits was best known as a cheap or free spot to tailgate before Bears games and to piss on before climbing back in the car afterwards. Forget Black partridge, erect a statue of a drunk overweight Bears fan peeing on a tree with a miller light in his hand if you want to convey true history.

The city has made a quasi commitment to the historic nature of a few blocks. They put in faux gas light lighting, erected plaques, created a museum, and caused developers to at least try and fit with that theme. The drives in the developments are pavers, not asphalt or concrete. Mock stone or brick is usend on the veneers. The ever present black fake iron fencing. Let us have our few blocks of real and quasi character because there isn't enough of even that in this area.

For the rest, let's not go crazy. We don't sit in easy access to beach front or Lincoln park. We have already stretched the area with many single and townhome developments, so let's have some space to breathe between towers and allow sunlight to hit those homes a few hours a day. Roosevelt and Clinton will be the Clybourn corridor soon enough, let's seek green space where we can, high rise developments that will include ground level commercial and retail space in every case, and yes let's see if we can't end the hodge podge of development and proceed with an actual plan in place, fostering development by those with a good track record and freezing those out with a bad. Is there something wrong with that?

slooparch

May 24th, 2007, 09:35 PM

The city has made a quasi commitment to the historic nature of a few blocks. They put in faux gas light lighting, erected plaques, created a museum, and caused developers to at least try and fit with that theme. The drives in the developments are pavers, not asphalt or concrete. Mock stone or brick is usend on the veneers. The ever present black fake iron fencing. Let us have our few blocks of real and quasi character because there isn't enough of even that in this area.

For the rest, let's not go crazy. We don't sit in easy access to beach front or Lincoln park. We have already stretched the area with many single and townhome developments, so let's have some space to breathe between towers and allow sunlight to hit those homes a few hours a day. Roosevelt and Clinton will be the Clybourn corridor soon enough, let's seek green space where we can, high rise developments that will include ground level commercial and retail space in every case, and yes let's see if we can't end the hodge podge of development and proceed with an actual plan in place, fostering development by those with a good track record and freezing those out with a bad. Is there something wrong with that?

Nope...nothing wrong with that. However, you said it, the quasi-historic Prairie Ave. district is just a "few blocks"....essentially one block that is already entirely built....when we were putting together the NSC plan a few years ago, we essentially made sure that a small scale would exist from the Glessner on the north, south along Praire, east on Cullerton, and south to the Wheeler Mansion, period. This is the extent of the town house district as Mr. Downtown referred to it and at the time of the Plan preparation, we knew that it was assured.

ErmDiego, "thanks for that valuble contribution...wow"....no, thank you for the valuable sarcasm....the point is that Motor Row is more then just a long block and indeed has just a handful of infill sites to complete it...

Meanwhile, I don't think the amount of density in the South Loop has gotten anywhere near "crazy", nor will it ever....people will stop moving in when it does....the good thing about having a few more neighbors down here is that when we demand more green space (by the way, the Near South Loop Community Plan contains a lot more info and planning goals then just building heights), better access to the lakefront, improved public transportation, etc., our politicians will more likely respond :)

Prairie Avenue

May 24th, 2007, 10:07 PM

when we were putting together the NSC plan a few years ago, we essentially made sure that a small scale would exist from the Glessner on the north, south along Praire, east on Cullerton, and south to the Wheeler Mansion, period. This is the extent of the town house district as Mr. Downtown referred to it and at the time of the Plan preparation, we knew that it was assured.^^

Okay so we want to add another half block north on Prairie from Glessner. The townhomes and 1717 fit in with that, as does the Museum at the corner, Clarke house and the park, and the converted building at 18th and Indiana. Why not add to that buffer consistent with what is there now?

robituss

May 25th, 2007, 12:49 AM

Okay so we want to add another half block north on Prairie from Glessner. The townhomes and 1717 fit in with that, as does the Museum at the corner, Clarke house and the park, and the converted building at 18th and Indiana. Why not add to that buffer consistent with what is there now?

Well that half block includes that ugly office thingy which clearly does not fit in with anyones future plans for the area. I just think, when a guy comes in and presents an interesting, unique building design, rather than some other dull brick townhome development, you go with it. Fine, it doesnt fit in with some peoples idea for the historic area, and in fact cuts it short. But so does what is there now, and building more townhomes will only further dilute the historic nature of the area, not add on to it nor bring back what was there before - so why even try? I dont see how X/O 'ruins' anything that hasn't already been ruined long ago.

spyguy

May 25th, 2007, 01:05 AM

Student tower bonds get lowest investment-grade rating

By Eddie Baeb
May 24, 2007

Municipal bonds for a student housing tower being built in Printers Row were assigned the lowest investment-grade rating by Moody’s Investors Service.

The 16-story building planned for 626 S. Clark St. will target students at Columbia College Chicago and is to have 750 beds when it opens in August 2008, according to a May 18 report by the New York-based credit rating agency.

Moody’s knocked the project, being developed by Smithfield Properties LLC, over its “weak” support from Columbia, which has merely provided a letter of support and no financial guarantees.

Full Story (http://chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=25111)

Loopy

May 25th, 2007, 02:57 AM

robituss

May 26th, 2007, 03:37 AM

^Yes, besides his silly insults to BVic and others, subtle elitist remarks, and constant insistence that TUP lives in Jersey, he's provided some valuable insight into how alot of , well....antidevelopers/nimbys... feel. Learning how an organization like PDNA was formed and debating with him about some of these south loops projects helps us organize our own thoughts better. A lot of what he has said has helped reinforce my own opinions on projects like X/O and the Rokas, and also allows me to see the other side too. I appreciate some of his commentary, but the silliness and immaturity should stop.

Latoso

May 26th, 2007, 07:22 AM

Damn it! :bash: The South Loop Dev. thread was closed while I was in mid reply and I'm not letting a good post go to waste. Besides, it is partially realted to X|O......

I suspect that the people at X|O check out this forum. I was at the sales center the other day checking out the model unit and found it funny that much of the decorations and items stocked in the closets were from Target. Perhaps they were trying to make a slight jab at you-know-who? :)

Streeterville is Streeterville, and has some great space and places, if that is where people desire to be and live. Not my quote, but most from last weeks GSLA meeting, as reported here, chimed to the City Planner, Bennet Haller, that 'they wanted the South Loop be the South Loop, not Streeterville'...

Nothing could be further from the truth. You imply inherent difference where none or only slight difference exists. Streeterville is not Streeterville and the South loop is not the South Loop. They are both Downtown Chicago, and should be treated as such. What you are advocating is for the South Loop to be Naperville, and to paraphrase what you said, Naperville has some great spaces and places, if that is where people desire to be and live. Do us all a favor and give in to your desires, move to Naperville!

i_am_hydrogen

May 26th, 2007, 07:27 AM

This thread is temporarily closed. This argument has been monopolizing two threads for too long. It's played out. It's time to move on.

Loopy

May 30th, 2007, 05:01 PM

spyguy

May 30th, 2007, 05:26 PM

Yes, I saw that yesterday as well. I can't be certain, but it seems fairly new. I mean, they have a quote attributed to Kleiman so they must have asked him about the project's status.

southloopscotty

May 31st, 2007, 03:10 AM

I'm just glad the thread is reopened!

BVictor1

June 1st, 2007, 06:44 AM

I don't thinks this was posted, but, well, here's your weekly NIMBY rant.

It's a few weeks old...

http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=2989&TM=48837.36

5/9/2007 10:00:00 PM
South Loop buildings growing like weeds

http://chicagojournal.com/SiteImages/Byline/A_2989.jpgBONNIE McGRATH

I don't know what's more dominant on the landscape this Spring in the South Loop: irises or cranes. So far, the irises are not as tall and prolific as they will get as the weeks wear on-during the lead-up to a hot, dry summer. And the cranes, I suspect, will crowd us even more as the sun shifts to the north and the grass goes dormant.

We are used to irises in the neighborhood. We watch their flat tight birthing sheaths burst open with sheer cottony fluffs of blossoms.

But a virtual madhouse of new buildings is something that has never been here before. And may not fit in. We are people who want people. We want lights burning in windows.
We want life on the streets and businesses to follow. What we don't want are concrete pilings with little respect for our past-a rough and tumble jumble of roots and history, personality and drama.

A ruthless pile-up of concrete, glass, driveways and air vents, I'm afraid, is what we may wind up with.

Like weeds, these new buildings are going up so fast they turn neighborhood heads in every direction. They are rife with rectangular plates and some odd colors. And one can never be sure that the outer wall is properly attached to prevent the penetration of precipitation.

These structures are robbing us of our Midwest working-class sky. They are putting an overlay of dead-end Houston cowboy real estate judgment on top of a city of big shoulders. They stink like a skunk.

One new building-just about complete-contains a plethora of two bedroom apartments and one-bedrooms with dens. But for some reason, none have more than one bathroom. "Is that a new trend?" I ask my friends. "Are people sick of cleaning sinks and toilets they don't need? Is this what the cool people are doing now-sharing baths with each other, with kids and guests, for the sake of cutting down on global warming-or what?"

(Or is it a sign of getting away from excess? Probably not, because there are plenty of other expensive perks in these places.)

Maybe so little attention paid to the number of baths-almost as if fitting one in is merely an after-thought off the hall-signifies people moving in who will not luxuriate, people who would rather run in and out. And up and down. People who will come and go.

The developers are a greasy bunch-with plans for tall towers and a spreadsheet mentality. With a less than human touch, they seem more aligned with plans for their no liability corporate LLC structure than for a structure that will keep future residents secure. They are tall without stature-and rich without nutrition. They know no history here. And care little about the present, even less about the future. They are fast. They misspell. They are gluttons.

Why can't some of the developers who are hated in Lincoln Park and Lakeview and Wicker Park and Bucktown, villains who are building three flats and six-flats on steroids-of semi-decent masonry and a modicum of character-on tree-lined little avenues, come here and build? For us, those dark red, off white, muted brown brick biggies in the small neighborhoods would be delicate sweet habitats in our lot-laden laps.

But everything's relative in the city of a Soldier Field. And so the builders do their bidding and build the biggest billows. Like vapors-they will keep infusing streets that don't deserve them.

southloopscotty

June 1st, 2007, 09:50 PM

Ugh....^^^^:bash:

ErmDiego

June 2nd, 2007, 12:25 AM

I don't thinks this was posted, but, well, here's your weekly NIMBY rant.

It's a few weeks old...

http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=2989&TM=48837.36

Here is an idea, how about instead of calling her names and lables, tell us what specifically is inacurrate and accurate about her article? (Other than the harping on number of bathrooms) Could it be possible that 'good' architecture and and sound development are mutually exclusive?

I have never met the woman, but her observations about the LLC issues are dead on, as well as the comparisons to the Houston Cowboy mentality...In Houston, the crazy zoning ("build anywhere") combined with the lack of an urban plan (or following one) has created areas in Downtown Houston and inside the Beltway that, while there are some nice individual 'pieces', seem to lack soul, life, or harmony. It's the equivalent of building multiple small South Loops at the edge of Berwyn, Oak Park, Hinsdale, and Oak Brook at the same time, and then building a new Soldiers Field near Midway. (Granted Chicago is a far more 24 hour a day hub)

slooparch

June 2nd, 2007, 05:53 PM

ErmDiego

June 2nd, 2007, 06:21 PM

^^ There is absolutely no comparison to be made between Houston and lack-of-planning-or-zoning Texas to the South Loop or any other part of Chicago....

Once again, diego, I would strongly suggest you remind yourself that many members of this forum have strong backgrounds in urban planning and architecture, and your ill-informed attempts to justify your nimby agenda by making very broad and ignorant references to 'good urban planning' go a little beyond just annoying....

Why the personal attack? I did not post the original story; nor am I trying to justify any nimby agenda. I just suggested for the goal of decent discussion, why not provide more analysis than the personal attack; in all point of views there is something to learn. As you indicate "members of this forum have strong backgrounds in urban planning and architecture", so then it is quite possible to have considerate discussion versus trashing points with lazy lables.

As one who travels frequently to and across Houston, it is easy to see where the reference may stir a few comparisons; but I suppose not being an urban planner could disqulify my right to comment. However, I have had a great deal of experience in dealing with the headaches of the LLC point she makes.

BorisMolotov

June 2nd, 2007, 07:22 PM

ErmDiego

June 2nd, 2007, 08:45 PM

After reviewing this very long argument, I've noticed that not everybody seems to even be arguing about the same thing anymore.
ErmDiego, your biggest issue seems to be the questionable LLC groups that "shady" developers have been setting up to get away with the most money. Please realize that while it's not maybe the best way to do business, but it does get them the most money, and protects their whole business from suffering should a lawsuit be filed against them. Now, they're not trying to get lawsuits by purposely doing shoddy work, I can't imagine them wanting one, but they are trying to make the most money; after all it is a business.

To all others attacking ErmDiego, just because he has an issue with a particular developer who happens to be constructing X/O Condominiums in the remnants of the Prairie District, gives you no right to call him a NIMBY or anti-development. This is America, people do have freedom of speech, and they can protest something that they believe is wrong. What if someone wanted to build a huge highrise on the beautiful park next to your home? Based on your posts here, I assume you'd be 100% okay with that. But in reality, I'm sure you would protest that. And by your definitions, then you'd be NIMBY. This is the same case with X/O. Regardless of how few historic buildings are left, it is still a historic district, and therefore, X/O technically doesn't belong there.

P.S. I'm refusing to take a side on this argument, this post was merely to try and clarify things. That said, I do like the desing of X/O and do hope they get built.

thanks Boris, there are reasonable issues to discuss. My reference really is not specific to any one project but just development in general. LLC's are obviously a standard & necessary business tool when used ethically. The problem is the abuse of their use is getting worse. You have developments with a meriad of LLC's for the development, LLC's for partnerships under the development, etc. It is getting tough to determine who is accountable, or track the history of developers and contractors.

Take a look at the Tribune article today http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070603bridgeport1-story,1,615397.story?coll=chi-news-hed

The city and the industry need to stop buring their heads on this. Developers are disolving the LLC immediately, even before work or warranty issues have been completed. It also seems the same clout heavy developers, contractors, etc. are always in the middle, yet despite the undercurrent of problems they are still able to get the next permit, next contract, without resolving issues at their previous developments, claiming they are out of money. Take DiPiazza, in today's article, he is tied to several problem buildings in the South Loop. In the 12 years I have lived and invested in the South Loop, the problem has only gotten worse.

If the issues of Urban Planning & high rises where determined by merit and sound judgment, you would not here a peep from me. But with the continued stories of DPD, City Hall, and Developer corruption & and pay-to-play, it gets a little tough to swallow the decisions as in the best interests of good Urban Planning.

spyguy

June 2nd, 2007, 09:17 PM

- edit

spyguy

June 2nd, 2007, 09:34 PM

South Michigan Avenue gets facelift

By Ivette Sandoval

North Michigan Avenue is well known as the Magnificent Mile, but as the street makes its way to the more residential South Loop its renown diminishes. The Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) and several community organizations have worked to remedy that situation since 2003 by working on plans to beautify south Michigan Avenue from Roosevelt Road to the Stevenson Expressway.

Those plans started becoming reality in mid-March, when the City began installing concrete and orange barrel construction barricades. Workers started on the east side of Michigan Avenue at 14th Street, made their way south to Cermak Road, and then moved to the west side as they worked from Cermak to 14th. Work on Motor Row, site of early automobile showrooms and now under redevelopment, most likely will begin this fall (see related article, page X).

This $10.1 million beautification project will provide many decorative elements to enhance the rapidly developing district, which is bursting with new residential units, many of which include ground floor retail.

“The area is changing rapidly,” said Bonnie Sanchez-Carlson, executive director of the Near South Planning Board. “That strip hasn’t had a facelift in a while, and there’s a lot of construction along Michigan Avenue, a lot of new developers. The Motor Row area also needed a facelift, and the area on Roosevelt is developing well, so it’s something that is happening at the right time.”

Streetscaping from Roosevelt to Cermak features new light poles and a new traffic signal at 13th Street and Michigan Avenue. Other improvements are full sidewalk replacement, new crosswalks, kiosks containing historical information about the area, trash receptacles, new parking, and even new trees and plants.

Full Article (http://www.nearwestgazette.com/Archive/0607/Newsstory060707.htm)

ErmDiego

June 2nd, 2007, 10:10 PM

- edit

PrintersRowChemist

June 3rd, 2007, 05:03 AM

Totally off whatever you guys have been discussing, but: does anybody know what retail will be in Printers Corner, Vetro, or Burnham Pointer?

Loopy

June 3rd, 2007, 07:50 AM

nomarandlee

June 5th, 2007, 11:56 AM

http://www.suntimes.com/business/413800,CST-FIN-fox05.article

Fox & Obel might take S. Loop site
GROCERY | Gourmet store reportedly looking for 2nd store

June 5, 2007
BY SANDRA GUY sguy@suntimes.com

Gourmet grocer Fox & Obel is the likely retailer that will open a store and a restaurant inside a long-vacant building at the northeast corner of Wabash and Roosevelt in Chicago's South Loop.

The former Trailways bus station was covered with murals until a couple of weeks ago, when new windows were installed, and the murals removed.

The site is just west of the Columbian, a 220-unit high-rise going up at the epicenter of the fastest-growing neighborhood in Chicago. It is across the street from a Jewel-Osco grocery store, and less than a mile east of an existing Dominick's grocery store and a new Whole Foods grocery store set to open Aug. 8. A specialty Italian market, Panozzo's, is about a block south on Michigan Avenue, and a wine store is set to open about two blocks south on Michigan Avenue in September.

Fox & Obel CEO Keith Montague declined Monday to confirm the location, and building owner Friedman Properties said no deal has been done. But Montague said the site "would be a perfect location" for Fox & Obel's second store.

Fox & Obel, named for its Chicago founders, has operated its single store and cafe for six years at 401 E. Illinois, in front of Dick's Last Resort in the Streeterville neighborhood.

"I'm familiar with [the South Loop] location. It's a great location," Montague said, adding that he has discussed sites for new stores with Friedman.

The South Loop site, with 34,000 square feet over three floors, would provide space for Fox & Obel's fast-growing catering business, as well as the store and cafe.

"I need a kitchen and a bakery," Montague said.

Fox & Obel's catering business is growing about 30 percent a year, and Montague said he had to use a refrigerated trailer to keep up with the 350 Thanksgiving dinners the retailer served last year from its Streeterville store. Fox & Obel now operates out of 22,000 square feet, and caters everything from small cocktail parties to the Zoo Ball at Lincoln Park Zoo.

The Streeterville store has yearly revenues in the eight figures and gets about 60 percent of its business from grocery sales.

Fox & Obel, owned for the past four years by mostly Chicago-based investors, faces the prospect of raising $4.5 million to open a new store.

"We're a small company," Montague said. "It's a new learning curve for me [to raise millions of dollars.]"

The site at Wabash and Roosevelt had been planned as an art gallery six years ago, but those plans fell through.

Montague told the Sun-Times in February 2006 that Fox & Obel intended to open as many as six more stores in the next three years in the Chicago area.

Neil Stern, senior partner at Chicago consulting firm McMillan Doolittle, said the South Loop requires more food markets, and the location would be a step up for Fox & Obel.