Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: End run on JRTC sale?
Next Post: The GOP framing
Posted in:
* Should the Thompson Center be sold? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:17 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: End run on JRTC sale?
Next Post: The GOP framing
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Way too much deferred maintenance. Sell it.
Comment by Anon2U Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:20 am
Voted No. The CTA issues have the potential to be either crippling to city commuters, or a reason for any buyer to pass/negotiate down the price of the deal.
Comment by Curious Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:20 am
I voted by not answering.
We don’t know whether the cost of moving, the cost of comparable rents, and the value of the building either as rented to others or as demolished and sold for the land.
I’m not convinced that the Gov. has figured that out either.
Comment by Gooner Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:21 am
It’s a terrible place to work. It’s a terrible waste of space. It’s a terrible reflection of Illinois government. They could sell the block, use the proceeds to build a tower on 1/4 of it with every bit as much office square footage, and still make a profit for Illinois.
I have no idea what’s not to like here.
Comment by Sam Weinberg Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:22 am
No. Perhaps it never should have been built, but that’s a different question.
Quinn didn’t spend any money on maintenance or remodeling, in large part because there was no money for things like that. It is not Quinn’s fault that the building is tired and overdue for major renovations.
So now, Rauner ought to bite the bullet and argue for a capital bill to fund important state infrastructure, including the Thompson Center and the Mansion. If we are going to demolish a state office building, Stratton should be first on the list to be replaced.
The SOIB isn’t even 30 years old yet. In building terms, that’s not even close to mature. Heck, have the bonds even been paid off on that thing yet?
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:25 am
I voted no. At least for now. We have enough projects in Illinois that are either on hold or deferred. Get through those before having to spend money on new office space. It’s needed but now is not the time.
Comment by Been There Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:26 am
Yes, but only because I wanted to attach this video for a sarcastic reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94bdMSCdw20
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:26 am
Fine with me. By all accounts, it’s always been a terribly dysfunctional building.
I don’t think it holds any special place in architectural history. It’s not like youre talking about tearing down the Monadnock.
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:28 am
I don’t disagree with a lot of what the Governor said yesterday, and so for that reason I voted “Yes.” However I have many questions and concerns.
Comment by Dirty Red Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:29 am
I would vote “Yes,” provided that the valuable property was redeveloped and the eyesore was demolished to accomplish this end.
It is not worth repairing since the building is going to require constant maintenance over and above that of any conventional office building because of its bizarre design. Similar structures have been demolished on the Las Vegas Strip every few years.
Comment by After Further Review Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:29 am
What a terrible waste of space. Tax payer funded buildings should be built to last using proven long lasting construction techniques with energy efficiency and use of space at a number one priority. Let private industry build the young architects pipe dream not the taxpayers.
Comment by seenthebigpicture Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:30 am
I’m okay with demolishing the Thompson Center, but we must install copper doors on it before we level it.
Comment by W.S. Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:31 am
Voted No. Just another attempt to distract people from the horrendous management/lack of a budget.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:31 am
With the current state of disrepair, sell it.
Comment by 1 Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:31 am
I’m sorry, make a big announcement like this and have no financial analysis to share so any fair-minded observers can properly evaluate it? How would it be possible to have an informed opinion at this stage? Can we say that the “Razzle Dazzle Machine” has been reincarnated now?
Comment by Willie Stark Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:32 am
I didn’t vote either way, which I guess would be at least a temporary No vote. We need more information and projections. It needs to be reviewed more and thought out. I’m not going to take the Gov’s word on this just because he says it is necessary.
Comment by Joe M Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:33 am
Yes. Use the opportunity to more efficiently use state-owned space. The CTA will eventually benefit once a new, bigger, more-densely-populated building is built in its place.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:33 am
State employees can move out to one of the suburban campuses as these corporations are relocating to the City. (snark lite0.
Comment by Bogey Golfer Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:34 am
Yes,
Seems some valuable real estate that the state can get some cash for and can be used better than it is now. Never understood the logic of having a building with that much open space.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:34 am
I am a frequent visitor to the building for business. This great white elephant of a building was dysfunctional from the first day it opened. Now it is a dump. They don’t even wash the glass. Buckets in the atrium during heavy rain storms. Vacant store fronts or store fronts now manned by state museums. They shut down the water fountain display after it rusted out and became too noisy.
Sell it. The Lake Street “L” entrance also has access from the neighboring 203 N. LaSalle Building so ultimately, CTA service can continue.
Allowing private individuals a Chicago Casino License contingent upon them purchasing this building would be a plus for everyone, including the City of Chicago which would mismanage it. The building itself reminds me of the glass building casino in Milwaukee and can be converted into a casino, upper end restaurants (second floor) and a hotel.
As a symbol for the State, it has failed us.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:37 am
It’s not a strong no–I never liked the building, but it seems extreme to tear it down after only 30 years, I also question the repair estimates–100,000,000? really? Get some serious bids on that before accepting it at face value.
Comment by Orzo Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:38 am
And somebody do something about the Capitol Complex at the same time. Stratton needs to go, and the surface lots re-purposed and spruced up. Yes, it costs money, but it’s long overdue, and the conditions of all are not much worse than the mansion - all a travesty.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:38 am
Yes. With all due respect (ok I lied) I hate that building. On the other hand maybe the designers saw in the future and thought it a perfect representation of Illinois..wasteful, inefficient, unattractive to its neighbors.
Comment by Empty Suit Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:39 am
Sell it. Walking in the building and looking up it appears 50-75% of the space is open and wasted. Friends of mine worked for the moving company that relocated the various agencies into the building. They also had to move some back out to where they had been when there was insufficient room for their furnishings. Maybe Greyhound Bus Co. would want to come back.
Comment by DE Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:39 am
Yes. State shouldn’t spend money which would be needed to maintain it at this point. As long as it isn’t a ploy to reduce state government workforce in Chicago, I’m for it.
Comment by Gary Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:39 am
Yikes,
I voted yes. “Why?”
If the CTA issues can be figured out where the City and State aren’t funding a reconfiguring of all the “El” lines or that space becomes vacant for years and years awaiting federal transportation funds to assist the CTA in dealing with new challenges that a new building will give the CTA.
If all those challenges are met, “Yes”, sell it.
Now… if those challenges are too difficult in the short-term…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:41 am
I voted yes. There is a right way to do the right thing. This building was dysfunctional from the get go.
Comment by Colin O'Scopey Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:42 am
A very easy no brainer to sell. The building represents the height of government waste. Once redeveloped will bring in 20M a year in city tax revenue alone.
Comment by Very Fed Up Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:44 am
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but yes. It should be sold at market price without restriction on redevelopment. That is, if someone wants to put up, as an example, a skyscraper with any or all of shops, offices, hotel, condos, then let it happen. And get that property back on the tax rolls of the City of Chicago as soon as possible. (Assuming we can come up with a reasonable plan for everything and everyone that’s in there now.)
Comment by Cheswick Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:44 am
No revealed fiscal analysis, no revealed justification for the decision beyond its (acknowledged) lack of maintenance, and no revealed plan for the relocation of any State employees currently housed at JRTC.
The building’s a mess, but there’s no plan for its replacement, and I have about as much faith in this administration making sound, logical decisions as I did in the Blagojevich administration making them. I suppose that’s tantamount to a “no” vote.
Comment by thunderspirit Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:44 am
Send the jobs to Springfield where the cost of living is lower.
Comment by Pete Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:47 am
Where was the outcry when the Public Buildings Commission and the City Colleges of Chicago replaced Kennedy-King College or Malcolm X College? Both were modernistic, architectural award winning structures that dated badly. Both buildings were deemed obsolete within forty years also.
Comment by After Further Review Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:48 am
It would make a perfect downtown Casino. 24/7 Circi De Sole (sp?) in the atrium space. Hotel space on upper floors and lots of glitz and noise like a casino should have. Pit bosses can oversee tables from first balcony. Higher floors can be higher stakes tables.
Comment by old pol Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:48 am
Why
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:49 am
Yes, as long as they can figure out the CTA concerns. Decrepit, embarrassing building.
Comment by Deep Blue Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:53 am
The casino/hotel talk is goofy. You don’t go into that business and invest a fortune to try and repurpose a white elephant office building.
You build from the ground up, with all the latest bells and whistles. New and shiny is what that business is all about.
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:53 am
Yes, there is no way it is not more cost efficient in the long run. I don’t understand the divisive debate. Obviously transition, sale price and CTA are issues. But they can be resolved. Not a Rauner supported, but he will have some good ideas here and there. To be against this day 1 seems a little DC for me. Scary.
Comment by Lil Squeezy Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 10:53 am
I couldn’t vote without more specifics. I can say I don’t like the idea of selling it via an auction to only cash buyers though, unless there was a reserve set. He didnt’ seem to have an idea of what they could really expect for the property or maybe I missed it. More specifics more numbers, then I can vote.
Comment by burbanite Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:01 am
I wonder who makes money on this proposal. It is an eyesore and an expensive place to work or hold meetings certainly, but following the money on its teardown and redevelopment should be an open and transparent exercise. Names of those who benefit in the private sector from such a transaction please.
Comment by My New Handle Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:02 am
Too little information to tell. Lots of good reasons based on the current state of the building. However, there is no guarantee that the space those people will be moved into will be better. To truly make an informed decision one would need to know the expected sale price vs refurbish price, cost of moving all of the employees elsewhere and what that would cost. Potentially there may be no savings at all or it could cost the state money. Or maybe the savings in insignificant. Some of those questions were answered yesterday, the administration doesn’t know the answers. Not a “businessman’s” way to do business.
Comment by RetiredStateEmployee Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:03 am
First impression from years ago…….what a bizarre structure. Yet, the atrium is sorta cool. The building does grow on you after a while, like Chicago’s Picasso. Blair Kamin and others will probably correct me, but neither, in this view, are great art, or great architecture. My vote is to sell.
Comment by Keyser Soze Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:05 am
Yes.
Make Springfield the Illinois state capital again.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:07 am
I vote NO until I receive assurances that the Panda Express will be relocated nearby.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:07 am
Yes, but follow the procedures required by law. That may be too big of an ask for “my way or the highway Rauner.”
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:07 am
Voted No. There’s too many options outside of a complete sale. The state could propose a public private partnership to retain ownership of office space while still redeveloping the site. They might even still make money from the sale, and avoid renting additional space in the future, but they’d have be creative.
Comment by AC Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:09 am
i voted yes. The building was flawed from the start, and is pretty much a hopeless cause. Get rid of it.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:09 am
Ever since I worked there, I’ve believed that building would make a great home for a casino.
Comment by Draznnl Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:11 am
Hand off the building to Donald Trump for the “Apprentice” program and let the brain trust develop a plan to salvage or demolish it.
Comment by After Further Review Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:12 am
What’s the point?
Comment by DuPage Bard Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:13 am
No it represents Illinois for the unborn to behold
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:13 am
Sell it. It’s ugly. It was always gross. It stinks of fast food.
That bldg represents all that was bad about the pompous Thompson Admin.
I sometimes wonder how much of Rauner’s anti-museum and art is about Ms Madigan. She is or was on some art committees.
What will happen with the art? The DuBuffet is worth a bundle—there are many other large pieces in the building.
I agree with Handle—who is in line to buy it? That is very interesting.
Comment by Belle Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:14 am
=== Thompson claims … the commercial tenant of the building on the first two floors offered to pay “for restoration of that space himself,”===
So let them fix up the building and the state can continue to use it. This will save the expence of relocating all of those officies and state emplyees.
Or is the offer off the table now that Rauner is governor.
Comment by BeenThereB4 Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:15 am
I voted my gut feeling….would like to see comprehensive analysis of options, values, redevelopment.
Beautiful original design, but not ultimately a high functioning facility.
Need more info
Comment by northernwatersports Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:17 am
I didn’t vote because there isn’t enough information. I was opposed to the building when it was built and always saw it as a lemon. The cost of the building in todays dollars would be $380 million or more. A developer will deduct the cost of tearing it down. The state stands to loose a lot of money in the transaction for one time relatively small savings. This seems more of a PR effort than real saving when you compare it to the budget. Rauner seems more than ready to dismantle the entire state. After appointing a Republican donor to head Historic Preservation board, I wonder if selling the state historic sites is next since he closed the museum.
Comment by Liberty Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:19 am
Yes. I agree with comments to move jobs to Springfield. I’m in Madison right now and amazed how much the state contributes to the success of the downtown area compared with Springfield.
Comment by CLJ Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:19 am
This was a vanity project driven by Thompson and his wife. I have been in it many times. Noisy and inconvenient to get around in. The recent reports on needed maintenance make it a good potential for sale. Let the private sector take it and repurpose it into something more practical.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:25 am
I voted NO just because we have too many irons in the fire. And because if Rauner proposed it, there’s something else behing this.
Comment by AnonymousOne Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:30 am
If the state will profit, yes, get rid of it. Poor design for an office building and overrun with vermin.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:30 am
Underneath most casinos is an elaborate area for managing money and personnel. Would you really want all that currency next to the CTA Station?
Comment by Bogey Golfer Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:32 am
The building is symbolic of the state government as a whole — a monument of deferred maintenance. And symbolic of Rauner’s approach to the state — tear it all down. While enriching his billionaire buddies.
Comment by IllinoisBoi Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:35 am
Sell… As a former employee @ JRTC, I had the following observations:
1. No parking for employees and guests
2. Erratically timed elevators caused a glut of employees every morning.
3. Fifty percent of agency floor was vacant
4. The linear office hallways were bad for face-to-face discussions. Also, bathrooms;
5. Pigeon droppings out windows; Birds in food court.
6. Security checkpoints were difficult for guests to traverse.
7. Loud events in atrium caused reverberated throughout the building.
Comment by Jockey Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:36 am
Isn’t there another Panda at LaSalle and Washington?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:39 am
Can’t see how one could vote without knowing what the state would do with the money, where everyone that works there will work, etc.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:41 am
Heavens yes. It will be forgotten by most people 10 minutes after it’s gone. It’s forgotten by everyone who doesn’t have to go to it or through it now. Bye.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:43 am
On the surface yes sell it, however do the homework and present a complete plan. Compare renovation, relocation costs and do the right thing.
Could it be simpler?
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:48 am
Bring back the Sherman House Hotel.
That looked like a cool old-school building but I am too young to recall it.
Comment by Jake From Elwood Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:53 am
Voted no. Someday when we have a governor who isn’t pushing a destructive right-wing agenda, we can revisit the legitimate issues raised in this thread.
Comment by olddog Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:55 am
I voted no, but only because the timing is not ideal. There are too many people running around with their hair on fire for any substantive decisions. This governor could have (should have) built consensus on the sale, AFTER brokering a balanced budget. As it stands, this just makes him seem distracted or, worse, in charge of a neighborhood garage sale.
Comment by Dome Gnome Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:56 am
Voted “yes”, if they do what the Trib suggested this morning. (Yes! I’m agreeing with a Trib editorial!)
Sell it to George Lucas for his vanity project.
Comment by JoanP Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 11:56 am
Selling it gives the Governor something to do.
Comment by Tyrone Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:04 pm
I voted no but with terms and conditions. First do a cost benefit analysis to determine if it is economical to make the repairs and keep the staff at that location. If the benefits are within 90% or greater than the costs, keep the building.
As others have asked, what is behind the push to get rid of the building? Given the track record of the State, I am not sure if we will get a premium for the building and land.
I like the public/private partnership idea. CMS does not have a good record for building maintenance. Perhaps a private entity can do better. The project would have to be structured properly to make it work.
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:04 pm
My vote was “no” because the focus should be on a balance budget. Seems like there’s some hidden agenda. When is the governor going to actually do his job and present a balance budget?
Comment by No Vote Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:10 pm
Yes. Move the employees to Indiana. It’s so much more favorable to employers & Illinois is such a bad place to do business. (Snark?)
Comment by Qui Tam Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:16 pm
Yes. It is a great time to sell since Chicago’s real estate market is booming (win for State), it will add property tax base for Chicago (win for Chicago) and will hopefully bring back administrators to Springfield to better run their agencies (win for the State).
Also, i have never heard a good thing about the Thompson center, especially the design. The fact that there is a CTA station will add value to the building and the drivers license services can easily be accommodated (I’m sure the buyer of the property would love to have a renter).
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:16 pm
Sell
An architectural statement, that didn’t function well from day one.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:23 pm
Voted “yes” in hopes that a cool casino/hotel will go there.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:26 pm
It should torn down and a giant statue of Rauner crushing the poor and old should be erected.
Comment by truecolors Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:26 pm
Qui Tam, there are JRTC employees who live in Indiana so they might prefer that. I wonder why the State doesn’t have a residency requirement like the city and the county.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:28 pm
Sell it. Solicit bids. Then allow buyers to raise bids after opening to get highest and best offer. Limit the restrictions and buyers will bid higher.
The public-private partnership is another good option. But not if the bureaucrats think they know more than real estate professionals.
Comment by Sububanon Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:30 pm
Voted yes, so I could see the results-really doesn’t matter to me. Know it is expensive to maintain and a lot of people I hear don’t like working there. Moving offices back to the state capitol sounds like a good idea to me.
Comment by downstate commissioner Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:34 pm
Yes. Illinois is broke. Any revenue is good revenue.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:34 pm
Sell if the $ is right.
Move departments and operations to an area or areas that will benefit.
Chicago’s downtown can sustain itself.
I feel the same way about the City/Cty building and other major government facilities.
Comment by Chicago PR Guy Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:36 pm
So the State builds an architecturally significant design, with the intent to make a statement on ‘transparency’ in government. The building is open, all glass, and sits in the heart of the city, of Cook county, and the court system. So when you want to tear it down, you advance an agenda to bypass the public transparent process that has existed for a very long time, and go forward with your plan without it. That has to be the perfect statement on this building for its entire existence, and sadly, for the process of Illinois State government for decades.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:38 pm
Sell it. What do large states like New York and California do when they have a major city much larger and distant from their state capital city?
Also, is Jim Thompson the first person to outlive a building named after themself?
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:44 pm
How can anything be done without a state budget?
Comment by Mouthy Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:49 pm
The building is horrid and that atrium is a ginormous waste of space. Having said that, who would buy it? If you intend to repair it and make it useable, you’re going to be pouring a huge amount of money into it. If you tear it down with the intent of building something useful there, you’ve got another mind-boggling expense.
A badly conceived design from the beginning and a waste of state resources.
Comment by Aldyth Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:51 pm
From what I understand from some of the people who work there, it is not a productive work environment. Too many distractions.
Comment by Checkers Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 12:53 pm
KEEP IT!
it’s the perfect museum to show off the ineptitude and sloth of Illinois gub’mint.
just need to add golden statues of all the governors–Thompson, Edgar, Ryan, Blagojevich, Quinn, Rauner–and a gigantic platinum Michael Madigan to tower over all of ‘em.
Comment by Damfunny Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 1:00 pm
Word is the black and white sculpture outside
(which depicts Jim Thompson,s stomach X Rays waiting for the Supreme Court to deny a recount against Stevenson) will be give to former governor Big Jim to di what he wants with the monstrosity.
Comment by Roscoe Tom Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 1:01 pm
Block 37 at Randolph & Dearborn was an empty hole in the ground from the 1980’s through 2004. Without any detailed information being provided, I wouldn’t want to risk the same thing happening a mere block away.
The building is not attractive, but without a plan and a buyer it serves it’s purpose.
And the new Walgreen’s there is very nice.
Comment by Northsider Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 1:10 pm
==Sell it. What do large states like New York and California do when they have a major city much larger and distant from their state capital city?==
Sacramento is a metro area of over 2 million, only about 80 miles from San Fransisco.
Albany is only about 100-120 miles from NYC.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 1:15 pm
The state capitol is in Springfield where business can be done at a substantially lower cost. Do the work to move the capitol to Chicago, or run the state from Springfield.
Comment by the Patrio Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 1:29 pm
The most baffling thing about JRTC is how a building that is essentially all-glass can feel so windowless and dreary. Virtually none of the people that work in the building ever get any of the psychological benefits of having “open space” because everyone is crammed into one side of the building into small, high-walled cubicles and inward-facing offices. The few window offices actually face away from the atrium, negating any beneficial impact it might have. There is no way to remodel your way out of these problems.
Comment by Illinoisian Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 1:33 pm
Voted No. An auction is a terrible idea. There are five million Illinoisans living in Cook County, and it makes sense for them to be able to access city, county and state government at a central location.
Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 1:37 pm
If Rauner wants Thompson gone, he could always make an offer with his own money and show how his business skills will make it work right. There is plenty of available office space in Springfield plus two large campuses in Lincoln and Jacksonville where the developmental centers were located.
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 1:37 pm
Sell it. Blow it up. The office I had in the JRTC was more of a dystopian sci-fi prison cell. Mold, water, bugs, birds. It is a workers comp nightmare of environmental problems. It isn’t built for the computer age. The layout makes it easy for employees to get lost for the day. Makes the Stratton look like a palace.
Comment by 100 Miles West Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 1:38 pm
Yes. But only with ironclad clauses to (a) not tear it down and (b) make accommodations for the CTA station there.
Comment by Left Leaner Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 1:40 pm
Most state building are dumps…ours was built in the 60s and still has all the original bathroom fixtures and rusted unusable cabinetry and work surfaces. We’ve been told since the state owns it, it is cheaper to keep employees using it than renting a different location from the private sector. Thompson Center employees will be moved from one dump to another…only now in some remote and undesirable location. As an employee, be careful what you wish for. This process will not be an exercise in morale building.
Comment by Johnnie F. Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 1:56 pm
No, mostly because there was no reliable cost/benefit analysis. I somehow doubt that the cost over ten years will be less than the $200 million or so the building will bring today.
However, I will also add that while the building is currently a dump, I’m not convinced it has no architectural value. I also don’t like looking at public buildings as disposable. Sure, if there is no way to fix the building up (or if it costs too much), tearing it down may be the thing to do. But I’m not convinced yet.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 1:59 pm
Where will all those state employees who gather in the food court for three hour coffee breaks meet to exchange gossip?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 2:07 pm
Just as “not all people should be homeowners”, so “not all business entities should own commercial property” either.
Comment by One of the 35 Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 2:33 pm
No sale …. since this is one of highest use buildings those services must be satisfied!
Comment by IL17Progressive Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 3:38 pm
Voted no. Transit concerns - will private ownership of the building affect CTA services? Also concerned about Secretary of State services.
Comment by a girl Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 4:02 pm
I voted “No.” What I really meant is “No, unless…”
Unless it is replaced with another central hub for State government.
Spreading state agencies out across the city isn’t efficient and it isn’t good constituent service. First, agencies often have to talk to each other and work together to solve problems. We want to encourage that behavior, not make it harder. It might not sound like a big deal, but collaboration really is easier when you’re one floor away rather than 3 blocks away.
Second, this makes things more confusing for citizens who need services. It’s already hard to figure out exactly what agency can help you solve your problem, whether it’s discrimination, a work place injury, illegal pay check deductions, unemployment, or anything else.
The public doesn’t usually know where to go and they end up getting routed from place to place.
Again, might not sound like a big deal to you, but consider the working mother who is paying a sitter so she can go file a claim or attend a hearing. Being told you need to take the elevator up to 11, then being told it’s actually on 9, then 8… is annoying. Being routed all over the city is not only annoying, it potentially means you miss your appointment or don’t make it there in time.
Unless the State finds another central Chicago hub for Government they need to keep the Thompson Center, even with all its problems. Finding a new location should not be an after thought, it should be a prerequisite for sale.
Comment by Phil King Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 4:04 pm
Yes. Will go back and read the comments (as I’m sure someone has already mentioned it), but selling it now and paying the new owner for using the space until a plan is ultimately developed makes the most sense.
I don’t think Bruce wants to kick state workers to the curb or the unemployment line (yes, this is snark!) so the moving costs and transit changes can be deferred — and ultimately lowered — by a gradual shift (which takes unto account moving jobs due to typical attrition).
Comment by Still a Sox fan Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 6:24 pm
In the current real estate market all State excess property should be sold, Chicago and Cook County should too. But sell them to developers or REITS to make sure these sales turn into real estate tax producing properties. The more taxable value in the taxing bodies district, the lower the rate the taxpayers pay! Park Ridge Park District bought State property and via referendum got permission to borrow millions of dollars that will be paid through property tax warrants! Make all state property available to the highest bidder now!
Comment by qualified somebody nobody sent Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 8:20 pm
i recall the desk with patio umbrella to handle the rain inside. It’s an ugly spaceship that needs to blast off
Comment by alas Wednesday, Oct 14, 15 @ 9:01 pm
Everything about State government is about excessive cost, built in graft and kickbacks. Rauner how himself, has proven same by his appointments.
Several Agencies under his control have new layers of management, eating up agency budgets at exorbitant salaries.
As to the sale of the State of Illinois Building, Rauner has a rather large campaign fund, let him spend his money repairing the building.
Comment by Bruce Rauner Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:48 am
The State of IL Center [SOIC] opened in 1985 and was renamed in 1993 to the Thompson Center (according to Wikip). Used to hate the renaming, but now? A perfect reminder of who brought us this monstrosity. Thompson was Governor 1977-1991(according to Wikip).
Comment by sal-says Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 9:24 am