CHICAGO | General Developments

[Randomguy34]

The final RFP was put up for the Michael Reese site. Looks like the city is also advertising the Marshalling Yard and Advocate/McDonald's site to the west and north as well. Seems they want to have all responses by February 22nd, and select a developer on April 6th.



https://webapps1.cityofchicago.org/e..._RFP_FINAL.pdf

[LouisVanDerWright]

And the winner is.... McCrapfrey!!!

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ One of the reasons landlords use HVAC is so that tenants pay their own heat. It's easier to have separate GFA units in each apartment with their own gas meters, as opposed to boilers where there is usually 1 for the entire building

^^^ Without a doubt.

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

my parents have owned an old Victorian with original radiators for 35 years and aside from bleeding them once a year, i dont think theyve had any issues with heating whatsoever (aside from setting up some different zones in the house so they can tailor it a bit more). maybe its nostalgia but theres something inherently cozy and comforting about cast iron pinging to life on a cold winter night. obviously any system that isnt well maintained will present problems though.

Don't get me wrong, I like them too personally, but they are an absolute nightmere from a landlord or building owner's perspective. I have seen large systems in like 30-50 unit buildings and it's downright dreadful. Also heaven forbid the system shuts down or the gas is off and it gets below freezing somewhere in the walls and cracks a pipe. When you turn it on again welcome to the jungle. I've actually seen some modern systems that are really nice with all copper plumbing. Was just looking at a cousin's house built around 1960 that had a vintage baseboard system and it was absolutely great. It's the old galvanized stuff that is really scary.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

The final RFP was put up for the Michael Reese site. Looks like the city is also advertising the Marshalling Yard and Advocate/McDonald's site to the west and north as well. Seems they want to have all responses by February 22nd, and select a developer on April 6th.



https://webapps1.cityofchicago.org/e..._RFP_FINAL.pdf

Ugh, I hate this. Fucking can't stand how people in Government think sometimes. It's going to be the same shit. One of 3 or 4 well connected master developers will bid, somebody will win, and some splendid master plan will be approved. The plan will be some sort of monotonous, overscaled development and perhaps 1/3 of it will be built until the next cycle and a new round of bidding and master developers.

I'd love Chicago to talk the talk and actually do one thing that breaks down barriers to more than just the 8 connected people out there. How about sending a message to Texas that we're finally getting it--we can adapt and join the game of creating opportunities for the smaller guys out there. Getting rid of a few licenses and permits is symbolic crap. You want to open up some opportunities and investment? Divide up this land into prezoned lots and allow it to develop organically. Let some businesses thrive, let a real set of neighborhoods get built, the way Chicago was. The alternative will almost certainly be McCaffery or Antunovich making some great renderings, followed by a bait and switch, followed by large parking lots, followed by Subway and Jimmy Johns and perhaps a giant Whole Foods that will make Tina Feldstein cream her pants. I already see how this crap is gonna go down.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

How about sending a message to Texas that we're finally getting it--we can adapt and join the game of creating opportunities for the smaller guys out there.

The alternative will almost certainly be McCaffery or Antunovich making some great renderings, followed by a bait and switch, followed by large parking lots, followed by Subway and Jimmy Johns and perhaps a giant Whole Foods that will make Tina Feldstein cream her pants. I already see how this crap is gonna go down.

These comments seem contradictory, every time I have been in Texas, I see large parking lots, Subways and Jimmy Johns all over the place.

How will making our development more like thier's provide us development that is different from their's?

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Divide up this land into prezoned lots and allow it to develop organically.

I would love this but the reason it won't happen is because the city doesn't want to build the infrustructure needed to divide the land. Each lot would require ingress and egress, sewers and sidewalks, etc.

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ One of the reasons landlords use HVAC is so that tenants pay their own heat. It's easier to have separate GFA units in each apartment with their own gas meters, as opposed to boilers where there is usually 1 for the entire building

whats the story on buildings with central heat/cooling pushed up to forced air units? condo only?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

These comments seem contradictory, every time I have been in Texas, I see large parking lots, Subways and Jimmy Johns all over the place.

How will making our development more like thier's provide us development that is different from their's?

I'm referring to allowing smaller entities a chance to impact the cityscape and have a piece of the pie instead of the same 6 connected campaign contributors, which has largely become the Chicago story.

With narrow lots, zoning, and perhaps some general rules against strip malls and drive thrus it would be very easy to see a nice, fine grained neighborhood with even some decent density get built here given the proper zoning, while giving a lot of people a shot at owning prime real estate. Or you can just give it all to Antunovich who will build your dream town center

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

I would love this but the reason it won't happen is because the city doesn't want to build the infrustructure needed to divide the land. Each lot would require ingress and egress, sewers and sidewalks, etc.

That can be addressed by charging an initial assessment on property taxes for the purchase of the land. A one time surcharge rolled into the purchase price whose funds are dedicated to the cost of installing such infrastructure.

Creative minds can easily address this problem.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

The final RFP was put up for the Michael Reese site. Looks like the city is also advertising the Marshalling Yard and Advocate/McDonald's site to the west and north as well. Seems they want to have all responses by February 22nd, and select a developer on April 6th.



https://webapps1.cityofchicago.org/e..._RFP_FINAL.pdf

Is this still a thing or was the redevelopment of Lake Meadows a pipe dream?


http://www.scb.com/app/uploads/2016/...3-1600x996.jpg

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

That can be addressed by charging an initial assessment on property taxes for the purchase of the land. A one time surcharge rolled into the purchase price whose funds are dedicated to the cost of installing such infrastructure.

Creative minds can easily address this problem.

And how much would that assessment be to overcome the initial investment? How long would it take for the city to recoup its investment? Seems like a large developer would be most cost effective, maybe not the most organic or pleasant, though.

[the urban politician]

^ I'm not too sure of that.

Is there any evidence that a large developer is more cost effective compared to what I'm proposing, taking into account long term gains in property values and tax revenue for said land after several years?

My guess is no, and that this is more about convenience up front.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I'm referring to allowing smaller entities a chance to impact the cityscape and have a piece of the pie instead of the same 6 connected campaign contributors, which has largely become the Chicago story.

With narrow lots, zoning, and perhaps some general rules against strip malls and drive thrus it would be very easy to see a nice, fine grained neighborhood with even some decent density get built here given the proper zoning, while giving a lot of people a shot at owning prime real estate. Or you can just give it all to Antunovich who will build your dream town center

While I agree that a fine grain organic streetscape is what makes city life attractive. breaking up a parcel this size into 50 projects only magnifies the opportunity for failure. Imagine one project in the middle being surrounded by arrested development because of swings in the marketplace.

In reality the city owns thousands of narrow lots waiting for small developers with the necessary infrastructure already under the street. Why would they want to dilute that market.

This parcel's real selling point is its size, but the pool of customers is a lot smaller.
If you had a 75 ct diamond, you wouldn't cut it up into .01ct melee just because you like pave' settings.

[ardecila]

Imagine one project in the middle being surrounded by arrested development because of swings in the marketplace.

That's basically how Chicago was built...

I don't know if it's necessary for the city to chop it up into 25x125 lots, but I do wish the city would exercise a stronger hand in the planning of this parcel instead of just awarding it to the highest bidder. Come up with a master plan for the site including streets and parks, divide the site into block-sized parcels, and award them to different developers. Divide the new infrastructure into logical chunks and assign it to the developers, or create a TIF district and bond against the revenue to build the infrastructure.

[marothisu]

6 story, 30 unit building with ground floor commercial issued for 3247 W 47th St in Brighton Park This is on 47th near Kedzie, just a few blocks north of the Kedzie Orange Line stop. Good to see and good to see it replacing this ugly little stretch. The developer is UP Development, which does affordable housing. It's called El Zocalo and the commercial appears to be slated for a dance studio. Across from a Pete's Fresh Market too.


http://www.cjdprojects.com/featured_project/el-zocalo/


Currently:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8081...8i6656!6m1!1e1

[streetline]

Originally Posted by marothisu

6 story, 30 unit building with ground floor commercial issued for 3247 W 47th St in Brighton Park This is on 47th near Kedzie, just a few blocks north of the Kedzie Orange Line stop. Good to see and good to see it replacing this ugly little stretch. The developer is UP Development, which does affordable housing. It's called El Zocalo and the commercial appears to be slated for a dance studio. Across from a Pete's Fresh Market too.


http://www.cjdprojects.com/featured_project/el-zocalo/


Currently:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8081...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Did you mean 3246? 3247 is the hansome retail building across the street.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by streetline

Did you mean 3246? 3247 is the hansome retail building across the street.

Yep, sorry about that.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

While I agree that a fine grain organic streetscape is what makes city life attractive. breaking up a parcel this size into 50 projects only magnifies the opportunity for failure. Imagine one project in the middle being surrounded by arrested development because of swings in the marketplace.

In reality the city owns thousands of narrow lots waiting for small developers with the necessary infrastructure already under the street. Why would they want to dilute that market.

This parcel's real selling point is its size, but the pool of customers is a lot smaller.
If you had a 75 ct diamond, you wouldn't cut it up into .01ct melee just because you like pave' settings.

Well, let's make a comparison:

The south loop east of Dearborn Park (broken into smaller, individually zoned lots)

The south loop west of DP, large swaths of land lazily sold off to developers with PD zoning.

Which one has fared better? Which one has a better urban environment? Which one would you rather live in?

Those large parcels west of DP have been full of problems: bankruptcies, fraud, even jail time. And all the while huge sites remain completely vacant and windswept as we wait for these issues to resolve.

I'm not sure I'm buying your argument. In well located real estate, it's worth a try to break up the lots and sell them off. Why not at least try?

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by marothisu

6 story, 30 unit building with ground floor commercial issued for 3247 W 47th St in Brighton Park This is on 47th near Kedzie, just a few blocks north of the Kedzie Orange Line stop. Good to see and good to see it replacing this ugly little stretch. The developer is UP Development, which does affordable housing. It's called El Zocalo and the commercial appears to be slated for a dance studio. Across from a Pete's Fresh Market too.


http://www.cjdprojects.com/featured_project/el-zocalo/


Currently:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8081...8i6656!6m1!1e1

So Curbed (naturally) also saw this one today. But has a different rendering for Zocalo. Interesting...

Link

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

So Curbed (naturally) also saw this one today. But has a different rendering for Zocalo. Interesting...

Link

Yep, haha. I wonder which is the accurate one. Mine is from the developer's website. Where is theirs from?

[ardecila]

Probably the Curbed one. It looks like they value-engineered the balconies out, and the ribbon windows too.

Although I don't know why they switched to 3 different shades of taupe... Color is free.