This project has been floating around for a short while now, but we're starting to see signs that things are getting serious with 108 North Jefferson Street.
The 34-story apartment block is ready to go before the Chicago Plan Commission. It's a fairly typical Chicago building: 304 residences sitting on a parking garage podium. While it's not a stand out building, it's certainly light years better than what's there now: Yet another surface parking lot.
We first mentioned 108 North Jefferson in September of 2008, and again in February of 2009. Since then it's been scaled down a little bit -- from 41 stories to 34, and from 311 residences to 304.
I've heard some people complaining that this project doesn't offer any ground floor retail, but I think they're mistaken. On the planning documents I've seen there are clearly designated retail spaces on Jefferson Street. Not much, maybe one or two shops could fit in there, but to say there is no retail element is a falsehood.
For you height junkies -- the roof will be at 352 feet and one inch (352.08 feet). The total building height will be 373 feet, seven inches (373.58 feet).
And because we're all so eco-conscious these days, there will be a 9,200-square-foot green roof, and the entire project is going to basic LEED certification.
Those of you who love reading the nitty-gritty of these sorts of things will enjoy the public documents on it:
Showing posts with label proposals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label proposals. Show all posts
Monday, November 30, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
What the City Wants and Doesn't Want in a Burnham Memorial
The competition to design a new memorial to Daniel Burnham marking the 100th anniversary of his plan for Chicago has been described as difficult.
A field of 20 architecture and design firms has been whittled down to three finalists and the winner will be announced June 19th.
The Burnham Park Memorial Committee had some very specific requirements of the firms that were invited to the competition, and we're told that each came up with a very different solution.
For the purposes of giving the firms some design constraints to work with, they were told that the memorial would be located on the north side of the Field Museum, and that the budget for the project was five million dollars.
That's the same amount that was spent on the peristyle at the northwest corner of Millennium Park, which is officially known as the Millennium Monument.
Though official fundraising hasn't begun, several entities are already doing what they can to support the effort. Among them, the Talbott Hotel, the Graham Foundation, and American Airlines.
Richard Driehaus, the man who recently turned a Near North mansion into a museum, has pledged $250,000 for the effort. That's a personal pledge from him -- not from a company, foundation, or organization. Not many people are that generous these days.
The 20 firms in the competition were encouraged, but not required, to include the following:
A field of 20 architecture and design firms has been whittled down to three finalists and the winner will be announced June 19th.
The Burnham Park Memorial Committee had some very specific requirements of the firms that were invited to the competition, and we're told that each came up with a very different solution.
For the purposes of giving the firms some design constraints to work with, they were told that the memorial would be located on the north side of the Field Museum, and that the budget for the project was five million dollars.
That's the same amount that was spent on the peristyle at the northwest corner of Millennium Park, which is officially known as the Millennium Monument.
Though official fundraising hasn't begun, several entities are already doing what they can to support the effort. Among them, the Talbott Hotel, the Graham Foundation, and American Airlines.
Richard Driehaus, the man who recently turned a Near North mansion into a museum, has pledged $250,000 for the effort. That's a personal pledge from him -- not from a company, foundation, or organization. Not many people are that generous these days.
The 20 firms in the competition were encouraged, but not required, to include the following:
- A sculpture of Daniel Burnham.
- Narrative elements to make it a teaching facility and not just another statue out standing in its field.
- A donor wall to permanently thank those who made it possible
- A water feature
- Dramatic lighting elements
- A seating area within the memorial.
- A viewing area outside the memorial.
For inspiration, the entrants were pointed to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt National Memorial in Washingotn, DC. Some of its elements:
In addition to the requirements from the Memorial Committee, the contestants are up against Mayor Daley's order not to mess with the view of the Chicago skyline from the Museum Campus. Unlike everything else from the committee, the Mayor's orders are orders, not suggestions. It's for that reason that we hear that of the three finalists currently being considered, none of them have much in the way of verticality. All are pretty low and integrated into the terrain.
We'll keep you updated on what happens, and keep an eye on our Twitter feed on June 19th for the announcement of the winner.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Finding a Home for Daniel Burnham
Any large project undertaken in a major metropolitan area is going to be fraught with controversy. It's just the nature of the game.
The current game being played is "Where's Burnham" -- an exercise is finding the perfect, or rather least imperfect, location for the new Daniel Brunham Memorial.
A number of locations have been proposed and rejected for one reason or another, but officially at least, none has been chosen.
View Larger Map
View Larger Map
Also on the list -- the Congress Parkway median between Michigan Avenue and Buckingham Fountain (again, see the map). This location has great promise because it features some of Burnham's greatest design work and is at the epicenter of his vision for the city.
But some feel the space is too constricted and hard for visitors to get to. Congress Parkway is still a very busy thoroughfare in this area, especially during rush hours. It might necessitate a bridge to get people there, like the one now linking the Lurie Garden with the Art Institute of Chicago's Modern Wing. That won't work. Vertical elements are very heavily frowned upon by those judging the competition.
View Larger Map
That leaves one other place under consideration: The forecourt of the Field Museum (map).
Until the recent realignment of Lake Shore Drive, this area was tiered surface parking lots. The Chicago Park District has since transformed it into a grassy oasis giving people driving down the Drive a dramatic view of the Field Museum, and giving people on the north side of the Field Museum a dramatic view of the Chicago skyline.
That's one reason the Park District likes this location -- it has a goal of drawing more visitors into the area immediately north of the museum. It's seen as an underutilized area. The hope is that the Burnham Monument would help organize the area and people would use the additional walkways instead of blazing their own goat paths across the grass.
Also backing this location are officials with the Museum Campus who see a Burnham monument in their backyard as part of the campus' continuing mission as an educational institution.
The area just north of the Field Museum is officially known as Burnham Park, and a statue in the proposed zone could conceivably gaze out over its namesake park, across the city Burnham designed, with the Field Museum (another Burnham design) at his back.
How firm is this location for the Burnham Memorial? It depends who you ask.
While it is true that this location was given to the 20 firms that entered the Burnham contest as a location, the official word from contest organizers is that it's not set in stone. It was given to the contestants as an example of an ideal location, so that they would have something to design against.
Others don't see it that way. People who live nearby believe the North Field location is a fait accompli, and is being shoved down Chicago's throat with no input from the public.
Organizers have promised that the public will have a chance to give its input on the location at meetings to be held after June 19th. But that's not soon enough for some.
They criticize the location as being impractical in winter. They claim that it would only be used seasonally because of its proximity to the lake. But others who actually live nearby say winter is no obstacle for thousands of people who use the area year-round right now.
And then there are those who believe any location in grant Park is a bad one. They feel that there is already enough "furniture" in Grant Park, and that spaces that were once natural oases are being overrun by man-made accoutrements. There is something to be said for this view. Though many look to Millennium Park as a great success in terms of urban park planning, others see it a similar application elsewhere in Grant Park as the worst possible outcome -- turning green spaces into low maintenance pseudo amusement parks.
The current game being played is "Where's Burnham" -- an exercise is finding the perfect, or rather least imperfect, location for the new Daniel Brunham Memorial.
A number of locations have been proposed and rejected for one reason or another, but officially at least, none has been chosen.
View Larger Map
One location under consideration by the organizers of the Burnham competition is in a field in Grant Park south of the sitting Lincoln statue (see map above). Officially, the name of this area is President's Court. It has the advantages of being somewhat centrally located in Grant Park, and in an area with a fairly low density of other monuments.
But the Chicago Park District doesn't like that location for a Burnham Monument. Can you guess why?
Don't tell anyone, but it's being "held" in reserve for a future Barack Obama monument. Barack Obama's statue would stare north across Congress Parkway at the existing Abraham Lincoln monument. Get the symbolism? At this point, unless Barack Obama sets off a nuke in the White House, he's pretty much socially guaranteed a place in Grant Park.
View Larger Map
Another area being looked at is the northern part of Grant Park (see map above). There are already plans underway to rehab the entire area, providing better links to the lakefront, rehabbing the leaking parking garages underneath all of the pretty gardens, and to make the entire area a little more cohesive.
But organizers feel the zone has been tainted by the Children's Museum controversy and won't touch it with a ten foot pole for fear of being sucked into that mess.
Also on the list -- the Congress Parkway median between Michigan Avenue and Buckingham Fountain (again, see the map). This location has great promise because it features some of Burnham's greatest design work and is at the epicenter of his vision for the city.
But some feel the space is too constricted and hard for visitors to get to. Congress Parkway is still a very busy thoroughfare in this area, especially during rush hours. It might necessitate a bridge to get people there, like the one now linking the Lurie Garden with the Art Institute of Chicago's Modern Wing. That won't work. Vertical elements are very heavily frowned upon by those judging the competition.
View Larger Map
That leaves one other place under consideration: The forecourt of the Field Museum (map).
Until the recent realignment of Lake Shore Drive, this area was tiered surface parking lots. The Chicago Park District has since transformed it into a grassy oasis giving people driving down the Drive a dramatic view of the Field Museum, and giving people on the north side of the Field Museum a dramatic view of the Chicago skyline.
That's one reason the Park District likes this location -- it has a goal of drawing more visitors into the area immediately north of the museum. It's seen as an underutilized area. The hope is that the Burnham Monument would help organize the area and people would use the additional walkways instead of blazing their own goat paths across the grass.
Also backing this location are officials with the Museum Campus who see a Burnham monument in their backyard as part of the campus' continuing mission as an educational institution.
The area just north of the Field Museum is officially known as Burnham Park, and a statue in the proposed zone could conceivably gaze out over its namesake park, across the city Burnham designed, with the Field Museum (another Burnham design) at his back.
How firm is this location for the Burnham Memorial? It depends who you ask.
While it is true that this location was given to the 20 firms that entered the Burnham contest as a location, the official word from contest organizers is that it's not set in stone. It was given to the contestants as an example of an ideal location, so that they would have something to design against.
Others don't see it that way. People who live nearby believe the North Field location is a fait accompli, and is being shoved down Chicago's throat with no input from the public.
Organizers have promised that the public will have a chance to give its input on the location at meetings to be held after June 19th. But that's not soon enough for some.
They criticize the location as being impractical in winter. They claim that it would only be used seasonally because of its proximity to the lake. But others who actually live nearby say winter is no obstacle for thousands of people who use the area year-round right now.
And then there are those who believe any location in grant Park is a bad one. They feel that there is already enough "furniture" in Grant Park, and that spaces that were once natural oases are being overrun by man-made accoutrements. There is something to be said for this view. Though many look to Millennium Park as a great success in terms of urban park planning, others see it a similar application elsewhere in Grant Park as the worst possible outcome -- turning green spaces into low maintenance pseudo amusement parks.
- Coming up tomorrow: What the city does and doesn't want in a Burnham memorial.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Picking an Homage to Daniel Burnham
As you read this, a distinguished panel of architects, urban planners, and other city insiders is deciding what is the appropriate way to honor the only man in history to have more impact on the shape of Chicago than either Mayors Daley.
His name is Daniel Burnham, and whether you see the city today as the fruit of his loom, or as a botched attempt at half-greatness, it is undeniable that he, quite literally, laid the blueprints for today's Chicago -- and for many other cities, including Washington, DC; Cleveland; San Francisco; and Manila in the Philippines.
Last Friday a field of 20 local and international architecture firms narrowed down to three finalists presented their ideas for a grand monument honoring Burnham to a committee at a very closed-door meeting deep inside the Chicago Cultural Center.
The three finalists are:
The original field of 20 architecture firms invited to enter the Burnham Memorial competition was heavily criticized for including only 15 Chicago firms. But two-thirds of the finalists are locals. Also interesting is that local starchitecture firm SOM didn't make the grade.
The process has also come under fire for not yet including the public. That is to come, organizers note. They defend the process thus far by saying that contest rules laid out by the American Institute of Architects are being followed. But that wasn't enough for people at an informational meeting in Grant Park last week.
Members of the audience felt like they were being asked to approve a plan and a location that they haven't yet seen. The presenters promised that everything will become clear as soon as a winning design is chosen.
That decision will be announced June 19, 2009. Until then, everything is very hush-hush.
The organizers of the competition feel that the firms competing can do their best work if left to their own devices and not subject to public scrutiny at such an early stage. There were particularly harsh words for Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin, who has been an early critic of locating the Burnham Monument at the southern end of Grant Park near the Field Museum and of the process, itself. Organizers think Kamin's criticism is premature and he should wait to see the actual results before he lobs stones from the Trubine's bully pulpit.
So, what do the firms who enter this contest get? The winner gets $25,000. The runner up gets $10,000, and third place $5,000.
In an ideal world, public meetings to gather input on the finalist's design will be held this summer, after the June 19th unveiling. Fundraising for the monument would happen shortly after that, and the organizers hope to be able to start moving dirt in 2010.
All we know so far about the designs comes from Ed Uhlir -- the same guy who honchoed Millennium Park -- who said, "Each one is extremely different." Feedback from the 20 firms that were invited to the competition ran along the lines of this being a very challenging project. Put bluntly, "this was very hard."
Once the final design is chosen, there will be public exhibitions showcasing all of the entries. The first one will be held at the Field Museum, then the show will go on the road, possibly to various schools and community centers across the city.
His name is Daniel Burnham, and whether you see the city today as the fruit of his loom, or as a botched attempt at half-greatness, it is undeniable that he, quite literally, laid the blueprints for today's Chicago -- and for many other cities, including Washington, DC; Cleveland; San Francisco; and Manila in the Philippines.
Last Friday a field of 20 local and international architecture firms narrowed down to three finalists presented their ideas for a grand monument honoring Burnham to a committee at a very closed-door meeting deep inside the Chicago Cultural Center.
The three finalists are:
- David Woodhouse Architects of Chicago
- Hoerr Schaudt Landscape Architects of Chicago
- Sasaki Associates of Boston
The original field of 20 architecture firms invited to enter the Burnham Memorial competition was heavily criticized for including only 15 Chicago firms. But two-thirds of the finalists are locals. Also interesting is that local starchitecture firm SOM didn't make the grade.
The process has also come under fire for not yet including the public. That is to come, organizers note. They defend the process thus far by saying that contest rules laid out by the American Institute of Architects are being followed. But that wasn't enough for people at an informational meeting in Grant Park last week.
Members of the audience felt like they were being asked to approve a plan and a location that they haven't yet seen. The presenters promised that everything will become clear as soon as a winning design is chosen.
That decision will be announced June 19, 2009. Until then, everything is very hush-hush.
The organizers of the competition feel that the firms competing can do their best work if left to their own devices and not subject to public scrutiny at such an early stage. There were particularly harsh words for Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin, who has been an early critic of locating the Burnham Monument at the southern end of Grant Park near the Field Museum and of the process, itself. Organizers think Kamin's criticism is premature and he should wait to see the actual results before he lobs stones from the Trubine's bully pulpit.
So, what do the firms who enter this contest get? The winner gets $25,000. The runner up gets $10,000, and third place $5,000.
In an ideal world, public meetings to gather input on the finalist's design will be held this summer, after the June 19th unveiling. Fundraising for the monument would happen shortly after that, and the organizers hope to be able to start moving dirt in 2010.
All we know so far about the designs comes from Ed Uhlir -- the same guy who honchoed Millennium Park -- who said, "Each one is extremely different." Feedback from the 20 firms that were invited to the competition ran along the lines of this being a very challenging project. Put bluntly, "this was very hard."
Once the final design is chosen, there will be public exhibitions showcasing all of the entries. The first one will be held at the Field Museum, then the show will go on the road, possibly to various schools and community centers across the city.
- Coming up tomorrow: The controversy surrounding the location of the Burnham Memorial.
- Wednesday: What the city does and doesn't want in a Burnham Memorial.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Chicago River Tower May Be Scaled Back
Plans for a new skyscraper on one of the last remaining patches of Chicago Riverfront aren't working out. Crain's Chicago Business reports that Hines, the Houston developer of the project has come to an agreement to terminate the lease of its anchor tenant.
The skyscraper would have been located across from Wolf Point, on the west bank of where the main channel of the Chicago River meets the North and South branches. Architecture observers were eager to see how the tower would be designed to fit the tight space available, possibly with some suspension over the Amtrak and Metra rail lines running through the site.
This appears to be an example of a good plan killed by a bad economy. Hines had two anchors lined up to take space in the 52-story tower, and agreements covering far more space than is usually needed to begin construction. But the banks, in spite of the TRILLION dollars in taxpayer money they've been given by congress in order to start lending money again, refused to lend money to Hines -- a company with a proven track record in America and abroad for developing winning towers.
So, what's next for the project? According to Crain's, Hines may downsize the tower which would be a real shame considering its prominent location. Even at its original planned height, it wasn't all that tall. 52 stories may buy you some cachet down in the Bayou City, but up here it's not even the median height of a Chicago skyscraper.
The location is a rare opportunity to build another terminating tower like the Chicago Board of Trade building at the end of LaSalle Street. The Hines building would have capped the Chicago River in an iconic fashion. Anything less than spectacular is undeserving of the location.
The skyscraper would have been located across from Wolf Point, on the west bank of where the main channel of the Chicago River meets the North and South branches. Architecture observers were eager to see how the tower would be designed to fit the tight space available, possibly with some suspension over the Amtrak and Metra rail lines running through the site.
This appears to be an example of a good plan killed by a bad economy. Hines had two anchors lined up to take space in the 52-story tower, and agreements covering far more space than is usually needed to begin construction. But the banks, in spite of the TRILLION dollars in taxpayer money they've been given by congress in order to start lending money again, refused to lend money to Hines -- a company with a proven track record in America and abroad for developing winning towers.
So, what's next for the project? According to Crain's, Hines may downsize the tower which would be a real shame considering its prominent location. Even at its original planned height, it wasn't all that tall. 52 stories may buy you some cachet down in the Bayou City, but up here it's not even the median height of a Chicago skyscraper.
The location is a rare opportunity to build another terminating tower like the Chicago Board of Trade building at the end of LaSalle Street. The Hines building would have capped the Chicago River in an iconic fashion. Anything less than spectacular is undeserving of the location.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Details on New 41 Story Apartment Tower For West Loop
Elsewhere on this blog someone asked for some information on the surface parking lot at 108 North Jefferson Street. I answered the question there, but since most people don't spend their time reading all of the comments on this blog, I thought I'd make a separate post for it as well.
These facts are, of course, fluid. Nothing is concrete until it's built in concrete. So things may have changed radically, but here's the latest I have on 108 N. Jeff.:
Naturally a swimming pool and all the usual amenities are planned.
Last I heard this is still in the permitting stage. Traffic and other studies have to be done first. If anyone has any better information, post it here.
These facts are, of course, fluid. Nothing is concrete until it's built in concrete. So things may have changed radically, but here's the latest I have on 108 N. Jeff.:
Name: 108 North Jefferson
Stories: 41
Height: 430 feet
Use: Rental apartments
Architect: Solomon Cordwell Bunez
Office space: 93,000 square feet
Retail space: 12,500 square feet
Apartments: 311
Garage: 5 stories
Parking spaces: 246
Naturally a swimming pool and all the usual amenities are planned.
Last I heard this is still in the permitting stage. Traffic and other studies have to be done first. If anyone has any better information, post it here.
Friday, October 17, 2008
North side NIMBYs at it again
Just in time for Halloween, the old ladies of Chicago's Near North Side are at it again.
Back in the 60's and 70's they bought their plush homes in the sky on streets like Delaware, Chestnut, and Clark. Now that a new generation wants a taste of that life, it's all hands on deck for a fight against change.
The latest target of their elderly invective is the proposed residential tower at 111 West Chestnut Street. A recent article in the Chicago Journal outlined the typical bogus grievances about congestion and neighborhood character and oh... a new one -- sewer capacity.
It's the usual crowd of people who already have their high-rise lifestyles trying to keep anyone else from having it; or worse -- marginalizing their view!
It's hard to argue that a building with just 59 residences will have much of an impact on traffic, but the geriatric gentrifiers have dragged that old saw out of the complaint toolshed. They're also claiming that the building's residents will clog the buses and subways, too.
But most of the complaints are about "neighborhood character." The old ladies are afraid that if anyone else is let in things might change. Because, you know, the neighborhood has never changed before. And it's exactly the same today as it was before all those old ladies got their dee-lux apartments in the sky-high-high.
So what are they trying to preserve?
A quick look at 111 West Chestnut's current state reveals... plastic Walgreen's bags. A brick. Sand. Dirt. McDonald's cups. And what maybe an adult diaper.
If that's the neighborhood character they're so desperate to cling to, I say bring on the cranes and bulldozers. We're a movin' on up!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Another parking lot bites the dust (we hope)
If there's one thing that doesn't belong in downtown Chicago it's surface parking lots. They contribute virtually nothing to the economic, social, and visual vitality of the area. And fortunately, there may be one fewer soon.
According to the Fulton River District e-mail bulletin, the parking lot at 108 North Jefferson could soon make way for a multi-use building.
View Larger Map
That's the lot a block behind the Citigroup Center, northwest of the ABN AMRO Technology Center.
As more and more people move into the area, we can hope that fewer and fewer surface parking lots will survive and the area can become a thriving home to thousand of new Chicagoans.
According to the Fulton River District e-mail bulletin, the parking lot at 108 North Jefferson could soon make way for a multi-use building.
View Larger Map
That's the lot a block behind the Citigroup Center, northwest of the ABN AMRO Technology Center.
As more and more people move into the area, we can hope that fewer and fewer surface parking lots will survive and the area can become a thriving home to thousand of new Chicagoans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)