Thompson Center to be sold/demolished: What happens to the station?

[Busjack]

You can find reported anywhere that Rauner has proposed selling the Thompson Center. moving out, and maybe letting some developer demolish it. The interesting side light, noted in a Crain's Disqus Board, is what happens to the CTA station, which relies on the Thompson Center for elevator access?

(I already commented there.)

[BusHunter]

That's completely nuts, there going to tear down a 20-25 year old building? This probably will never get off the ground but if it does there's always the north side of Lake street. Probably would be massively overcrowded but if you made the sb elevated platform have two entrances, the existing exit at the Clark stairwell and add a Lasalle one it could work.

[Busjack]

That's completely nuts, there going to tear down a 20-25 year old building? This probably will never get off the ground but if it does there's always the north side of Lake street. Probably would be massively overcrowded but if you made the sb elevated platform have two entrances, the existing exit at the Clark stairwell and add a Lasalle one it could work.

The question raised by the governor is how economically nuts it would be for the state to maintain the building. It would be up to the purchaser to decide whether to keep it, I'm sure having some impact on the price (if it ever gets to that).

There is an accessible entrance in the 201 N. Clark St. building, but I wonder if it does the job that the one at the Thompson Center does.

 

[jajuan]

A possible demolition wouldn't just affect the elevated Clark/Lake station. The Blue Line also gets impacted because CTA relies on the Thompson Center for the transfer between the subway and the elevated lines in addition to mentioned elevator access for ADA purposes. The state can try selling off the building if it wants to save money, but a developer would be nuts to demolish it. 

[Busjack]

Getting past Rauner and Madigan going at it again, this Sun-Times article points out that one of the issues in selling the Thompson Center is:

Madigan writes in the letter that he’ll continue to work with [Central Management Services] on issues related to the CTA station

And in the attached letter

I have directed my staff to provide any assistance necessary so that we may pass legislation advantageous to the State of Illinois, while providing the least disruption to CTA commuters utilizing the lines that feed into the Thompson Center. I am advised CMS is in negotiations with the City on issues related to the CTA station and the easement...

At least someone is thinking about it.

[Chicago13]

I would be perfectly happy to see whoever buys it place dynamite in strategic areas of the building and implode it even before the ink is dry on papers transferring ownership. It's an ugly, poorly designed monstrosity that should never have been built in the first place.

[dann]

3 hours ago, Chicago13 said:

I would be perfectly happy to see whoever buys it place dynamite in strategic areas of the building and implode it even before the ink is dry on papers transferring ownership. It's an ugly, poorly designed monstrosity that should never have been built in the first place.

I respectfully disagree that it should never have been built, it's just that it should have been designed to be much more energy efficient and space efficient than it is. It would have resulted in a bland-looking building but a more useful and efficient building that wouldn't even be the subject of a possible demolition. 

[Busjack]

9 hours ago, Chicago13 said:

I would be perfectly happy to see whoever buys it place dynamite in strategic areas of the building and implode it even before the ink is dry on papers transferring ownership. It's an ugly, poorly designed monstrosity that should never have been built in the first place.

 

6 hours ago, dann said:

I respectfully disagree that it should never have been built, it's just that it should have been designed to be much more energy efficient and space efficient than it is. It would have resulted in a bland-looking building but a more useful and efficient building that wouldn't even be the subject of a possible demolition. 

I'm not into architectural criticism. but have noted that a couple of years ago, the U of C was looking into architecture "that will last" in ripping down and replacing 1950s buildings while retaining the 1890s ones. Now the State is talking about ripping down a 1980s building.

There was some report that Helmut Jahn had a redevelopment proposal for it, but let's see if he comes up with the cash.

[jajuan]

13 hours ago, Chicago13 said:

I would be perfectly happy to see whoever buys it place dynamite in strategic areas of the building and implode it even before the ink is dry on papers transferring ownership. It's an ugly, poorly designed monstrosity that should never have been built in the first place.

It might be an ugly building to some, but I agree with dann on this one in his disagreement to the statement it never should have been built given its partial use as a major transit hub directly connecting the Blue Line to all the other CTA rail lines that pass through downtown and connecting all the downtown CTA rail lines to buses on LaSalle and those on Clark and on Dearborn. So the possibly several thousand riders per day who pass through both the elevated and subway Clark/Lake stations inside the Thompson Center likely wouldn't agree with you that it should never have been built and that it should be destroyed with little planning on how to minimize any disruptions to their commute that would result from demolition. The only reason the building is even being considered for possible sale and demolition is the state's finances being in such a wreck. Otherwise I doubt the state would be possibly looking to unload such a relatively young building. 

[Busjack]

28 minutes ago, jajuan said:

The only reason the building is even being considered for possible sale and demolition is the state's finances being in such a wreck. Otherwise I doubt the state would be possibly looking to unload such a relatively young building. 

But then it would be due to about 30 years of bad state finances, as the rationale is not just selling it for the sake of cash (Blago had a proposal for a sale leaseback to get the money out of it, which Lisa Madigan shot down) but that it was never maintained and is too costly to heat and cool.

Plenty of office space downtown to rent (as, for instance, Cook County took over the Brunswick Building), and, as I indicated above, if Jahn has a plan for salvaging it, come up with the funds.

[jajuan]

59 minutes ago, Busjack said:

But then it would be due to about 30 years of bad state finances, as the rationale is not just selling it for the sake of cash (Blago had a proposal for a sale leaseback to get the money out of it, which Lisa Madigan shot down) but that it was never maintained and is too costly to heat and cool.

Plenty of office space downtown to rent (as, for instance, Cook County took over the Brunswick Building), and, as I indicated above, if Jahn has a plan for salvaging it, come up with the funds.

Well I don't mean to take us too far out outside the realm of our forum, but I think general consensus among us and other state residents is that our state finance side of it is indeed probably decades old from bad financial decisions on both side of the political spectrum. But I do agree with you that anyone who might have a plan for the site needs to come up with the money the state might ask for.

[Busjack]

Somewhat predictable, Sun-Times article that Emanuel plans to hold up the sale of the Thompson Center unless someone else agrees to pay for replacing the CTA station. Besides the mentioned threat of holding up zoning approval, I suppose CTA has certain easement rights.

Even if this is all worked out, I suppose there would still be the question of maintaining service during construction, especially since this is a major transfer point.

[jajuan]

Well I think we can agree that even if the Mayor has some typical Emanuel style angle up his sleeve, this isn't a typical CTA wanting to do some major infrastructure renovation or new build with no clear plan communicated on how to pay for it. Yes the state has a right to sell off one of its properties. but the state did allow a CTA elevated station and subway station that connect with each other to be built in as part of that property, making that property a major transit hub as @Busjack acknowledges. So from that standpoint, CTA (and its passengers for that matter) does have a right to know if any potential sale will have an impact on service and the extent of that impact, or whether it will be forced into a renovation that it wasn't even planning. And it does appear that there is a rush to put the site up for sale with no clear plan or even any consultation with CTA of how service could potentially be affected at its rail stations at that site. Also from the standpoint that CTA could be forced into a renovation project it wasn't looking to have, in some small way the mayor does have a point on whether CTA should have to pay for it even if his motivation may not be totally pure (and I can't believe I'm agreeing with the mayor in one of his schemes ). 

[Busjack]

36 minutes ago, jajuan said:

And it does appear that there is a rush to put the site up for sale with no clear plan or even any consultation with CTA of how service could potentially be affected at its rail stations at that site.

Later articles (such as this Tribune one) have it more messed up than this. On the consultant's estimate on what the State could get for the land,

Stein, the state's real estate consultant, said his firm did not include the cost of a new station in its $300 million value for the land. He said a new station could cost $25 million to $100 million, while Emanuel pegged the price at $80 million to $120 million. But Stein also said a developer could preserve and enclose the existing station at "minimal cost."

If you remember back to the mid 1970s, there was a high end tobacconist on N.Michigan [name escapes me at the moment] that had a lease, so they built the building around it until it decided to move to Water Tower Place. More recently, the same happened with Banana Republic. I suppose something similar could be done, but considering how integrated the station is with the building, including the basement fare area, I don't see how.

Speaking of the basement, there is a lease to a commercial real estate company for the retail space, which would have to be bought out. And, for the numbers to work, the block would have to be  upzoned to the extent that a building almost as tall as the Freedom Center at One World Trade Center would have to be allowed. Then the city wants assurance that this doesn't become another undeveloped parcel, like Block 37 for ages. Hence, this isn't the slam dunk that Rauner thought. I don't think even Amy Kite can sell this one.

[jajuan]

16 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Later articles (such as this Tribune one) have it more messed up than this. On the consultant's estimate on what the State could get for the land,

Stein, the state's real estate consultant, said his firm did not include the cost of a new station in its $300 million value for the land. He said a new station could cost $25 million to $100 million, while Emanuel pegged the price at $80 million to $120 million. But Stein also said a developer could preserve and enclose the existing station at "minimal cost."

If you remember back to the mid 1970s, there was a high end tobacconist on the 700 block of N.Michigan [name escapes me at the moment] that had a lease, so they built the building around it until it decided to move to Water Tower Place. More recently, the same happened with Banana Republic. I suppose something similar could be done, but considering how integrated the station is with the building, including the basement fare area, I don't see how.

Speaking of the basement, there is a lease to a commercial real estate company for the retail space, which would have to be bought out. And, for the numbers to work, the block would have to be  upzoned to the extent that a building almost as tall as the Freedom Center at One World Trade Center would have to be allowed. Then the city wants assurance that this doesn't become another undeveloped parcel, like Block 37 for ages. Hence, this isn't the slam dunk that Rauner thought. I don't think even Amy Kite can sell this one.

I wasn't born till the mid 1970s and was still a baby at the time , but you still get into further reasons and examples of how this is far more complicated than the governor and our one member who agrees with a sale because of not liking the "ugliness" of the Thompson Center building would wish us to believe. Your point of the city not wanting this to turn into another Block 37 situation and wanting the assurance that it won't shows that someone at City Hall is showing some desire to learn how not to make that same mistake.

[BusHunter]

Well there is a building on the north side of Lake that can still serve as a transfer point. They could always close the south side's entrance and use the north side one. It may be crowded as the escalator is not as wide but it is a functional alternate. I think there is an elevator on that side as well. In the meantime they would have to find a viable way to use the south side entrance effectively. If they could lease that space from a future tenant perhaps they could save that space. They could also build a temporary elevator to the street or transfer bridge on the south side and ask you to transfer to the other side either crossing the street or transfer bridge. They probably should have designed it that way all along. This is where Western/Milwaukee blue line's design shows it's intelligence. One elevator goes to the transfer bridge and platform, one elevator goes to the street, platform and transfer bridge. Downtown building's make this design difficult though but in the Washington/Wells design, I believe they found a way to defeat that obstacle. This will also be the model for Washington/Wabash as well. I guess you could say the Harold Washington library stop was designed this way too. The problem with Clark/Lake is it was designed in 1989, I believe when elevator transit construction was in it's infancy and then you have the subway they are trying to link, so there are not that many good choices.

I often wondered why they didn't try to ever build a subway to elevated link at Randolph/Wells. (but that ship has sailed unfortunately) It would be perfect. you could've linked the other side of the loop elevated to the blue line's Clark/Lake - Wells entrance. Just think of the possibilities a link between sb brown line's, wb pink line's, nb purple line's without ever having to circle the loop. Now that is the perfect flowing transfer point. 

 

[Busjack]

10 hours ago, BusHunter said:

Well there is a building on the north side of Lake that can still serve as a transfer point. They could always close the south side's entrance and use the north side one. It may be crowded as the escalator is not as wide but it is a functional alternate. I think there is an elevator on that side as well. In the meantime they would have to find a viable way to use the south side entrance effectively....

But that raises the question whether the EB platform would be accessible.I don't sufficiently know the layout of the upper station, but relying on a transfer bridge would not be; they would need elevators like at Howard or Merchandise Mart (or as you say Western).

10 hours ago, BusHunter said:

If they could lease that space from a future tenant perhaps they could save that space.

As I previously mentioned, CTA undoubtedly now has and would get an easement. Legally that's the same as Peoples Gas or Comm Ed having the right to put underground transmission lines on your property. They don't pay rent to do that. The current issue seems to be that the current intergovernmental agreement between the State and CTA must not have contemplated what happens if the building is not there.

 

[Busjack]

5 years later, this was resolved. From the Finance subcommittee agenda:

Quote

Review of an ordinance authorizing an agreement and acknowledgement of easement with JRTC Holdings, LLC for renovation, operation, and maintenance of the Chicago Transit Authority Clark/Lake Station at the former State of Illinois Center Building, Chicago, Illinois

 

[jajuan]

On 5/16/2022 at 4:22 PM, Busjack said:

5 years later, this was resolved. From the Finance subcommittee agenda:

 

Finally. It's almost hard to believe it's been five and a half years since this discussion started and five since we all had our last in depth discussion on how CTA gets affected by this. Interestingly enough the three main players in this from state and city government are no longer in office. So the issue outlasted them. ?

[Guest ChicagoRail]

Google is buying out the Thompson Center! https://blockclubchicago.org/2022/07/27/google-is-buying-thompson-center/

[artthouwill]

19 minutes ago, ChicagoRail said:

Google is buying out the Thompson Center! https://blockclubchicago.org/2022/07/27/google-is-buying-thompson-center/

The article DID NOT MENTION anything about the attached CTA stations above ir below ground.   While I imagine that the Blue Line station will remain intact, will the access to the elevated station remain?  Is that part if the "respect " Google will have for the "iconic" building design?

[Busjack]

 

51 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

The article DID NOT MENTION anything about the attached CTA stations above ir below ground.   While I imagine that the Blue Line station will remain intact, will the access to the elevated station remain?  Is that part if the "respect " Google will have for the "iconic" building design?

If you had read my post of May 16, above, there is an easement agreement with CTA. That's a property right that attaches to the property. Also, the originl source the state's press release, says that the sale is still to JRTC, so any subsequent sale to Google would be subject to that. The release says the sale has closed, so JRTC now owns it.

Also, the city has made clear from the beginning that the station stays.

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

 

If you had read my post of May 16, above, there is an easement agreement with CTA. That's a property right that attaches to the property. Also, the originl source the state's press release, says that the sale is still to JRTC, so any subsequent sale to Google would be subject to that. The release says the sale has closed, so JRTC now owns it.

Also, the city has made clear from the beginning that the station stays.

Well we know that the Thompson Center renovations will take about 18 months to complete according to the news.  It will be interesting to see how energy efficient they can make it.  Apparently the state couldn't  

Regardless the stations will remain open, even during the renovations.   

[Busjack]

Sun-Times article that Google is moving the station entrance within the building to the corner of Clark and Lake.