Oh - and how long till that theater goes out of business? Since i was a kid every theater in this city and suburbs has gone under at least once. Then mega chains once killed off all the little thaeters, they to go under, then a new mega chain moves in a block away and the old one is turned into a mega church ala Houston Baptist Style.
i live in pilsen, and every weekend i go out and walk around and usually walk past that development along roosevelt on my way to the loop, so i have watched it grow to what it currently is. i have to say, i think it will fail spectacularly. just west of the river in the south market building, two of the anchor/chain stores have already gone under (linens and things went out of business, and office depot is closing their store). it is a pretty empty development, all things considered. now they are going to try to cram MORE retail-oriented development just east of there in a much larger complex? not in this economy. we are supposed to have record store-closings this year, which means there is going to be a glut of commercial real estate on the market, with no one to rent it which will just intensify the spiral downwards.
aesthetically, i have to say i think it is pretty terrible as well. from what is built thus far, i think it has mediocre proportions. and, for christ's sake, can we please have some more boring developments?!? does everyone follow the same exact ridiculous formula for developing property? i know developers can be myopic at times...i have dealt with plenty. but as architects, i think it is our duty to really try to educate clients and try to convince them to try something different. believe me, you work at it hard enough and you actually get people to come around to your ideas.
as for land use, once again, it was terrible. i don't think this will be a destination-oriented place. i think the people who will use it will be the people who live above it, who only go out of their residence in order to go downstairs to the many amenities offered. but those amenities won't be neighborhood locations unique to the space, they will all be some sort of chain, multinational conglomerate selling them crap.
my idea for that site (along with the site to the east that synergy posted about a month or so back) and the site to the south (the empty field west of clark, east of the river all the way south to 16th street) is to utilize those sites for the olympics. instead, we are paving over a historic park on the south side (washington park), paving over part of a forest preserve in lake county (equestrian center), paying a shitload of money (from taxes) for a decomissioned hospital, only to destroy it and clean up the site (mercy hospital) for the olympic village. we are scattered all these olympic sites all over the place, when we have land in the heart of the city. think of how great it would be to have the olympic stadium in the middle of the city with the skyline directly behind every view, and within walking distance of 3 metra/amtrak train stations and numerous CTA bus routes/el stops? granted, probably most of this developmental planning was started before the olympics in chicago became a potential reality, but i still think it would have created a much more significant impact on the city.
in general, boo to that development. ultimate fail.
evil i think we can still have that kind of urban fabric... we can have diversity, redundancy and profitability. But its going to mean a fundamental shift in development... its going to mean that cities put caps on how many sq ft can be developed per project, and its likely going to mean so space is federally subsidized in the short term so that local business can afford to pay the premium for new construction that chains can.
think about it, have you ever seen a mom and pop locally owned business start up in a newly constructed store front? im racking my brains, i cant think of a single example.
id suggest limits on per project sq footages, similar to the zoning standards we already have to restrict FAR and height... id then suggest a 10-15 year subsidy for appropriate housing and store fronts sq footage, specifically aimed at allowing locals open shops or business in quality spaces... commercial and residential incubators...
Has anyone read Jane Jacobs the life and Death of Great American Cities? This book is an excellent tool to understanding the cyclical nature of urban settlement and development, and this project has all the symptoms of a looming catastrophe, if I fully understand the scope of the project. The notion of having a variety of buildings in a varied state or condition is essential to success, diversity is essential to successful neighborhoods weather it is residential or commercial or mixed. This development will probably not succeed without some portion of the rent for the retail space being heavily discounted so that a variety of shops can afford to move in. The high rent of new commercial space as apposed to older or rehabilitated space keeps a large amount of small businesses out of developments such as these. All that retail space will probably be occupied by Bank of America, Starbucks, LVAC and lots and lots of butcher paper covering the windows. Unless there are big box retailers lined up it probably will not become destination retail like the area around Milwaukee and North Ave or Belmont and Broadway, these areas succeed due to the variety of buildings which translates into a wide range of rental rates for the retail tenants. The Urban retail experience most people want is to have a variety of shops and services available this is not possible in a development that has one high rental rate for thousands of square feet of retail space.
go to university village. there are quite a few local places that have opened across from UIC's dorms when it was all redeveloped. i know that isn't clean, brand new construction, but considering how it was it is almost that.
i am with you when it comes to having a much more diverse urban fabric in terms of scale, shape, size, material, etc. however, i disagree with the methods. i think the government should get out of the way, and i think the current batch of misguided laws has created this crappy development atmosphere, where you are saddled with so many ridiculous, vaguely site-specific laws for building and zoning that the developer has no option but to build a lowest-common denominator building in order to pull in a profit. let the market take care of itself...no subsidies, no tif money, no hand-outs, and quit trying to have a say in aesthetics (i'm talking to you, daley). let the market and the people function in a pure, competitive, emergent system. it will regulate itself...
you comments about north/milwaukee (minus the bank of america in the older filter location) and belmont/broadway are very true and i completely agree. those places are very good examples of emergent systems as well, and it shows why they have been continuously successful for such a great amount of time. they naturally progressed and were nurtured by the community and small business owners, not by heavy-handed government intervention and big developers getting hand-outs from friends in the government.
Interesting. I read an article years ago at the height of the current boom talking about why ornate opulent big city retailers like Marshal Fields department store fail nowadays while big boxes flourish and it came down to commercial lending practices - credit. In the old days the commercial loans were high interest and long term - 30 years like a residential mortgage and the retailers had to build a structure that had at least a 30 year lifespan for attracting shoppers. In the last 30 years the terms shrank to 20 years, then 15, now 10. So nowadays a retailer has to make it all back and pay off the bank as soon as possible thus the developments we see transforming our landscapes from urban and connected to destination drive to centers built cheap and fast for volume. Possibly one benefit from the credit crisis may actually be higher rates, and longer terms and a higher level of building art needed to make the place more attractive and permanent.
think about it, have you ever seen a mom and pop locally owned business start up in a newly constructed store front? im racking my brains, i cant think of a single example.
That's because it's too expensive to rent. The only mom and pop places are left in areas where the buildings are older and there's traffic:
Broadway from Diversey north to Belmont and the ethnic areas like Devon west of Western and Kedzie and Lawrence.
Taxes are too high on the new buildings and the rents are simply astronomical. Only a corporate entity can afford the rents. That's why Potbelly's, Starbucks and banks are everywhere.
the flip side to your flip side is that it will thin out the ranks of the entire design/develop/construction industry (including possibly myself and many others here) and those left will be the most efficient and best at their jobs. survival of the fittest. the system regulating itself.
There is however one possibility that can redeem these developments and that is a condo owners association that has some say in the management of the retail space. If I shell out 200k for a place I might be willing to spend some additional money in association fees to help retail get established in the mega development that my unit is a part of. This can be justified by assuming that a vibrant community is safer and more attractive thus helping your resale value, but as a friend from Kentucky once lamented many people in parts of Chicago come from the Land of Me and will not sign on to any idea unless they get instant guaranteed rewards. But one can still dream.
I certainly don't think the project will be some stunning success, but I haven't really hear a legitimate alternative in the responses above.
The site did not have an existing property, and could not have been developed by a small individual single property.
I also don't think it is really fair to blame them for linen's and things failing, I mean did you predict this economic crisis 3 or 4 years ago when this project was probably in DD?
Mom and Pop stores are nice, however they are failing because of a lot bigger reasons than architecture. Functionally they can not deliver their goods at competitive prices when compared to big retailers. Yeah yeah there have been drawbacks and unseen consequences, but I think it is very arrogant and very naive to act like there haven't been benefits from this for a lot of people, rich, poor and everything in between.
I agree Syn - the basic tenant of low cost and efficincie raises all boats and allows for jobs creation of job openings for new sectors. However something seems like a little too limited in this recent expansion in the way of choice. We have a choice between Chase / BoA / and Citi atms. Not even the coffee shops can survive any more on main street.
As for Roosevelt square I hope it succeeds. I like the concept of a main street plaza a lot. It fails in my opinion to connect tot he grid in any productive way - its like a gated mall off Roosevelt. Site constraints dictated no doubt. Maybe the city should have required the parcel north to develop in conjuction w/ this property a gradual slope to grade to ease it out over 2 developments in the future. Looking at the renderings I doubt it will achieve that retail density but Im pulling for them. Its still a good concept and effort and Ive eagerly awaited its construction after seeing it int he Sunday real estate section for years.
i didn't say linens n' things failed because of this new development. the whole company went under. i was making a point by saying that the adjacent development is losing big anchor stores and that there is a glut of large commercial space on the market, so finding the companies to rent in a market with tons of space to rent probably won't work out too well for them.
what alternative would you have proposed for the site, taking into account the assumption that it was beginning to be developed 3-5 years ago? everyone has been building for the sake of building for the last 8 years, so i think it is naive to believe that there was a necessity for all this excessive new building. put up more high rises or condos? there are already tons of those, and many will probably remain vacant. i personally would have liked to have seen the property remain wild and untamed or, as i proposed earlier, my olympics development idea (which would not have really been an option 3-5 years ago during development). i think leaving this wild and unruly section of area just south of the heart of the city would have been a great juxtaposition. or turn it into a large organic urban farming parcel where you can rent out little plots of land to people to tend to. it wouldn't have been a huge economic windfall for the developer, but they would have made some money and, more importantly, they would have been providing the surrounding neighborhood something that was not available to them before. they would have filled a niche, and probably generated a substantial amount of good press for it as well.
the fact of the matter is people got greedy because they found out they could make money easy by developing, and it was an unsustainable growth generated by artificial interest rates created by the fed. now, the market is correcting itself, retracting, and will shrink the economy down to a size that is much more manageable and self-sustaining. no, i didn't predict that the economy would crash 3-5 years ago, although plenty of other people did (ron paul, jim rogers, peter schiff)...all people who have a great depth of knowledge on the downfalls for fractional reserve banking, keynsian economics, deficit spending and allowing the fed to control interest rates and monetary policy instead of allowing the market to regulate itself.
developing is essentially gambling, like every other type of business venture: you can try to develop small, incremental projects and play it safe...you may not get a huge return, but it will be steady and sure. or, you can do huge developments that have a lot of risk where if you win, you win big, and if you lose, it is a spectacular failure. if you take those big risks and win, great, i can't knock you for winning because you succeeded. but if you lose, you have to be willing to sit there and take the lumps that come with losing. while i doubt the developers had nefarious intentions with this particular development, i think they were either blinded by their ambition to keep generating large sums of money or didn't really care about the neighborhood fabric too much because this place just doesn't seem like something that would complement the surrounding neighborhood...it is not filling a void with something useful, it is replicating functions that are already there in the area.
personally, i think there have been more negatives than positives for the existence of huge big box retailers (a completely different conversation all together). people have just become so accustomed to them being part of their lives that they see them as a necessity or as providing a service that cannot be found elsewhere. in reality, there is an alternative to everything, you just have to look and explore all options. so, no, i don't find it arrogant or naive to believe there haven't been benefits, because i am not really looking at it like that: i am looking at it as striving for something holistically better.
a lot of the reason that large, national chains tend to go into these developments instead of mom-and-pop local shops is that the developers factor the leasing into their pro-formas at the outset of the project, when they're trying to decide whether to move forward or not. Basically, they want to know whether their going to make a profit on the leasing before they go into the hole big-time to build a huge development (or, frankly, even a small development). The large, national retail chains plan their expansions in advance, know what kind of space they need or want, and can budget for it years in advance. The developments send out their leasing agents, the leasing agents scour the known chains, deals are struck or not struck and the developer decides whether or not to move forward. There is absolutely no way a mom-and-pop could break into this type of market. Even if it were somehow possible, it wouldn't even be to their economic advantage. That's why you never, ever see it.
I find your argument contradictory, in one paragraph you are espousing the need for a free, competitive market, and in the next your crying foul on chain retail stores. It is such a tired argument, always framing large retailers as the boogie men. The free market, as expressed in the form of chain stores has brought so much to so many people. only a generation or two ago people wouldn't dream of having 2 TVs, 2 cars in their garage, a closet full of newer clothes, cell phones, microwaves, etc. etc. now these things are accessible for even many of our poorest people. Yeah it is materialistic, not everyone even has the luxury to be so self indulgent with the "money isn't everything" kind of thinking.
I don't even understand the attacking of all "development". This is our profession, we make buildings. Of course some existing buildings could be patched up and made to last longer, just like this can be done with cars, trains or just about everything else, but it doesn't leave much work for us if no one builds anything. Everyone rallies against suburban sprawl, mcmansions and at the same time, when a mixed use, medium density building is planned for an open infill location in the city, apparently this is no good either. Despite the fact the units are modestly sized and have been given a reasonable design and aesthetic effort, they are still not good enough. We already know high rise buildings are out, since those are only for rich yuppies. What exactly is left? Should no one even be in the building profession? or should we somehow all master the art of creating new, already existing 100 year old neighborhood buildings, complete with a family owned bakery renting the first floor unit?
Anyways, leaving the site as is was would just be a waste, it wasn't a forest reserve or anything attractive, it was more of a murky, filthy swamp. An eyesore at best. I've never seen any evidence that there is much of a market for the garden idea, and certainly not enough if you ask the garden renters to pay rents appropriate for pieces of land in that area.
Let me preface this by saying I am enjoying this discussion. I always enjoy a good, lively debate. I can understand how you see my views as contradictory...I sometimes do that. However, I do think that in a truly free, competitive market the big box/large chain retailers wouldn't be able to compete with the smaller, more local or regional retailers. We don't really exist in a free market like that now, however (no matter how often politicians proclaim that we do). We often see subsidies for large retailers to be brought to areas in the form of TIFs (which, I have no idea of this project received any TIF money...I'm just spitball'n) and other various forms of government intervention into the market place. I just personally don't believe in any of that. I don't think it is right, and I don't think it produces the best market or products. If everything were on a pure level playing field (yes, I know this would be an ideal world, which we do not live in) I think there would be a much more significant stride towards smaller local economies because everyone would see how much more beneficial it would be for their surrounding communities. And, I say this having my perspective tempered by working for a big box retail chain for 6 years while in high school and college.
I think part of the problem with the concept of inexpensive goods is the whole "american dream" that everyone was sold, very similar to what inspired people to believe that everyone could afford to own a home. God knows I can't afford a home, and probably won't be able to for probably another decade. Buying with credit versus savings helped propel people into thinking they could own tons of "stuff," instead of trying to get by with what they have. They figured they could just keep buying stuff, because they could pay for it later and hey, it was inexpensive (a direct result of almost all of our manufacturing going overseas to cheaper labor). The fact of the matter is not everyone can own a home, and not everyone can buy whatever they want, and a significant amount of our country is learning this hard lesson now.
I don't really see myself as attacking all development, although I don't agree with much of it. I understand that often times my job relies on development, but that doesn't stop me from trying to make it better. I am always striving to improve myself and everything I am involved with, and I don't mind failing as long as I try. But I always try to look at problems with the intent of solving them first through localization, conservation and sustainability. That is just my personal perspective that I always tackle problems from first, and if it is completely undo-able, then I look at other options.
As for leaving the site open and untamed, I personally don't see it as a waste at all. I don't see the need to completely develop every single parcel of land out there, especially when the current needs of the surrounding community are met by other establishments. Or leasing it to the city for a set amount of time as a park (which I am sure would lend to some strange insurance issues). Or making the land into some sort of share cropping. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17603 discusses a good book about the move to this in England. http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/farmadelphia.html is a link to an article speculating this being done in Philadelphia. The ideas for this stuff are out there, it is just a matter of convincing people to give it a try. Yeah, of course it won't generate the kind of massive profit that a large development would, but it goes back to my gambling analogy from a previous post...big risk for big loss/gain, or small risk for a small loss or gain. For me it is more about envisioning new and unique lands uses, even if it means marginalizing my profession.
I realize, especially on a forum like this where we only see glimpses of people's perspectives, that some of my comments or ideas may seem counter-intuitive to what my profession is. However, I use them everyday with my job and life and have survived thus far (granted, i live a very striped down, ascetic lifestyle). Although, I am not sure how you claim the "money isn't everything" ideal as being luxurious or self-indulgent...
Hey, we may not agree or see eye-to-eye, but at least it provides good conversation and it helps perpetuate the debate here...
"Norwegians are either utterly fascinated with the comings and goings of CTA buses, or there just aren't enough recreational activities in the land of fiords and Viking ships.
The CTA Bus Tracker Web site has received 15,395 visits since last year from people in Norway or whose computers or personal wireless devices were registered in that Scandinavian kingdom."
i have worked for large companies and i have worked for mom and pops. fact is, they both suck. i feel no david vs. goliath rahrah for the small guy. fuck the mom and pop. viva walmart!
hhhhhhhhh... when i metioned mom and pop stores inability to compete, or let alone exist in new construction, i was merely mentioning a simple fact... it was supposed to be a part of a "homogeneity is bad, heterogeneity is good so lets stop filling in our cities with upper middle class housing and chain stores" argument...
"NJ Transit
NEWARK-New Jersey Transit's Access to the Region's Core (ARC) project aims to revamp the tri-state area's commuter rail system, and the centerpiece Mass Transit Tunnel project has taken a major step forward. The Federal Transit Administration has issued a "record of decision" for the $8.7-billion tunnel, signaling that it has cleared the final environmental review process. "
Ok so wheres ours? Why is it so hard for Illinois to get projects like this from congress? Oh I remember - we have shitheads representing us in DC more interested in minority politics and ethical grandstanding ( Im looking at you Durbin you worthless turd) Our great state is the 3rd highest tax revenue generating state in the nation yet recieves lower than 45th in federal money spent in state. Folks we are being robbed and have only ourselves to blame.
We need high speed rail to from O'hare, Midway to downtown.
We need a circle EL
We need a Suburban Belt Metra
We need a third airport
We need Blue line extensions to Yorktown and Woodfield to tie the edge cities into the center city
But we wont get it. Instead we'll get some feel good senior center that will generate 0 dollars in economic growth thats 500x over budget in someone's district for a few votes.
This should make all Chicagoan's blood boil over. Mike Doyle at Chicago Careless reports the new 2009 subway maps leave the Washington Red Line stop off the map as if it's not there when in reality they bungled it up so bad they dont want people to remember its there in moth balls partialy completed. As one commenter says, $200 million to lose the most convenient transfer station in the city, now thats a return on investment.
oh cruel irony doth thou ever rest? Richard Nickel's Home is up for demolition; Richard Nickel the famed architectural photographer whose pictures of ruins of Chicago's greatest structures started a new urban preservation movement
Does anyone else here also participate on the Blair Kamin Skyline blog? Has anyone else had posts cencored or not posted at all? Blair is purposely controling the tone of his blog via the comments and its wrong. He doesnt seem to like disagreement with his views at all. If the poster is blatantly a goof ball he'll post it and respond. But deeper posts with some rehtorical bite - he just eliminates. Why is Chicago's architecture comunity so sheltered and defensive all the time? What are they scared of?
Yeah, I have noticed that as well. Kamin is a second rate journalist. I think that he is clueless about architecture, and therefore stifling any discussion. I get the feeling he is ignoring the current state of architecture in Chicago, and is just trying to be nationally recognized. Who knows what will come of him.....
...Layoffs I hope. He's less a critic and more a soap box speaker. In my dream of a better future, Tigerman and Kamin will elope to some distant land with no comunications back to home.
I like people who write about Architecture. Ousoroff does some. i read books. I read one on Murcutt that was pretty good. Leaves of Iron. There's more talk of Architecture in this 25 minute interview than anything than I have seen in the paper. I like when Renzo Piano writes. He can teach us something.
None - Like architecture professors, I see no reason for critics except to confuse the issues. I did like Lee Bay but hes moved into planning dept. Old Sun Times critic.
I think the issue may be that the others are writing books, which are generally targeted at architects and architecture enthusiests, while the critics generally write for newspapers that have more general audiences.
I wouldn't expect to find scholarly, peer reviewed medical papers in the newspaper and I suppose I wouldn't look for the architectural equavilent either. You guys are in the field, it only makes sense that architecture books and more in depth sources would appeal to you, you know?
Decent local issue blog concerning architecture / street life / planning around the city. Bookmark it if your looking for Chicago blogs beyong Chicagoist, windycitizen and gapersblock
Anyone here stroll by Cloud Gate recently? Apparently, someone decided to graffiti the sculpture with there names. Mayor Daly wants the perps to pay for it, although the article in the Tribune doesn't say if they were caught.
The Holy Name Cathedral is on fire, it looks like the fire started where the living quarters are on the upper floor. The fire department has it under control though.
It looks like the fire started in the attic space directly above the main altar. I don't think that space is occupied (living quarters are elsewhere on the property), but it looks like a pretty bad fire.
News reports indicate there are no injuries, but that damage to the church is extensive and it will likely be closed for several months at least.
My own church (also a landmark cathedral) here in NYC just finished restoration work after a severe fire in 2001, so my heart goes out to the Archdiocese and to the congregation. They've got a long road ahead of them.
those "rankings" forbes does are just completely retarded. i don't think that magazine has anything interesting to say at all. and for many of those places they couldn't have picked more miserable photos to drive the point through. that said, i am pretty much miserable here.
Aggregate Chicago
Oh - and how long till that theater goes out of business? Since i was a kid every theater in this city and suburbs has gone under at least once. Then mega chains once killed off all the little thaeters, they to go under, then a new mega chain moves in a block away and the old one is turned into a mega church ala Houston Baptist Style.
i live in pilsen, and every weekend i go out and walk around and usually walk past that development along roosevelt on my way to the loop, so i have watched it grow to what it currently is. i have to say, i think it will fail spectacularly. just west of the river in the south market building, two of the anchor/chain stores have already gone under (linens and things went out of business, and office depot is closing their store). it is a pretty empty development, all things considered. now they are going to try to cram MORE retail-oriented development just east of there in a much larger complex? not in this economy. we are supposed to have record store-closings this year, which means there is going to be a glut of commercial real estate on the market, with no one to rent it which will just intensify the spiral downwards.
aesthetically, i have to say i think it is pretty terrible as well. from what is built thus far, i think it has mediocre proportions. and, for christ's sake, can we please have some more boring developments?!? does everyone follow the same exact ridiculous formula for developing property? i know developers can be myopic at times...i have dealt with plenty. but as architects, i think it is our duty to really try to educate clients and try to convince them to try something different. believe me, you work at it hard enough and you actually get people to come around to your ideas.
as for land use, once again, it was terrible. i don't think this will be a destination-oriented place. i think the people who will use it will be the people who live above it, who only go out of their residence in order to go downstairs to the many amenities offered. but those amenities won't be neighborhood locations unique to the space, they will all be some sort of chain, multinational conglomerate selling them crap.
my idea for that site (along with the site to the east that synergy posted about a month or so back) and the site to the south (the empty field west of clark, east of the river all the way south to 16th street) is to utilize those sites for the olympics. instead, we are paving over a historic park on the south side (washington park), paving over part of a forest preserve in lake county (equestrian center), paying a shitload of money (from taxes) for a decomissioned hospital, only to destroy it and clean up the site (mercy hospital) for the olympic village. we are scattered all these olympic sites all over the place, when we have land in the heart of the city. think of how great it would be to have the olympic stadium in the middle of the city with the skyline directly behind every view, and within walking distance of 3 metra/amtrak train stations and numerous CTA bus routes/el stops? granted, probably most of this developmental planning was started before the olympics in chicago became a potential reality, but i still think it would have created a much more significant impact on the city.
in general, boo to that development. ultimate fail.
evil i think we can still have that kind of urban fabric... we can have diversity, redundancy and profitability. But its going to mean a fundamental shift in development... its going to mean that cities put caps on how many sq ft can be developed per project, and its likely going to mean so space is federally subsidized in the short term so that local business can afford to pay the premium for new construction that chains can.
think about it, have you ever seen a mom and pop locally owned business start up in a newly constructed store front? im racking my brains, i cant think of a single example.
id suggest limits on per project sq footages, similar to the zoning standards we already have to restrict FAR and height... id then suggest a 10-15 year subsidy for appropriate housing and store fronts sq footage, specifically aimed at allowing locals open shops or business in quality spaces... commercial and residential incubators...
Has anyone read Jane Jacobs the life and Death of Great American Cities? This book is an excellent tool to understanding the cyclical nature of urban settlement and development, and this project has all the symptoms of a looming catastrophe, if I fully understand the scope of the project. The notion of having a variety of buildings in a varied state or condition is essential to success, diversity is essential to successful neighborhoods weather it is residential or commercial or mixed. This development will probably not succeed without some portion of the rent for the retail space being heavily discounted so that a variety of shops can afford to move in. The high rent of new commercial space as apposed to older or rehabilitated space keeps a large amount of small businesses out of developments such as these. All that retail space will probably be occupied by Bank of America, Starbucks, LVAC and lots and lots of butcher paper covering the windows. Unless there are big box retailers lined up it probably will not become destination retail like the area around Milwaukee and North Ave or Belmont and Broadway, these areas succeed due to the variety of buildings which translates into a wide range of rental rates for the retail tenants. The Urban retail experience most people want is to have a variety of shops and services available this is not possible in a development that has one high rental rate for thousands of square feet of retail space.
lletdownl,
go to university village. there are quite a few local places that have opened across from UIC's dorms when it was all redeveloped. i know that isn't clean, brand new construction, but considering how it was it is almost that.
i am with you when it comes to having a much more diverse urban fabric in terms of scale, shape, size, material, etc. however, i disagree with the methods. i think the government should get out of the way, and i think the current batch of misguided laws has created this crappy development atmosphere, where you are saddled with so many ridiculous, vaguely site-specific laws for building and zoning that the developer has no option but to build a lowest-common denominator building in order to pull in a profit. let the market take care of itself...no subsidies, no tif money, no hand-outs, and quit trying to have a say in aesthetics (i'm talking to you, daley). let the market and the people function in a pure, competitive, emergent system. it will regulate itself...
PJN26,
you comments about north/milwaukee (minus the bank of america in the older filter location) and belmont/broadway are very true and i completely agree. those places are very good examples of emergent systems as well, and it shows why they have been continuously successful for such a great amount of time. they naturally progressed and were nurtured by the community and small business owners, not by heavy-handed government intervention and big developers getting hand-outs from friends in the government.
Interesting. I read an article years ago at the height of the current boom talking about why ornate opulent big city retailers like Marshal Fields department store fail nowadays while big boxes flourish and it came down to commercial lending practices - credit. In the old days the commercial loans were high interest and long term - 30 years like a residential mortgage and the retailers had to build a structure that had at least a 30 year lifespan for attracting shoppers. In the last 30 years the terms shrank to 20 years, then 15, now 10. So nowadays a retailer has to make it all back and pay off the bank as soon as possible thus the developments we see transforming our landscapes from urban and connected to destination drive to centers built cheap and fast for volume. Possibly one benefit from the credit crisis may actually be higher rates, and longer terms and a higher level of building art needed to make the place more attractive and permanent.
That's because it's too expensive to rent. The only mom and pop places are left in areas where the buildings are older and there's traffic:
Broadway from Diversey north to Belmont and the ethnic areas like Devon west of Western and Kedzie and Lawrence.
Taxes are too high on the new buildings and the rents are simply astronomical. Only a corporate entity can afford the rents. That's why Potbelly's, Starbucks and banks are everywhere.
^the flip side may be that there will be less to build :(
Don't forget that big chains are much more dependent on cheap credit. Its the only way they grow.
If they put a brew pub in that thing Id go.
the flip side to your flip side is that it will thin out the ranks of the entire design/develop/construction industry (including possibly myself and many others here) and those left will be the most efficient and best at their jobs. survival of the fittest. the system regulating itself.
There is however one possibility that can redeem these developments and that is a condo owners association that has some say in the management of the retail space. If I shell out 200k for a place I might be willing to spend some additional money in association fees to help retail get established in the mega development that my unit is a part of. This can be justified by assuming that a vibrant community is safer and more attractive thus helping your resale value, but as a friend from Kentucky once lamented many people in parts of Chicago come from the Land of Me and will not sign on to any idea unless they get instant guaranteed rewards. But one can still dream.
Also check out this:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/28/34-architecture/
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/22/73-gentrification/
I certainly don't think the project will be some stunning success, but I haven't really hear a legitimate alternative in the responses above.
The site did not have an existing property, and could not have been developed by a small individual single property.
I also don't think it is really fair to blame them for linen's and things failing, I mean did you predict this economic crisis 3 or 4 years ago when this project was probably in DD?
Mom and Pop stores are nice, however they are failing because of a lot bigger reasons than architecture. Functionally they can not deliver their goods at competitive prices when compared to big retailers. Yeah yeah there have been drawbacks and unseen consequences, but I think it is very arrogant and very naive to act like there haven't been benefits from this for a lot of people, rich, poor and everything in between.
I agree Syn - the basic tenant of low cost and efficincie raises all boats and allows for jobs creation of job openings for new sectors. However something seems like a little too limited in this recent expansion in the way of choice. We have a choice between Chase / BoA / and Citi atms. Not even the coffee shops can survive any more on main street.
As for Roosevelt square I hope it succeeds. I like the concept of a main street plaza a lot. It fails in my opinion to connect tot he grid in any productive way - its like a gated mall off Roosevelt. Site constraints dictated no doubt. Maybe the city should have required the parcel north to develop in conjuction w/ this property a gradual slope to grade to ease it out over 2 developments in the future. Looking at the renderings I doubt it will achieve that retail density but Im pulling for them. Its still a good concept and effort and Ive eagerly awaited its construction after seeing it int he Sunday real estate section for years.
synergy,
i didn't say linens n' things failed because of this new development. the whole company went under. i was making a point by saying that the adjacent development is losing big anchor stores and that there is a glut of large commercial space on the market, so finding the companies to rent in a market with tons of space to rent probably won't work out too well for them.
what alternative would you have proposed for the site, taking into account the assumption that it was beginning to be developed 3-5 years ago? everyone has been building for the sake of building for the last 8 years, so i think it is naive to believe that there was a necessity for all this excessive new building. put up more high rises or condos? there are already tons of those, and many will probably remain vacant. i personally would have liked to have seen the property remain wild and untamed or, as i proposed earlier, my olympics development idea (which would not have really been an option 3-5 years ago during development). i think leaving this wild and unruly section of area just south of the heart of the city would have been a great juxtaposition. or turn it into a large organic urban farming parcel where you can rent out little plots of land to people to tend to. it wouldn't have been a huge economic windfall for the developer, but they would have made some money and, more importantly, they would have been providing the surrounding neighborhood something that was not available to them before. they would have filled a niche, and probably generated a substantial amount of good press for it as well.
the fact of the matter is people got greedy because they found out they could make money easy by developing, and it was an unsustainable growth generated by artificial interest rates created by the fed. now, the market is correcting itself, retracting, and will shrink the economy down to a size that is much more manageable and self-sustaining. no, i didn't predict that the economy would crash 3-5 years ago, although plenty of other people did (ron paul, jim rogers, peter schiff)...all people who have a great depth of knowledge on the downfalls for fractional reserve banking, keynsian economics, deficit spending and allowing the fed to control interest rates and monetary policy instead of allowing the market to regulate itself.
developing is essentially gambling, like every other type of business venture: you can try to develop small, incremental projects and play it safe...you may not get a huge return, but it will be steady and sure. or, you can do huge developments that have a lot of risk where if you win, you win big, and if you lose, it is a spectacular failure. if you take those big risks and win, great, i can't knock you for winning because you succeeded. but if you lose, you have to be willing to sit there and take the lumps that come with losing. while i doubt the developers had nefarious intentions with this particular development, i think they were either blinded by their ambition to keep generating large sums of money or didn't really care about the neighborhood fabric too much because this place just doesn't seem like something that would complement the surrounding neighborhood...it is not filling a void with something useful, it is replicating functions that are already there in the area.
personally, i think there have been more negatives than positives for the existence of huge big box retailers (a completely different conversation all together). people have just become so accustomed to them being part of their lives that they see them as a necessity or as providing a service that cannot be found elsewhere. in reality, there is an alternative to everything, you just have to look and explore all options. so, no, i don't find it arrogant or naive to believe there haven't been benefits, because i am not really looking at it like that: i am looking at it as striving for something holistically better.
a lot of the reason that large, national chains tend to go into these developments instead of mom-and-pop local shops is that the developers factor the leasing into their pro-formas at the outset of the project, when they're trying to decide whether to move forward or not. Basically, they want to know whether their going to make a profit on the leasing before they go into the hole big-time to build a huge development (or, frankly, even a small development). The large, national retail chains plan their expansions in advance, know what kind of space they need or want, and can budget for it years in advance. The developments send out their leasing agents, the leasing agents scour the known chains, deals are struck or not struck and the developer decides whether or not to move forward. There is absolutely no way a mom-and-pop could break into this type of market. Even if it were somehow possible, it wouldn't even be to their economic advantage. That's why you never, ever see it.
Archited,
I find your argument contradictory, in one paragraph you are espousing the need for a free, competitive market, and in the next your crying foul on chain retail stores. It is such a tired argument, always framing large retailers as the boogie men. The free market, as expressed in the form of chain stores has brought so much to so many people. only a generation or two ago people wouldn't dream of having 2 TVs, 2 cars in their garage, a closet full of newer clothes, cell phones, microwaves, etc. etc. now these things are accessible for even many of our poorest people. Yeah it is materialistic, not everyone even has the luxury to be so self indulgent with the "money isn't everything" kind of thinking.
I don't even understand the attacking of all "development". This is our profession, we make buildings. Of course some existing buildings could be patched up and made to last longer, just like this can be done with cars, trains or just about everything else, but it doesn't leave much work for us if no one builds anything. Everyone rallies against suburban sprawl, mcmansions and at the same time, when a mixed use, medium density building is planned for an open infill location in the city, apparently this is no good either. Despite the fact the units are modestly sized and have been given a reasonable design and aesthetic effort, they are still not good enough. We already know high rise buildings are out, since those are only for rich yuppies. What exactly is left? Should no one even be in the building profession? or should we somehow all master the art of creating new, already existing 100 year old neighborhood buildings, complete with a family owned bakery renting the first floor unit?
Anyways, leaving the site as is was would just be a waste, it wasn't a forest reserve or anything attractive, it was more of a murky, filthy swamp. An eyesore at best. I've never seen any evidence that there is much of a market for the garden idea, and certainly not enough if you ask the garden renters to pay rents appropriate for pieces of land in that area.
Synergy,
Let me preface this by saying I am enjoying this discussion. I always enjoy a good, lively debate. I can understand how you see my views as contradictory...I sometimes do that. However, I do think that in a truly free, competitive market the big box/large chain retailers wouldn't be able to compete with the smaller, more local or regional retailers. We don't really exist in a free market like that now, however (no matter how often politicians proclaim that we do). We often see subsidies for large retailers to be brought to areas in the form of TIFs (which, I have no idea of this project received any TIF money...I'm just spitball'n) and other various forms of government intervention into the market place. I just personally don't believe in any of that. I don't think it is right, and I don't think it produces the best market or products. If everything were on a pure level playing field (yes, I know this would be an ideal world, which we do not live in) I think there would be a much more significant stride towards smaller local economies because everyone would see how much more beneficial it would be for their surrounding communities. And, I say this having my perspective tempered by working for a big box retail chain for 6 years while in high school and college.
I think part of the problem with the concept of inexpensive goods is the whole "american dream" that everyone was sold, very similar to what inspired people to believe that everyone could afford to own a home. God knows I can't afford a home, and probably won't be able to for probably another decade. Buying with credit versus savings helped propel people into thinking they could own tons of "stuff," instead of trying to get by with what they have. They figured they could just keep buying stuff, because they could pay for it later and hey, it was inexpensive (a direct result of almost all of our manufacturing going overseas to cheaper labor). The fact of the matter is not everyone can own a home, and not everyone can buy whatever they want, and a significant amount of our country is learning this hard lesson now.
I don't really see myself as attacking all development, although I don't agree with much of it. I understand that often times my job relies on development, but that doesn't stop me from trying to make it better. I am always striving to improve myself and everything I am involved with, and I don't mind failing as long as I try. But I always try to look at problems with the intent of solving them first through localization, conservation and sustainability. That is just my personal perspective that I always tackle problems from first, and if it is completely undo-able, then I look at other options.
As for leaving the site open and untamed, I personally don't see it as a waste at all. I don't see the need to completely develop every single parcel of land out there, especially when the current needs of the surrounding community are met by other establishments. Or leasing it to the city for a set amount of time as a park (which I am sure would lend to some strange insurance issues). Or making the land into some sort of share cropping. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17603 discusses a good book about the move to this in England. http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/farmadelphia.html is a link to an article speculating this being done in Philadelphia. The ideas for this stuff are out there, it is just a matter of convincing people to give it a try. Yeah, of course it won't generate the kind of massive profit that a large development would, but it goes back to my gambling analogy from a previous post...big risk for big loss/gain, or small risk for a small loss or gain. For me it is more about envisioning new and unique lands uses, even if it means marginalizing my profession.
I realize, especially on a forum like this where we only see glimpses of people's perspectives, that some of my comments or ideas may seem counter-intuitive to what my profession is. However, I use them everyday with my job and life and have survived thus far (granted, i live a very striped down, ascetic lifestyle). Although, I am not sure how you claim the "money isn't everything" ideal as being luxurious or self-indulgent...
Hey, we may not agree or see eye-to-eye, but at least it provides good conversation and it helps perpetuate the debate here...
"Norwegians are either utterly fascinated with the comings and goings of CTA buses, or there just aren't enough recreational activities in the land of fiords and Viking ships.
The CTA Bus Tracker Web site has received 15,395 visits since last year from people in Norway or whose computers or personal wireless devices were registered in that Scandinavian kingdom."
Trib
evil,
Is this the culprit?
;-)
i have worked for large companies and i have worked for mom and pops. fact is, they both suck. i feel no david vs. goliath rahrah for the small guy. fuck the mom and pop. viva walmart!
from chicagoist, had to post
hhhhhhhhh... when i metioned mom and pop stores inability to compete, or let alone exist in new construction, i was merely mentioning a simple fact... it was supposed to be a part of a "homogeneity is bad, heterogeneity is good so lets stop filling in our cities with upper middle class housing and chain stores" argument...
sweet pic though evil
"NJ Transit
NEWARK-New Jersey Transit's Access to the Region's Core (ARC) project aims to revamp the tri-state area's commuter rail system, and the centerpiece Mass Transit Tunnel project has taken a major step forward. The Federal Transit Administration has issued a "record of decision" for the $8.7-billion tunnel, signaling that it has cleared the final environmental review process. "
Ok so wheres ours? Why is it so hard for Illinois to get projects like this from congress? Oh I remember - we have shitheads representing us in DC more interested in minority politics and ethical grandstanding ( Im looking at you Durbin you worthless turd) Our great state is the 3rd highest tax revenue generating state in the nation yet recieves lower than 45th in federal money spent in state. Folks we are being robbed and have only ourselves to blame.
We need high speed rail to from O'hare, Midway to downtown.
We need a circle EL
We need a Suburban Belt Metra
We need a third airport
We need Blue line extensions to Yorktown and Woodfield to tie the edge cities into the center city
But we wont get it. Instead we'll get some feel good senior center that will generate 0 dollars in economic growth thats 500x over budget in someone's district for a few votes.
link
This should make all Chicagoan's blood boil over. Mike Doyle at Chicago Careless reports the new 2009 subway maps leave the Washington Red Line stop off the map as if it's not there when in reality they bungled it up so bad they dont want people to remember its there in moth balls partialy completed. As one commenter says, $200 million to lose the most convenient transfer station in the city, now thats a return on investment.
chicagocareless
I wonder if this will be on list of shovel ready projects. I have a feeling this could become our tunnel to nowhere. Good Luck Obama
future of chicago
Dang, I was hoping we'd have something more ambitious by 2055.
oh cruel irony doth thou ever rest? Richard Nickel's Home is up for demolition; Richard Nickel the famed architectural photographer whose pictures of ruins of Chicago's greatest structures started a new urban preservation movement
1810 w cortland
I guess it may be possible it would also burn down. that would be a twist.
Does anyone else here also participate on the Blair Kamin Skyline blog? Has anyone else had posts cencored or not posted at all? Blair is purposely controling the tone of his blog via the comments and its wrong. He doesnt seem to like disagreement with his views at all. If the poster is blatantly a goof ball he'll post it and respond. But deeper posts with some rehtorical bite - he just eliminates. Why is Chicago's architecture comunity so sheltered and defensive all the time? What are they scared of?
He is a nice guy but...
He rarely talks about Architecture.
There isn't anyone in town that does an interesting job of it, imho.
Yeah, I have noticed that as well. Kamin is a second rate journalist. I think that he is clueless about architecture, and therefore stifling any discussion. I get the feeling he is ignoring the current state of architecture in Chicago, and is just trying to be nationally recognized. Who knows what will come of him.....
...Layoffs I hope. He's less a critic and more a soap box speaker. In my dream of a better future, Tigerman and Kamin will elope to some distant land with no comunications back to home.
one can only hope......
He's into public policy and it's kinda' thin on substance.
I enjoyed Kamin's attack of the video screen on Block 37. I like that was a very specific and direct point.
Incidentally, who are the better newspaper architecture critic/writers that you prefer?
I like people who write about Architecture. Ousoroff does some. i read books. I read one on Murcutt that was pretty good. Leaves of Iron. There's more talk of Architecture in this 25 minute interview than anything than I have seen in the paper. I like when Renzo Piano writes. He can teach us something.
http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/audio/20050823features.ram
None - Like architecture professors, I see no reason for critics except to confuse the issues. I did like Lee Bay but hes moved into planning dept. Old Sun Times critic.
I think the issue may be that the others are writing books, which are generally targeted at architects and architecture enthusiests, while the critics generally write for newspapers that have more general audiences.
I wouldn't expect to find scholarly, peer reviewed medical papers in the newspaper and I suppose I wouldn't look for the architectural equavilent either. You guys are in the field, it only makes sense that architecture books and more in depth sources would appeal to you, you know?
lcourt strikes down chicago's landmarks ordinance calling it unconstitutionaly vague
Decent local issue blog concerning architecture / street life / planning around the city. Bookmark it if your looking for Chicago blogs beyong Chicagoist, windycitizen and gapersblock
chicagoarchitectureblog
Anyone here stroll by Cloud Gate recently? Apparently, someone decided to graffiti the sculpture with there names. Mayor Daly wants the perps to pay for it, although the article in the Tribune doesn't say if they were caught.
The Holy Name Cathedral is on fire, it looks like the fire started where the living quarters are on the upper floor. The fire department has it under control though.
They just finished restoring it too
:(
It looks like the fire started in the attic space directly above the main altar. I don't think that space is occupied (living quarters are elsewhere on the property), but it looks like a pretty bad fire.
Link to photo gallery on the Trib website
News reports indicate there are no injuries, but that damage to the church is extensive and it will likely be closed for several months at least.
My own church (also a landmark cathedral) here in NYC just finished restoration work after a severe fire in 2001, so my heart goes out to the Archdiocese and to the congregation. They've got a long road ahead of them.
Tear it down - filthy rats nest of kiddie porn fanatics.
yahooo!!!!!
we're the third most miserable city in the country!!!!
those "rankings" forbes does are just completely retarded. i don't think that magazine has anything interesting to say at all. and for many of those places they couldn't have picked more miserable photos to drive the point through. that said, i am pretty much miserable here.
le bossman have you found a job yet? Didnt u move here in winter? You picked a helluva time to arrive. It gets better.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.