HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3641  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 1:20 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
I really hope that Ald Reilly doesn't act like an obstructionist douchebag on this one
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3642  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 1:37 AM
Dan in Chicago's Avatar
Dan in Chicago Dan in Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 612
I'm back after a long absence! Just confirmed that caisson work on the high-rise part of Oak Park Station began last Monday (11 April).
__________________
Gallery, list, & map of all Chicago high-rises under construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3643  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 1:47 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I really hope that Ald Reilly doesn't act like an obstructionist douchebag on this one
The streets around here flow better and are wider... And it's not an election year.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3644  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 4:21 AM
go go white sox go go white sox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
THIS IS BIG.....


http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...borhood-growth

April 13, 2016

Emanuel submits plan to link downtown, neighborhood growth

GREG HINZ ON POLITICS



THE ORDINANCE

https://www.scribd.com/doc/308440999/Ordinance


Sorry Random... I didn't realize you'd already posted this info.
Is this different or should I say in addition to that bonus rezoning ordinance rahm introduced last month? Also is there a map indicating the effected neighborhoods?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3645  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 5:25 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by go go white sox View Post
Is this different or should I say in addition to that bonus rezoning ordinance rahm introduced last month? Also is there a map indicating the effected neighborhoods?
This is that same ordinance. There was a map with previous articles, but not with this particular one.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3646  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 6:41 AM
ChickeNES's Avatar
ChickeNES ChickeNES is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by go go white sox View Post
Is this different or should I say in addition to that bonus rezoning ordinance rahm introduced last month? Also is there a map indicating the effected neighborhoods?
v
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
Map from the Tribune article. I'm quite excited about this prospect of both dowtown expanding west and struggling neighborhoods given funds to help jump start their local economy. It would be great to see many of Chicago's neighborhoods have grocery stores and less vacant lots again. And of course since this is Skyscraperpage, it's exciting to see downtown expand into Chinatown and Near West Side (all the way to Ashland nonetheless!).


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...217-story.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3647  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 2:19 PM
UrbanLibertine UrbanLibertine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 311
I'm reading the new Downtown FAR bonus Ordinance and they're amending Section 17-8-0904-D-3 (Parking in 'D' Districts) of the zoning code to state that, "Underground parking is strongly encouraged for superior building design that eliminates blank walls at street level for an improved pedestrian experience."

Bye, bye hideous facades of parking podiums??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3648  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 2:24 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
H2O development - looks like Buck is changing things up

Quote:
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...evelopers-plan

H2O Site in West Loop Would Have 600 Apartments Under Developer's Plan
By Stephanie Lulay


A Chicago developer is now pitching plans to develop more than 600 apartments at the former H2O Plus site in the West Loop.

The John Buck Company plans to build 620 apartments in four buildings on the block-long site bound by Madison, Green, Monroe and Peoria streets. The four towers would range in height from 13 stories to 17 stories, according to renderings obtained by DNAinfo Chicago.

Plans also call for 310 parking spaces and 45,000-square-feet of open space on site with a pool, according to sources familiar with the project.




---
This is more along the lines of what I was thinking would happen with this site, although I think the design could use some serious work. I would love to see something more like Optima Old Orchard than a Fitzgerald (?) design. Will certainly be interesting to see what the neighbors say and how much height will (likely) be chopped off.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3649  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 2:26 PM
UrbanLibertine UrbanLibertine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanLibertine View Post
I'm reading the new Downtown FAR bonus Ordinance and they're amending Section 17-8-0904-D-3 (Parking in 'D' Districts) of the zoning code to state that, "Underground parking is strongly encouraged for superior building design that eliminates blank walls at street level for an improved pedestrian experience."

Bye, bye hideous facades of parking podiums??
Additionally, Section 17-8-0905-B-7 (Building Features) now will read, "Building facades at pedestrian level should be appropriately scaled within the context of the existing streetscape. This may include, by way of example and not limitation, breaking up a long facade with vertical bays or proportioning a curtain wall with additional mullions."

Also, Section 17-8-0907-B (High-rise buildings) will be defined, "as any new construction over 80 feet in height."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3650  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 2:37 PM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,379
Great west loop find, Spyguy. That would be awesome. Has anyone thought about the children though? Lol. Jokes aside, I know the proposed building to the south of the above project (included in the renders) has faced a lot of opposition from neighbors. A business owner in the area told me that one building wanted to buy the property and build a small caretakers house for the park across the street. I would say that kind of thinking shocks me, but I have seen and heard such ridiculous things about new projects being opposed, it rarely slows me down anymore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3651  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 3:24 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is online now
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanLibertine View Post
I'm reading the new Downtown FAR bonus Ordinance and they're amending Section 17-8-0904-D-3 (Parking in 'D' Districts) of the zoning code to state that, "Underground parking is strongly encouraged for superior building design that eliminates blank walls at street level for an improved pedestrian experience."

Bye, bye hideous facades of parking podiums??
The zoning code has strongly encouraged underground parking for many years. These new changes actually weaken the city's position against parking podiums.

Currently, developers get a FAR bonus for building underground parking in the downtown area. Even with that incentive, very few developers actually build underground due to the sheer cost and the time it adds to a construction schedule.

After the new zoning revisions, the city will eliminate the incentive. That little tidbit you're reading is just a platitude. City planners will still push for underground parking in the planned development process when they have the leverage to do so (i.e. almost never) but now they don't have a carrot to wave in front of developers.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3652  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 5:08 PM
UrbanLibertine UrbanLibertine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
The zoning code has strongly encouraged underground parking for many years. These new changes actually weaken the city's position against parking podiums.

Currently, developers get a FAR bonus for building underground parking in the downtown area. Even with that incentive, very few developers actually build underground due to the sheer cost and the time it adds to a construction schedule.

After the new zoning revisions, the city will eliminate the incentive. That little tidbit you're reading is just a platitude. City planners will still push for underground parking in the planned development process when they have the leverage to do so (i.e. almost never) but now they don't have a carrot to wave in front of developers.
Oh...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3653  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 5:18 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
This is more along the lines of what I was thinking would happen with this site, although I think the design could use some serious work. I would love to see something more like Optima Old Orchard than a Fitzgerald (?) design. Will certainly be interesting to see what the neighbors say and how much height will (likely) be chopped off.
IIRC, the site is DX-5, and it's a huge parcel. The neighbors won't have much influence over this, though Buck my go for a PD. In that case, he can threaten the as-of-right project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3654  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 5:32 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is online now
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
IIRC, the site is DX-5, and it's a huge parcel. The neighbors won't have much influence over this, though Buck my go for a PD. In that case, he can threaten the as-of-right project.
At 620 units he will be required to go for a PD, the threshold in DX-5 is only 150 units.

In theory Buck could break the project into four separate phases and build up to three of the towers as-of-right, but there's also a height trigger at 130' that all four towers will exceed.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3655  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 5:55 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,350
I've already lost track of all the new projects announced the past couple of days. I believe this is what's been proposed so far:
1408 S. Wabash ave
1411 S. Michigan ave
330 N Clark
900 W Randolph block
The Bridgford Foods development
x4 high rises old H20 site

9 high rises in the past week, that's pretty impressive. This boom is getting more and more exciting as it goes on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3656  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 6:37 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
The zoning code has strongly encouraged underground parking for many years. These new changes actually weaken the city's position against parking podiums.

Currently, developers get a FAR bonus for building underground parking in the downtown area. Even with that incentive, very few developers actually build underground due to the sheer cost and the time it adds to a construction schedule.

After the new zoning revisions, the city will eliminate the incentive. That little tidbit you're reading is just a platitude. City planners will still push for underground parking in the planned development process when they have the leverage to do so (i.e. almost never) but now they don't have a carrot to wave in front of developers.
What would be the reason for such a change in the zoning revisions?

Last edited by VKChaz; Apr 14, 2016 at 6:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3657  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 6:40 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 797
Above ground parking, I understand, generally needs a bigger foot print than the actual tower that sits above it, I don't see them going away anytime soon. I think a solution would be a text amendment requiring parking level fenestration be consistent with the mid/highrise fenestration for portions of the mid/highrise abutting a roadway. Also keep and strengthen the incentive for below ground parking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3658  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2016, 10:52 PM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 565
One of the things that throws me, is that they seemed to have eliminated the entire bonus menu.

Ok, there were some duds on there, like winter gardens, but it had some advantages.

Many of the things were essentially free. Through block connections, sidewalk widening, green roofs, all got free FAR just for doing it.
Others, like Adopt a Landmark, involved spending spending the 80% med land value on a specific task, but the onus was on the developer to oversee the spending and get the work done,
The city just made sure the amount was spent and the work was up to snuff. This is a task bureaucrats are good at, whereas getting actual work done is not their strong suit.

In the new system the developer decides how much bonus he is willing to pay for and the Dept of Planning decides how it is spent (80% anyway, 10% is kicked back to landmarks itself a branch of Planning, and 10% is kicked back to the alderman).

While I like the notion of an "affordable business fund" I am not sure this will work that way.
I suspect the Dept of Planning's pension will get fully funded and the municipally owned landmarks will get a facelift, but not much else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3659  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2016, 1:44 AM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,379
Today
Gonella Bakery Site
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3660  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2016, 2:42 AM
deebirch deebirch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 68
Logan Twins



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 > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:36 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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