What do 1920s gangster John Dillinger, actor Johnny Depp, and firm co-founder John Houseal have in common?
This week, Houseal Lavigne Associates moves into its new home on the second floor the Randolph Tower, located on the corner of Randolph and Wells within Downtown Chicago. Here are some fun facts about the historic skyscraper, formerly known as the Steuben Club Building.
It’s a cathedral in the sky.
The Steuben Club Building (1929) was designed in the gothic revival style, an architectural flavor that became re-popularized in the early 20th century. The style co-opted medieval design elements and applied them to the skyscraper in a manner that emphasized verticality. The 45 story building contains pointed arches, gargoyles, quatrefoils, and stylized buttresses commonly found in cathedrals.
It’s a symbol of a German-American patriotism.
German-Americans migrated to Chicago in droves in the 19th and early 20th century. During and in the years immediately after World War I, however, many Americans questioned their loyalty to the United States. The Steuben Club was formed to provide a respectable social and civic organization for German-Americans. Needing a distinctive headquarters, the group financed construction of the Steuben Club Building, which was completed in 1928. It contained an ornate dining room, recreation facilities, office space, a swimming pool, and more.
Its distinctive shape was influenced by Chicago’s landmark 1923 zoning code.
The Steuben Club is essentially a spyglass-shaped tower above a large box. Afraid of creating dark canyons, the City passed a 1923 zoning code to regulate the height and volume of buildings. This had a significant effect on the design of Downtown Chicago, introducing the usage of setbacks and slender towers above the main mass of the building. Take a closer look at the historic skyscrapers within the North Loop, such as the Jewelers’ Building (1927), Wrigley Building (1924), or Mather Tower (1928). All have this “base + tower” massing with a fairly consistent cornice line.
It was a hangout for the prominent 1920s gangster, John Dillinger.
Dillinger once dated one of the coat check-girls who worked at the Steuben Nightclub, and he was a regular in the building during their courtship.
It’s a movie star.
The building’s former Steuben Nightclub was depicted in the 2009 film “Public Enemies,” with Johnny Depp staring as John Dillinger.
It’s a fantastic example of adaptive re-use and is now the home of Houseal Lavigne Associates.
By the end of the 20th century the building had fallen into disrepair, with chunks of terracotta falling off of the façade onto the “L” tracks. Its unique floorplate and lack of modern amenities made it difficult to market. However, with the resurgence of interest in living downtown, the building was ideal for conversion into residences, with office and dining uses on the lower two floors (and Houseal Lavigne occupying part of the second floor). A $148.2 million dollar rehab completed in 2012 has brought back the building’s glory, and today it stands as proud as it did in 1929.
There is a renewed commitment within cities across the country to make it safer and more convenient to get around on a bike. Dedicated on-street bike lanes are an important component of this effort, together with strategies that include bike sharing programs, sharrows, better bike safety and awareness programs, and so on. However, once bike lanes are provided for cyclists, are they property protected for their intended use?
It is not uncommon for police to issue warnings or tickets to cyclists and skaters for riding in areas where such activity is prohibited. In fact, the ticketing of cyclists is on the rise as the popularity or urban cycling increases. However, is there a rise in the number of tickets being issued to those who obstruct the bike lanes? Maybe cities should focus their efforts on ticketing those that prevent the bike lanes from being used as intended.
In this short video, Casey Neistat humorously and painfully makes a good point regard the ticketing priorities of cities and the challenge of navigating the unintended urban obstacle course.
Enjoy…and thank you Casey.
Meg Ryan and the Big Box
This is the first blog that is part of the ongoing series Planning in Other Disciplines posted a few weeks back.
[Spoiler Alert]-this article includes detailed discussion of crucial plot points in the films discussed.
In 1998 Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks starred in the romantic comedy You’ve Got Mail, their third and to this date final film as co-stars (though they are set to appear together in the 2015 film Ithaca). Despite only having appeared in three films together, also including 1990’s Joe and the Volcano and 1993’s Sleepless in Seattle, the pair is cemented as a staple of 1990s romantic comedies, often panned as lacking substance in favor of simplistic plots and romantic clichés. From a planner’s perspective; however, the film provides an all-too-real application of a topical planning issue.
Adapted from the 1940 film Shop around the Corner, which was in turn adapted from Miklos Laszlo’s play Parfumerie, the film follows the struggles of Kathleen Kelly (Meg Ryan), who owns a small book store which faces closure due to the opening of a Fox Books megastore, a big box book retailer owned by Joe Fox (Tom Hanks).
The film parallels the professional struggles of Kathleen Kelly with her developing romantic relationship with Joe Fox. In their private lives, Kathleen and Joe have become romantically entangled as anonymous pen-pals who met through the internet. Even as Fox Books puts her out of business, Kathleen finds herself learning to love Joe Fox, and by proxy his company, both as the man she met online as well as the man who ruined her career.
From a planner’s outlook, the film offers an individual perspective on the big box debate. Modern day planners are readily familiar with the plight of the big box stores. With the popularity and success of big box retailers, how do planners deal with the expansion of these companies? How will a big box affect a specific municipality & do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages?
Within You’ve Got Mail Kathleen Kelly’s struggle clearly mimics one effect of mega-retailers, stealing small business consumers while providing low wages and limited benefits to employees. To Kathleen, Fox Books is a threat with no easy solution. Giving in means giving up.
Yet In an uncanny way, Kathleen Kelly’s struggles embody that of modern American cities. On one hand, big box retailers are a threat to local economies and small business while requiring massive parcels and huge parking lots. However, Kathleen falls in love with Joe Fox, just as cities fall in love with big box retailers. At the end of the day, very rarely are cities able or willing to regulate big box developments. These new stores provide affordable options for lower class residents, provide new jobs for the region, and act as catalyst for further redevelopment.
As planners, it is important to understand the love/hate relationship cities have with big box retailers. To say they are necessarily bad or good is rarely easy, but this is the dispute planners must direct. Despite rarely having the final say in the development of a big box chain, planners must learn to navigate this issues, providing solutions to help mitigate these new investments. Making decisions based on all the facts and how they may affect future conditions, a planner can alleviate tensions surrounding the big box retailer. Just as Kathleen Kelly learns to move beyond, and even love, Fox Books and the man behind it, cities must learn to work with and even strive off of big box developments and the benefits they can bring.
While big box developments may be a difficult reality, some communities have found ways to deter large department stores and chain retailers. Houseal Lavigne is currently working with a city that used strict regulations in their downtown to block big box developments and preserve locally owned businesses, in particular, a small local bookstore. Utilizing design regulations and zoning designations cities can control the type of development allowed in certain areas, helping to protect and grow small businesses. Through community wide support, cities are able to directly shape their identity.
I built a play table for my two daughters a few years ago with some shelves and a play rug from IKEA. Over time my girls began constructing a Lego city on top of the mat, so to make the surface a little more “Lego Friendly” I had a large piece of plexi-glass cut, and one afternoon I took their Lego off and put the plexi-glass on top. Then, I started to rebuild their city for them….using the rug as a guide, as my “Master Plan.”
My kids were devastated…I had ruined their city…I had ruined their life…
Where did I go wrong? I mean I know how to build a city, right?
A Poor Plan
The plan was flawed. I reconstructed their city following the IKEA mat religiously, without questioning its design. That was where I went wrong. I now recognize the design is terrible and my daughters had every right to be upset, here is why:
- This road goes out into the water for absolutely no reason. How did the environmentalist and fiscal conservatives even allow this to get into the plan?
- I like the crosswalk to the beach, but maybe it should be on the east side of that busy arterial street…you know, to where the larger beach area is…where you’ve shown the umbrellas?
- The traffic circle serves absolutely no purpose. It should be moved a little more to the west to align with the intersection. And while you’re at it, take another look at the road striping…something just isn’t right.
- I like the urban agriculture here, but I think you could have taken it further. Based on how strong the wind is blowing, as evidenced by the flags throughout, maybe some turbines? While you’re at it, how about some solar panels in the desert, and tapping into that molten lava for some geo-thermal heat.
- A tunnel through a mountain, next to a volcano that is spewing ash? What for? Economic development? It’s literally going through a desert. Delete.
- I know it’s nice to have some local commercial throughout the city, but a store in this location is just unrealistic.
- A lot of cities have brought their stadiums into their downtowns to spark revitalization and activity. The stadium here makes absolutely no sense. Was the impact of the city’s only neighborhood even considered? While it reminds me of Orchard Park (Go Bills!), I think it’s a bad idea. Relocate.
- This is a prime opportunity site in the middle of the city and we are leaving it empty? Don’t tell me its “too rocky” – you’ve already demonstrated that money is no object. Why don’t we level this site and put something special here? A town square or central park?
- Not sure what this is – a permanent circus? A bazaar? A gypsy town? This recommendation needs a little more info.
- Some large lot zoning might be okay here, you know, to preserve some of the cities natural resources, but is this just promoting sprawl? Must be nice to be king…private road, private lake, private forest…I think this is a lot of infrastructure for one house. Redesign with more density…with clustering
My girls as it turns out, wanted a “Main Street”, not some sprawling spaghetti bowl asphalt mess. So they ignored the plan and built the city they wanted over top. And good for them. Stay tuned, I’ll be following up with my review of their city.