The Chicago Plan Commission passed the plan to build the 13-story Vue53 at the McMobil site on Thursday. The only vote against the plan was from George Migala, who questioned why the height for the building was necessary.

“Why so high?” Migala said.

Mesa Development attorney Graham Grady said that to accommodate all the things the neighborhood supported during the 53rd Street Visioning Workshops a large building was needed.

“The community needs many things to be successful, as you are aware. There’s education, public safety, open space, retail, among other things you can name, “ Grady. “There was a process in the community, which called for more retail, which called for more residences and called for a stronger presence in the community of people to make the shopping district vibrant. The was also called for an increase in affordable housing … in order to achieve those things a taller building was needed, a larger building was needed.”

Architect Joe Valerio said they had considered lowering the building but the z-shaped tower would need to become h-shaped to accommodate the same number of apartments. That would put neighbors facing each other only 16 feet apart.
“We really thing the building is as low as it can go,” Valerio said.

More than 15 people came to Thursday’s meeting to speak in support of the project while only eight came to speak against it.

“I think there’s a lot more support in this community for this project than has appeared,” Burns said. “This is consistent with the values of the community as well. Many projects do not include affordable housing on site. This project includes not just the 10 percent that’s required by the ordinance but an additional 5 percent on site.” An additional 5 percent will be reserved in University of Chicago housing off site. The total number of affordable units created in Hyde Park as a result of Vue53’s construction is planned at more than 50.

Amanda Evans, who lives near the site, said the shadow study done by Mesa was incomplete. She said the times of day used to show that the building would not cast an overbearing shadow over neighboring homes was too short and hand-picked to show the project, 154 feet at its highest point, in a favorable light.

“We are not merely consumers and sources of revenue, but humans who … depend on sunlight,” Evans said.

Hyde Park Richard Gill resident spoke in support of the project and encouraged the commission not to allow fear of traffic congestion to deter their vote.

“One of the things that opponents of the project object to is fear that a neighborhood is going to suddenly be subject to gridlock because of the 200 and some cars that are going to be parking in this garage,” Gill said. “This project is too important to the neighborhood to be derailed by something like that.”

Where: Steppenwolf Upstairs Theatre, 1650 N. Halsted St.
When: through April 28
Tickets: $20-$78
Phone: 312-335-1650

By ANNE SPISELMAN
Theater Critic

The first — and best — production of Harold Pinter’s “The Birthday Party” I ever saw was at Court Theatre in 1978, in what was then the New Theatre in Mandel Hall. It was co-directed by Nicholas Rudall, who also played Goldberg, one of the two mysterious men who show up at the seaside home of Petey and Meg in pursuit of their boarder, Stanley, for crimes unknown. With the massive Bradley Mott as his cohort McCann, Rudall’s Goldberg was so menacing beneath the genial surface that the terrorized Stanley was reduced to a quivering mess, and the audience felt that a similar threat could be lurking anywhere, anytime.

Steppenwolf Theatre Company’s version of Pinter’s first full-length play, which originally was staged in 1958, is nothing like that. Director Austin Pendleton seems less interested in creating an atmosphere of impending doom than he is in illuminating the shifting dynamics among characters who continually contradict themselves (and each other) and can’t be certain of anything.

This approach yields some interesting insights and interpretations but reduces the overall impact of “The Birthday Party.” Even the decision to bring the audience closer to the action by reconfiguring the theater with rows of seats on either side of the platform stage is a double-edged sword. Walt Spangler’s scenic design features a dining room table that’s a potent symbol but practically limits the blocking to sitting at or circling around it, and observing fellow patrons across the room can be distracting. The openness also raises a question: Why doesn’t Stanley, played by the sizable Ian Barford, simply leave when Marc Grapey’s smaller McCann tries to block his way.

Actually, I found Barford’s performance problematic. The play’s power depends at least partly on our empathizing — and perhaps identifying — with this ostensibly ordinary, if neurotic, man who may or may not have been a world-traveling pianist and has been living at what may or may not be a boarding house for about a year, apparently hiding from someone or something, which as far as we can tell turns out to be Goldberg, McCann and the “organization“ they represent.

The problem is that this Stanley is such an angry, nasty piece of work that I had no sympathy for him. His meanness initially shows in the way he treats Meg, verbally abusing the poor middle-aged woman who cares for him; exchanges that might have been taken as affectionate sparring don’t sound that way. When Goldberg and McCann turn the tables with an absurdist interrogation worthy of a film noir, it almost seems fair. And Stanley’s reaction — a retreat into silence followed later by a violent outburst, ending in what comes across as post-torture resignation as he’s led quietly away — doesn’t inspire much emotion, either. Moira Harris, an ensemble member returning to Steppenwolf’s stage for the first time since 1998, portrays Meg as mentally challenged, vague and clueless as to what’s going on around her. At the party she’s planned for what may or may not be Stanley’s birthday, she’s preoccupied by her dress, charmed by Goldberg’s compliments and oblivious to Stanley’s torment. Pendleton’s direction also helps suggest her feelings for the boarder who may or may not be her son go beyond maternal, making her jealous of the neighbor, Lulu (Sophia Sinese, Harris’s daughter with Gary Sinese), who may or may not be Stanley’s girlfriend and, in her girlish outfits by Rachel Anne Healy, has a Lolita-like quality, rather than being a tart as in some productions.

Meg’s interaction with her husband, Petey, the deck-chair attendant played to a “t” by John Mahoney, humorously captures the banality of conversations between people who’ve been married for a long time, especially in the opening scene. But rather than betraying the irritation that a man might feel at his wife’s repetition of minutiae as he tries to read the paper, Mahoney’s Petey subtly displays patience and understanding, qualities that extend to his grasp of what’s happening to Stanley. His final words to his hapless boarder, “Stan, don’t let them tell you what to do,” also convey his sense of helplessness, the closest this show comes to being moving, at least for me.

As to the mysterious strangers, Francis Guinan gives a virtuoso performance as the multifaceted Goldberg, but he’s neither as frightening nor as fully in control as I would expect. At the actual birthday party, he embarrasses himself as much as he humiliates Stanley, and he’s the one who has a near meltdown later on. Grapey provides a good foil as his thuggish henchman, McCann, and their troubled relationship adds some of the tension that‘s missing elsewhere.

While I can appreciate the spin Pendleton is trying to put on “The Birthday Party,” emphasizing uncertainty rather than fear, it doesn’t really work for me – though it might for you.

Of Special Note:

Chicago Opera Theater (COT) is heading into unfamiliar territory with its second production under new General Director Andreas Mitisek. Astor Piazzolla and Horacio Ferrer’s “Maria De Buenos Aires,” called a “tango operita” by its creators when it premiered in 1968, is an exciting collaboration between COT and Chicago’s Luna Negra Dance Theater. Mitisek, the director, conductor and production designer, sets the action during Argentina’s “Dirty War” (1976-1983) when more than 30,000 people “disappeared” and many more were tortured and abused.
“Maria De Buenos Aires” is at the Harris Theater for Music and Dance for three more performances only: tonight, April 26, and April 28. For tickets ($35-$125), call 312-704-8414.

The 53rd Street TIF Advisory Board subcommittee on planning and development meeting moved from Kenwood Academy’s little theater into the large auditorium to accommodate the crowd at Tuesday’s discussion of the proposed high rise development at the McMobil site.

Roughly 150 Hyde Parkers discussed changes to the planned development, now called Vue53, that would take the building’s height down from 144 feet to 135 and increase the number of parking spaces from 218 to 230. The tower was also moved to the southwestern corner of the building to keep shadows from being cast on neighbors’ homes.

Mesa Development principal Jim Hanson took the opportunity to sell the $75 million, 13-story retail and residential building to neighborhood residents. Supporters of the development praised the additional retail and housing in the area while more opposed putting such a tall building in that space.

Mesa has not requested any tax increment financing dollars, a publicly funded tax base used to spur construction. Committee co-chair Chuck Thurow said Ald. Will Burns (4th) suggested the TIF Advisory Board meeting as a venue for the neighborhood to discuss the controversial plan.

“There are a number of changes that have been made to the building as a consequence of the input that we’ve heard. … There are going to be additional meetings on this moving forward as well. The Chicago Planning Commission has to meet. The City Council Zoning Committee has to meet. The City Council has to meet,” Burns said. “This process has been open and transparent. I’m not hiding anything. Everything is available on the Internet. … We want everybody informed about what we’re trying to do.”

Some Hyde Parkers were concerned that putting a building so tall would create a precedent that would allow more tall buildings in the neighborhood in the future.

“I can’t speak to precedent setting, clearly this is a tall building. There were tall buildings built before. There are apartment buildings being planned in Hyde Park that are going to be taller, there will be other tall buildings. What I can tell you is that on 53rd Street the university doesn’t have any plans to build any more buildings of this height,” U. of C. Vice President for Civic Engagement Derek Douglas said.

When Mesa first presented the project in January the rendering of the 30,000 square feet of retail was divided into two large spaces. For this meeting the rendering was divided into five spaces ranging in size from 3,000 square feet to 17,000 square feet.
Laurel Stratford, who owns What the Traveler Saw, 1508 E. 55th St., said she is concerned that having such a large space would be hard for a small business to sustain. Stratford sits on the 53rd Street TIF Advisory Board but not the subcommittee on planning and development.

“Many of us feel that we need more retail, but when I looked at your numbers, and you said it would not be all big box shops, most of the segments that you showed us were larger than what most of the smaller business people in this community could support,” Stratford said. What the Traveler Saw’s store is 1,200 square feet, she said.

Hyde Parker Lawrence White said he was initially opposed to a highly trafficked building so close to Murray Grade School, but eventually came to support the project.

“My son goes to Murray so I am concerned about increased traffic there. I know it is difficult to find parking for any event that takes place at Murray in the first place. I’m concerned that this is going to draw more traffic, White said. “This project is not the type of project that’s going to draw people from Chicago to Hyde Park so the parking should be in line with the already inconvenient parking of Hyde Park.”

l.welbers@hpherald.com

We have heard many estimates of just how many folks will be at that Garfield stop each day while the Red Line gets some much-needed repair, but we think it is pretty hard to determine just how many more people will be using the Green Line. What we are certain of, though, is that it is a very, very large number.

If you can use other modes of transportation — especially Metra and buses closer to the lakefront — use them. And for you intrepid types, the closures are just in time to enjoy a fine season of lakefront biking to and from your destinations.

We are told that, in order to rezone the site from its current designation in order to accommodate the new building, the zoning will have to be changed twice, once to a category that allows for an intermediate height and then again to allow for its 13 stories. This is not a mere procedural matter. It tells us that, even in Chicago, a leap from three and four story buildings to 13 stories is unusual.

This is not the sort of distinction our neighborhood should be eager to achieve.
The fundamental problem with this project’s density is that, once it is approved, there will be no rational reason to deny the next high-rise proposal on the street of similar size — or even higher. That makes every three- and four-story building on 53rd Street a ticking time bomb for developers. After all, there is lots of money to be made tearing down three story buildings and replacing them with high-rises.

Ald. Will Burns (4th), this decision is yours to make. The zoning changes needed will have to cross your desk for approval. You seem to have your mind made up, but we will remind you that former Ald. and now Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle — who is no enemy to developers — rejected a high-rise proposal at this very site after vociferous opposition from the neighborhood. She, among the most savvy politicians to have emerged from Hyde Park in recent years, made a different decision.

You may be convinced you are making the right call based on how things stand now, but how will you explain your position — for or against —when the next high-rise on 53rd Street is presented? If your vision for the street is a corridor of extreme density, that’s news to us —and to all those folks who voted for you. If you reject the next one as one too many, though, it will be hard to believe these are rational decisions — and you will antagonize the development community more than you would by scaling down this project.

What we need on 53rd Street is a rational system of development based on a consensus. What this development — and your unwavering support of it — has achieved is division and rancor. The most likely outcome of this course of action is hodgepodge development based on clout and strongarm tactics.

Is this the legacy we want to bequeath to future generations of Hyde Parkers?

Like Currie, we think the decision to close Canter must be reconsidered. It is a work in progress, and, in our view, overall signs are more favorable than not. Regardless of one’s views on Canter, however, there is a seventh grade class that has just one more year at the school. It simply doesn’t make sense to shuttle these children to another school just to send them the following year off to high school.

There can be no advantage in this disruption to their learning experience. In fact, one can anticipate just the opposite — that their ability to prepare for high school will be dampened by these changes. With millions of dollars being spent on schools citywide in anticipation of new students coming from schools being shut down by this process, surely the heat and lights for Canter will not break the bank at CPS.

During the intervening year, we would also urge CPS officials to reconsider their decision. There’s lots to like about the Canter Middle School environment, including dedicated teachers, a caring administration (all-too-rare in public schools) and real improvement in the academics of the students who attend the school. But regardless of what is decided during that year, postponing this decision means the educational outcomes of a class of students at Canter will not be hampered in the name of keeping to a timetable.

We think that’s worth keeping the lights on.

The Chicago Board of Education will soon make decisions about school closures, decisions that will disrupt communities and displace large numbers of students. One can only hope that the board’s decisions will be made with care and caution. One can only hope that dislocated students will find themselves in safer, better-performing schools in the fall. I know many in the community share my hopes – and my reservations.
I continue to hope that the board will decide against closing Canter Middle School, as it is a vibrant, academically sound and important resource for our neighborhood. If the board should decide to close Canter, I implore the members at a minimum to extend Canter for one more year. Current seventh-graders at Canter left their home schools last year, and they will be changing schools when they graduate from eighth grade next year. Chicago Public Schools stresses continuity and its current philosophy supports schools that cover the elementary school landscape, from kindergarten through eighth grade.

Only some of the seventh-graders at Canter can return to their home schools. Even though Harte and Ray are receiving schools for Canter youngsters, only 19 of the 105 Canter seventh-graders started out at either Harte or Ray. The largest number of seventh-graders at Canter — 38 — came to Canter from Shoesmith. Under the current plan, they can’t go back to Shoesmith, as Shoesmith has no eighth grade. Nearly 30 youngsters came from schools in Woodlawn, South Shore and other parts of the city. All of these students have one more year of elementary school. They left their home school for a year, they’ve had one year at Canter, many of them will find themselves in yet a third school before they embark the next year upon a fourth, the high school they’ll enter after the next academic year.

This isn’t good for continuity. Four schools in four years is a lot of disruption, and I can’t imagine it will provide our children with the best education our public schools have to offer. I have urged the Chicago Board of Education to keep Canter open for at least the next academic year — and to reconsider the decision to close Canter at all.

Alderman Burns:

I am comforted to know that you are supportive of the current development plans of the McMobil site. After reading all the articles in the Herald and having my cars and homes blanketed with opposition flyers, I decided to write you. Many of my neighbors also support this development but quite frankly lack the time or desire to write letters and attend countless meetings to have our voices heard. It seems intuitive to us that the development is needed and that many of us want more from our neighborhood. I have lived here as a homeowner for nearly 18 years, plus another two as a renter during graduate school. In all these years, I have never once walked down 53rd street to shop! I would love to have lunch and stroll through the neighborhood much like I do in other neighborhoods. I have seen this done quite tastefully in other urban areas with a university presence. My husband and I have wondered why this neighborhood has not been attractive to developers as we certainly have the income base to support more retail. Over the years, it has become clear to us that the neighborhood is divided into those that want more upscale development and those that want it to remain the same or change under their tightly defined ideas. It is very frustrating.

The only point of the opposition to which I will concede is that it will bring more traffic and congestion. Am I to understand that the opposition only wants shoppers and residents that will walk rather than use a car? What about people from other neighborhoods that will want to drive here to shop? Don’t the retailers want as much traffic as possible? Yes, the traffic will be an inconvenience to all of us, but traffic is a natural by-product of development. This one development cannot solve all the parking problems in Hyde Park. We live in a major city and nearly everywhere we go there is traffic. People adjust; they will drive and be prepared to walk a few blocks just like we do in other neighborhoods.

Yes, the project will be one of the largest in the area. However, it is clearly not a “skyscraper” or the only project of this size. The project is attractive and will enhance a lot that has been an eye sore for a very long time. The flyers say the retail spaces are for big box stores. Big box to me is a Walmart and clearly the space is too small for such a retailer. The largest space appears to be in the same range as the Treasure Island or the old Co-op (new Ross Store) on 47th Street or the planned Whole Foods development. I also heard that the height of the project will cast a shadow over the park. While this “seems” unlikely, even if it is, should the entire neighborhood be held hostage based on this point? Are the owners of adjacent buildings entitled to limit the use of neighboring sites because they will have less sun?

Are we willing to overlook the fact that the project will add TIF dollars and contribute to the current deficit? In theory, we “could” do better, but it’s the best project for the site that I have seen in my 20 years in the area. Must we wait another 20 years for a developer to do it exactly the way “we” want it?

Alderman Burns, please have the courage to do what you know is best for the growth and development of our neighborhood — approve the deal!

Evonne Taylor

I stand with the 2,183 University of Chicago students who voted on the student government election ballot in favor of the fossil fuel divestment referendum, as reported by Lindsay Welbers in the May 8 issue. My wife attends the University of Chicago, earning a Ph.D. in Theology, and she voted in favor of the referendum. In the two-and-a-half years we’ve lived here, my opinion of the U. of C. administration has changed greatly. When we moved to Hyde Park, I was under the assumption that the administration was progressive, transparent and responsive to their students. Ha! I’ve learned better.

The administration shows no sign of acting on this referendum: “[T]he university routinely rejects efforts to tie its portfolio to social justice considerations, citing the university’s tradition of insulating decisions from political pressure of any kind. This position has led to rejection of efforts to compel the university to divest from Sudan and South Africa, among other politically charged areas.” Quite a tradition. The U. of C. administration failed to use their huge pile of money to help South Africans struggling under the oppression of apartheid. Maybe they can use some of that money to take a course in ethics from their own institution.

If the U. of C. administration remains recalcitrant, I urge the UChicago Climate Action Network (UCAN) and anyone else concerned to escalate their efforts and increase their action. In the 1980s, Harvard was reluctant to divest from South Africa, too. Activists there set up an escrow account to which alumni and other donors could make contributions to Harvard. The money would only be released after Harvard divested, however. Such a tactic can work again.

George Abitante, U. of C. student and UCAN member, put it best, “As a member of the global community the university has a moral obligation to do its part and avoid any investments or actions that are detrimental to its students in general or the world as a whole and we think we can do this without doing harm to the university or the student population.”

Jason Duba

As a U. of C. alum (received an A.B. in geography, winter 1977), I remind the fine, outstanding citizens who today call Hyde Park home that:

During the decade of the 1950s with some spillover into the 1960s, the University of Chicago not only threatened but also endeavored to leave Hyde Park. It was only through the gentle persuasion of certain Hyde Park visionaries that the U. of C. remained where it is today.

Had I been alive and of age at that time, I would have said directly to the U. of C.: “If you want to go, do just that; you’re free to go! I, for one, have great confidence that Hyde Park will not go to hell in a handbasket!”

Now, fast forward — Hyde Park will soon not be known as Hyde Park, but as “University of Chicagoland,” because, for a number of years, the U. of C. has quietly taken over so much of Hyde Park, it is as if it were boldly and brazenly executing a hostile takeover of Hyde Park!

This leads me to comment on “McMobil.” For all the sins Exxon-Mobil has, or is, committing (depending on your point of view), at least it is an American company. Let’s just allow Mobil to stay right where it is. Let’s just allow its corresponding car wash to stay right where it is.

I kindly urge those of you who do not go to this particular Mobil and car wash and have a set of wheels to do just that and maybe you’ll learn something!

Gregory Simonic Peter Papesh