CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 2336

harryc · #**46701** Posted **Feb 4, 2020, 1:15 AM**

Jan 27

Chicagoo | 1001 W Fulton by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

SolarWind · #**46702** Posted **Feb 4, 2020, 2:04 AM**

February 3, 2020

SolarWind · #**46703** Posted **Feb 4, 2020, 2:05 AM**

February 3, 2020

SolarWind · #**46704** Posted **Feb 4, 2020, 2:26 AM**

February 3, 2020

moorhosj1 · #**46705** Posted **Feb 4, 2020, 5:00 PM**

Crain's: Ambitious plan for East Garfield Park lands $100 million in financing

Looks like this might happen.

Barrelfish · #**46706** Posted **Feb 4, 2020, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

Crain's: Ambitious plan for East Garfield Park lands $100 million in financing

Looks like this might happen.

Exciting stuff. It is an ambitious project for someone without development experience - let's hope they get a good team and good advice so they can actually pull this off.

SamInTheLoop · #**46707** Posted **Feb 4, 2020, 9:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoLoop

From Alderman Dowell's February 2020 newsletter:

Anyone know anything about what was planned here?

Dowell certainly makes it sound as if the plans were presented either in a previous newsletter/ward office communication/community meeting, etc. Otherwise, it's an odd way to introduce a project. I had no idea that the site was planned to be sold to another developer with active plans to put something up. Am curious what that was.

At any rate, townhomes won't do here. What a waste of the site that would be. For me, bare minimum should be a midrise with 200-250 units. Better yet, something more dense.

Busy Bee · #**46708** Posted **Feb 4, 2020, 11:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

Crain's: Ambitious plan for East Garfield Park lands $100 million in financing

Looks like this might happen.

Ambitious, yes.

Density, excellent.

Architecture, please no.

emathias · #**46709** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 3:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Ambitious, yes.

Density, excellent.

Architecture, please no.

Maybe not awesome, but the general functionality of it I'd take anywhere outside of downtown and away from the lakefront, pretty or not. Heck, I'd make it the required minimum anywhere within a half mile of an L station.

Handro · #**46710** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 3:24 PM**

Foundation issued for 4 story, 84 unit building around the corner from the Lawrence Redline station. Nice to see one of the lots near there bite the dust... lots of infill needed near that station.

Currently: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9686...7i16384!8i8192

EDIT: Curbed article from last May
https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/5/17...s-cedar-street

marothisu · #**46711** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 3:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Ambitious, yes.

Density, excellent.

Architecture, please no.

Sorry, but for this area and considering Garfield Park has been neglected for years I could care less how the architecture is as long as it's not absolutely horrendous. Think about it this way - it could be a catalyst for more development in that general area. Sometimes you need to make sacrifices .

Steely Dan · #**46712** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 4:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro

Foundation issued for 4 story, 84 unit building around the corner from the Lawrence Redline station. Nice to see one of the lots near there bite the dust... lots of infill needed near that station.

NICE!

now how about that even larger surface lot on the opposite side of the street.

swift and certain death to all surface parking lots!

Goose Island Guru · #**46713** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 4:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

Sorry, but for this area and considering Garfield Park has been neglected for years I could care less how the architecture is as long as it's not absolutely horrendous. Think about it this way - it could be a catalyst for more development in that general area. Sometimes you need to make sacrifices .

This is exactly right - the area needs something. The market won't support world-class architecture so you have to take what you can get. Could be prefab modules or precast exterior. The right team can get it done well and efficiently.

SIGSEGV · #**46714** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 4:45 PM**

I'd love to see stuff like that going up near the South Side Green Line stations.

SamInTheLoop · #**46715** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 5:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Ambitious, yes.

Density, excellent.

Architecture, please no.

Yeah - that's atrocious.

SamInTheLoop · #**46716** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 5:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

Sorry, but for this area and considering Garfield Park has been neglected for years I could care less how the architecture is as long as it's not absolutely horrendous. Think about it this way - it could be a catalyst for more development in that general area. Sometimes you need to make sacrifices .

There's no reason the architecture needs to be bad. It's not necessary to take one for the team, design-wise to get some economic development here. This could be redesigned into something decent, or at least passable, for not a dollar more. Don't turn this into a false choice.

SamInTheLoop · #**46717** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 5:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goose Island Guru

This is exactly right - the area needs something. The market won't support world-class architecture so you have to take what you can get. Could be prefab modules or precast exterior. The right team can get it done well and efficiently.

Nobody's even talking about world-class architecture. Thank you for underlining what I mean by a false choice.

First we can simply begin by something that is not garbage. Then we can graduate to decent. Neither would require additional expense. It's a willful choice to design something this awful - there's not a rational argument (economic or otherwise) in the world to support it.

Skyguy_7 · #**46718** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 6:25 PM**

^Absolutely.

Red brick and black-mullion windows, like your typical west loop loft, and a few structural tweaks would be no change in cost compared to this travesty of a design.

moorhosj1 · #**46719** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 8:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I'd love to see stuff like that going up near the South Side Green Line stations.

There is the Harold Ickes redevelopment on the west side of State Street, but who owns all the land on the east side of State that butts up to the "L"? It is almost completely undeveloped from Cermak to 33rd.

w.miles2000 · #**46720** Posted **Feb 5, 2020, 9:17 PM**

What going on at 2100 south State Street