HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #43621  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2018, 5:37 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
ADUs should be legal as of right citywide. I mean in a city filled with garden units (legal or otherwise) and thousands of coach houses there is simply no good reason to prohibit them.
Minneapolis’ move is admirable, but it is a much smaller city relative to the metro area, it’s almost like a Boston or SF. You pass into the suburbs very quickly.

In a gigantic city like Chicago, I dunno if we want to be encouraging densification in outer neighborhoods with a 1 hour plus commute to the Loop. Realistically, the new residents will just drive and place even more traffic on the streets. L stops are kind of an exception for those outer neighborhoods, I agree it should be denser around e.g the Harlem/I-90 Blue Line stop or the Pulaski Orange Line stop. Metra offers quick commutes for some of these Bungalow Belt areas but the frequency is not good enough to allow a transit oriented lifestyle for non-commute trips.

The only thing that will move the dial in those outer neighborhoods is A) new transit lines, be they rail or BRT and B) large mixed-use developments that contain grocery stores, pharmacy, coffee etc in walking distance of the new residents.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43622  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2018, 6:19 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Minneapolis’ move is admirable, but it is a much smaller city relative to the metro area, it’s almost like a Boston or SF. You pass into the suburbs very quickly.

In a gigantic city like Chicago, I dunno if we want to be encouraging densification in outer neighborhoods with a 1 hour plus commute to the Loop. Realistically, the new residents will just drive and place even more traffic on the streets. L stops are kind of an exception for those outer neighborhoods, I agree it should be denser around e.g the Harlem/I-90 Blue Line stop or the Pulaski Orange Line stop. Metra offers quick commutes for some of these Bungalow Belt areas but the frequency is not good enough to allow a transit oriented lifestyle for non-commute trips.

The only thing that will move the dial in those outer neighborhoods is A) new transit lines, be they rail or BRT and B) large mixed-use developments that contain grocery stores, pharmacy, coffee etc in walking distance of the new residents.
Congestion price the city and pour the cash into transit improvements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43623  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2018, 6:56 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,443
What Chicago needs is a complete reform of it's zoning code including a provision that makes it illegal to downzone a building making it non conforming. There is no reason any building in the city should be zoned for less than what is already there. Same goes for vacant land, if it was once a 3 flat it should at least be zoned for a new one. If it's got a six flat next to it, it should be zoned for a six flat.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43624  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 4:41 PM
Barrelfish Barrelfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Minneapolis’ move is admirable, but it is a much smaller city relative to the metro area, it’s almost like a Boston or SF. You pass into the suburbs very quickly.

In a gigantic city like Chicago, I dunno if we want to be encouraging densification in outer neighborhoods with a 1 hour plus commute to the Loop. Realistically, the new residents will just drive and place even more traffic on the streets. L stops are kind of an exception for those outer neighborhoods, I agree it should be denser around e.g the Harlem/I-90 Blue Line stop or the Pulaski Orange Line stop. Metra offers quick commutes for some of these Bungalow Belt areas but the frequency is not good enough to allow a transit oriented lifestyle for non-commute trips.

The only thing that will move the dial in those outer neighborhoods is A) new transit lines, be they rail or BRT and B) large mixed-use developments that contain grocery stores, pharmacy, coffee etc in walking distance of the new residents.
I don't think I follow your logic here. If you don't allow denser development in outer neighborhoods, then those people will presumably have to live in the suburbs. That enforces an even more car-focused lifestyle and longer commutes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43625  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 5:00 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
I agree. The lowest density zoning classification should be RT-4

Get rid of RS-3 and all that crap. Everything zoned lower than RT-4 gets reassigned to RT-4.

Vote on it. Pass it. Simple.

I would be a great Mayor, although not as great as WW
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43626  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2018, 7:02 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
More reason why Aldermanic prerogative is such a problem. It creates inconsistencies that could harm Chicago's ability to attract international investment.

Check out Curbed today, an article about the rowhomes at 42 E Superior being given an extension till March of their demolition. Of additional interest is that the prior highrise proposed there, the Carillon, was rejected by Reilly but brought in nearly $50 million from Chinese investors from the EB-5 program. That money was never returned to them!!!!!

I would be livid too. Another article that discussed a class action lawsuit by the Chinese investors against the developer contained this quote, which I find to be telling:

Quote:
Defendants failed to prominently disclose the fact that, based on long-standing policy and procedure for all development in the City of Chicago, and the defendants’ knowledge of such policy and procedure, the project required alderman/ward approval prior to the submission of a project plan to the city commissioner of development and planning,” reads the lawsuit, “and that the submission of any project plan to the city commissioner without such alderman/ward approval would result in rejection by the commissioner and failure of the project.
50 Chinese investors got ripped off (not the first time this happened in Chicago) due to some silly and corrupt local tradition. The word will spread, and people who lost a great deal of money will spread the word that Chicago real estate is not the place to invest.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43627  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2018, 7:15 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
New law to provide relief from siren noise:

https://www.loopnorth.com/news/siren1210.htm

IMO it doesn't go far enough. When I stayed downtown this past weekend the sirens were way too loud in the middle of the night (2 am, 3 am). When I lived in Manhattan they had a much better solution. Mind you, this was 2006, so they've already had this in place for a while. Emergency vehicles there have 2 "loudness" levels. Daytime and nighttime, and at night the sirens are far quieter. I think with Chicago's central area becoming increasingly a place to live, Chicago should explore doing the same
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43628  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2018, 7:42 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Of additional interest is that the prior highrise proposed there, the Carillon, was rejected by Reilly but brought in nearly $50 million from Chinese investors from the EB-5 program. That money was never returned to them!!!!!
Surely that's a case of the developer being a scumbag, it's not like Reilly is holding onto their money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43629  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2018, 8:00 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
Surely that's a case of the developer being a scumbag, it's not like Reilly is holding onto their money.
Oh absolutely, I don't deny that.

But we don't know the nature of their contract with the developer. They could've written in a technicality that the funds are nonrefundable under certain conditions, knowing full well that Chicago's Aldermanic prerogative can prevent many a project from being a sure thing.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43630  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2018, 8:15 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
That's a pretty laughable pleading. It's not like the property was downzoned after they'd invested. They invested based on some developer believing he could get a massive upzoning. Boo hoo, they didn't win the lottery.

Such random upzonings would be much less likely without aldermanic prerogative, because there'd actually be a comprehensive plan in place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43631  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2018, 8:55 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
That's a pretty laughable pleading. It's not like the property was downzoned after they'd invested. They invested based on some developer believing he could get a massive upzoning. Boo hoo, they didn't win the lottery.
Your argument about Aldermanic prerogative aside, that "boo hoo" is quite a taunt for not returning $50 million!
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43632  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2018, 9:25 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Your argument about Aldermanic prerogative aside, that "boo hoo" is quite a taunt for not returning $50 million!
Well, the investors' claim is one for fraud or breach of contract. Aldermanic prerogative got nothin' to do with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43633  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2018, 9:40 PM
moorhosj moorhosj is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Your argument about Aldermanic prerogative aside, that "boo hoo" is quite a taunt for not returning $50 million!
Rich people tried to buy citizenship based on speculation and lost. This happens in real estate. Our current President straight up changed terms on people who bought condos in Trump Tower 10 years ago. I'll save my empathy for the people struggling day-to-day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43634  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2018, 9:45 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj View Post
Rich people tried to buy citizenship based on speculation and lost. This happens in real estate. Our current President straight up changed terms on people who bought condos in Trump Tower 10 years ago. I'll save my empathy for the people struggling day-to-day.
None of that means that people, regardless of their income level, shouldn't get their money back if fraud is committed.

What kind of nonsense are you spewing?
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43635  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2018, 10:16 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
In my SimCity world...
Pick up that lot at Huron and Dearborn. Move those rowhomes there. Landmark the vintage stock / facades of heritage buildings up and down Dearborn. The folks in that fancy condo building next door get views for eternity. Developer gets a cleared superior and Wabash site, but keeps the facade of the Giordanos building for parking and amenity deck or something like that. And somehow...some way we get a tower where the row houses were. Win for preservation. Win for Urban density.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43636  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2018, 4:34 AM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rizzo View Post
In my SimCity world...
Pick up that lot at Huron and Dearborn. Move those rowhomes there. Landmark the vintage stock / facades of heritage buildings up and down Dearborn. The folks in that fancy condo building next door get views for eternity. Developer gets a cleared superior and Wabash site, but keeps the facade of the Giordanos building for parking and amenity deck or something like that. And somehow...some way we get a tower where the row houses were. Win for preservation. Win for Urban density.
I'd rather see them go on the east side of Dearborn just north of Chicago Ave, where the Y parking lot is.
__________________
[SIZE="1"]I like travel and photography - check out my [URL="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericmathiasen/"]Flickr page[/URL].
CURRENT GEAR: Nikon Z6, Nikon Z 14-30mm f4 S, Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S, Nikon 50mm f1.4G
STOLEN GEAR: (during riots of 5/30/2020) Nikon D750, Nikon 14-24mm F2.8G, Nikon 85mm f1.8G, Nikon 50mm f1.4D
[/SIZE]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43637  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2018, 4:44 AM
BonoboZill4's Avatar
BonoboZill4 BonoboZill4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: PingPong
Posts: 1,588
Anyone know what this is?







Right next to the South Loop police station
__________________
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43638  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2018, 5:04 AM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Your argument about Aldermanic prerogative aside, that "boo hoo" is quite a taunt for not returning $50 million!
EB-5 Visa programs are *required* to put the investment at risk. Depending on how the company is structured and funded, it may or may not be fraud. A lot would depend on how the corporation and the investing parties agreement was structured. As with any investment where you put money at risk, you have to be very careful. I know some countries have visa programs where you basically just have to plop your cash into a bank account for some period of time. But that is most definitely not what the US EB-5 program is. The US literally considers EB-5 to be a jobs program, and not only are the investors risking their money financially, but if the investment fails to generate the minimum required jobs, they could also lose their qualification for a Green Card.

The extent of risk and chance of fraud in the EB-5 program is a national issue, not a local one. I doubt any investor would pay blame on the city of their investment for a national program that is usually advised against for anyone mostly looking for investments, and only really advised for people who literally have no other possible way to immigrate to the US and will not settle for any other country.

Chances are, they did lose at least some of their investment. I'm not sure how costs would have risen to $50 million before construction even started on a project of that size, but if the ownership structure was like some tech finding deals I've seen it's at least possible that the investors ahead of the EB-5 investors had preferred stock or risk guarantees that would have invalidated an EB-5 Visa investment because the level of risk wasn't sufficient.

If actual fraud happened, they should get something back. But if they were simply subordinate shareholders and it was their dollars that funded the design and planning expenses then they lost because they rolled the dice in a risky game and lost. If you're going to invest $1 million in a game to gain residency in the United States, you really do need to be advised and not just treat it like opening a CD account at a bank. It's entirely possible that the advisor or advisors to the EB-5 investors were negligent or committed malpractice or were the perpetrators of fraud independent of the developers. It's probably a lot more complex that just "getting their money back," and worst case it could be like owning GM stock in 2009. Even if you sympathize with those investors, you likely didn't believe they deserved their money back.

The description in the article does sound odd, not least of which is that my understanding of EB-5 is that you have to invest at least one million except in certain areas with high unemployment. I don't see how downtown Chicago qualifies for that exception.
__________________
[SIZE="1"]I like travel and photography - check out my [URL="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericmathiasen/"]Flickr page[/URL].
CURRENT GEAR: Nikon Z6, Nikon Z 14-30mm f4 S, Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S, Nikon 50mm f1.4G
STOLEN GEAR: (during riots of 5/30/2020) Nikon D750, Nikon 14-24mm F2.8G, Nikon 85mm f1.8G, Nikon 50mm f1.4D
[/SIZE]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43639  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2018, 1:11 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
New construction permit for 1604 N Richmond (North & Richmond) for a new 6 story, 40 unit building with ground floor retail and 17 indoor parking spaces. Not 100% sure, but think it will knock down this building. I'm guessing some of the surface lot/vacant land just north of it will be built on too

https://www.google.com/maps/place/16...!4d-87.7005641
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43640  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2018, 1:38 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 View Post
Anyone know what this is?

Right next to the South Loop police station
New elementary school
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:57 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.