CHICAGO | General Developments

[MultiModal]

[QUOTE=spyguy;7044881]Harpo Studios redevelopment






I heard rumblings that Sterling Bay was courting Facebook for the Harpo Studio redevelopment. This was a few months ago so things could have changed.

Either way this development would be great for Randolph Street. Harpo currently has a small fenced in parking lot facing Randolph

[streetline]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Harpo Studios redevelopment
...
Possible development north of 1K Fulton

The Harpo Studios redevelopment looks like a nice increase in scale, and it looks like it addresses Randolph street well, although I kind of wish that southern part were stepped up into a tower rather than down to 5(?) stories.


The possible development north of 1K Fulton looks very interesting as well.
I'd be very glad to see them bring that kind of additional dense use to that lot, and I like the combinations of cut-ins and bump-outs for the corner balconies. But I'm not wild about the glass over brick design (that's the ugliest part of 1K Fulton, but at least it looks like this version is at least executed better). Also, that sky bridge over Carroll Ave looks awfully thick and low (although it is interesting that it's not enclosed); I'll be interested to see more of what they propose there.

Maybe the oddest part is that the building seems to treat the railroad frontage as it's front, or at least as a full peer to it's street frontages in this rendering. Generally I'd be in favor of buildings treating their secondary frontages with a bit more respect (proper sidewalks and entrances, no big blank walls, etc...), but I'm just not sure how that is going to work here with every other building along the tracks turning their back to them. I suppose building this way is a bet for all of the other lots along the tracks in the area being redeveloped in this fashion and against the tracks ever being decked over.

[ithakas]

[QUOTE=MultiModal;7044903]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Harpo Studios redevelopment






I heard rumblings that Sterling Bay was courting Facebook for the Harpo Studio redevelopment. This was a few months ago so things could have changed.

Either way this development would be great for Randolph Street. Harpo currently has a small fenced in parking lot facing Randolph

Sweet! It seems like the West Loop may be ready for some new condo development? It's exploding in entertainment amenities, hospitality, and tech-y offices (with the high salaries those command), but aside from the high rise apartments mostly centered around Halsted, there isn't much new residential in the pipeline.

Is this a financing problem, as with most condo projects today, zoning, lack of demand, or some other factor? (Maybe waiting for the landmark district decision?) I think there's great opportunity for great mid-rise design around here in particular.

[wierdaaron]

Need a before picture for that harpo picture to understand what I'm looking at here.

[ChiTownWonder]

These west loop developments look great and all, but... i think its time for some taller development? views to the north and east here would be stunning. adding some small high rises here and here would just add character and income into the community

[wierdaaron]

Not many people know this, but when Chicago was first incorporated as a city in 1977 it was put in the founding documents that the west loop had to stay shorter than 6 stories because living in a thriving metropolis means rigidly avoiding change of any kind.

[rlw777]

That Harpo Studio proposal is very Chicago with that MASSIVE full city block footprint. I hope it gets built / isn't downsized by the nimbys. The one north of 1k fulton looks great but might be a missed opportunity for more height. Next to the rail close to the L and behind 1k I gotta think there is less nimby attitude toward higher density it that location.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by ChiTownWonder

These west loop developments look great and all, but... i think its time for some taller development? views to the north and east here would be stunning. adding some small high rises here and here would just add character and income into the community

10 floor, full block buildings are perfect for this neighborhood. Keeps the 'feel' and adds massive square footage.

1K Fulton is 550,000SF in just ten floors... by comparison, River Point is 1,100,000SF in fifty-two floors. So while it might not be tall, these full block developments are packing a big punch.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Watch, they'll want 3-4 floors off of the Harpo redevelopment...

[r18tdi]

Loving that Harpo proposal. Addresses Randolph so much better than that fenced off surface lot.

[J_M_Tungsten]

^ I don't know, kids probably shouldn't walk through those shadows. Think of the children!

[J_M_Tungsten]

wierdaaron -Need a before picture for that harpo picture to understand what I'm looking at here.

Originally Posted by spyguy

Harpo Studios redevelopment

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Yeah I understand why that is the case but elementary schools are necessary as well, especially for South Loop. I know many parents who wished there were more options other than South Loop Elementary and National Teacher's Academy, which is why they wished the old Jones College Prep building would be converted into a neighborhood school.

National Teachers Academy could be converted to a neighborhood school. There's also Perspectives on Archer.

[wierdaaron]

So they're going to knock down the current building, then? I wasn't sure if this was going to be adaptive reuse (aka Sterling Bay style) or new construction, but the footprints are totally different so I'm guessing it's all new. And considering it's SB I'm guessing offices? They don't look like apartment windows, as much as I'd love those windows in an apartment.

I really always thought Harpo was bigger than that.

[wierdaaron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

National Teachers Academy could be converted to a neighborhood school. There's also Perspectives on Archer.

I think the teachers academy has quite a few neighborhood slots, as I often hear it being used as the reason we don't need any new schools down here.

Sometimes I fantasize that the city will use eminent domain or manifest destiny to seize the new south loop British School and make it a neighborhood school. I might start writing alternate reality city planning fan fiction for stuff like that.

[BrinChi]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Ever heard the phrase, it "takes money to make money?". Also it's not always a choice where to spend money. In most cases it's a choice to accept money awarded to the city. If a city gets a federal loan grant to build a park, they can't use it to build a school. That would be illegal.

It's simple really. Signature parks ---> elevate housing values ---> more tax revenue. It makes sense to spend money on public projects that will deliver higher returns.

I agree that the city should continue to make public investments that deliver high returns, even if it means taking on more debt, which seems highly counter-intuitive in the minds of those wanting to minimize financial risk. But I'm afraid we still aren't scrutinizing the projects enough to ensure they will provide the return that is promised. Don't get me wrong, I personally love so many of the current projects because they make the city beautiful and more desirable for me and many others, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should take top priority for Chicago's current financial position. At this point, Chicago investments need to be long-term sustainable.

For exmple, if you look at the study referenced earlier that reviews all of the economic benefits of Millennium Park, it tells you how the park generated "$428.5 million – $586.6 million for
hotels, from $672.1 million – $867.1 million for restaurants, and from $529.6 million – $711.1million for retailers." That's great for those industries, but that doesn't necessarily convince me that the project was a good investment for the city. Corporate tax and income tax revenues go to the state, as well as half of the sales tax... what does this mean for city revenues? I want to know the ROI specifically for the city, and I think if we had this figure transparently laid out before future projects are proposed, it would be far easier have a conversation with anyone opposed to making the investment for fiscal reasons.

Maybe the numbers are out there, and I just never come across them, but I would really like to see more analyses of how much extra tax revenue these projects are going to generate relative to costs. How much after 5-years, 10-years, 15-years? We should be demanding the empirical facts that support the decision for making each (at least major) public investment... right now, politicians can get away with broadly stating that this project will boost economic activity and provide jobs without ever getting into specifics. Without specifics, project support will fully depend on fiscal ideology rather than facts.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. That said, I do agree that the riverwalk/606 are highly likely to be worth the investments because of the federal funding. So this is more of a general comment for project like say, the new DePaul arena.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Ever heard the phrase, it "takes money to make money?". Also it's not always a choice where to spend money. In most cases it's a choice to accept money awarded to the city. If a city gets a federal loan grant to build a park, they can't use it to build a school. That would be illegal.

It's simple really. Signature parks ---> elevate housing values ---> more tax revenue. It makes sense to spend money on public projects that will deliver higher returns.

Yep - Whenever I hear stuff like "stop spending every single thing!" in those situations, I know the person isn't really as well versed in Economics as they think.

Pretend you spend $20M on some new attraction which gets new tourists to come in. Pretend it brings in 100,000 more tourists per year, at an average stay in the city of 3 days at $225/night average for a hotel per night. At 16.4% hotel tax per night, that's over $11M per year in tax revenue from hotels alone. This isn't even counting what they spend on other stuff from just being in the city, like being at bars, food, etc. I mean, if you said the average tourist just spent $100 per trip extra on average in those 3 days, that's still an extra $1M per year off of taxes. After just less than 2 years, you've made back your initial investment on that alone. Add a few more months in for maintenance costs. If that rate of tourism continues for 10 years, all of a sudden, you're probably sitting at over $70M profit for the city whereas if you never spent a penny on it....well you can do the math.

Or like you said, housing values for another park, blah blah. The list goes on. You have to spend money to make it sometimes, especially when you're dealing with large entities/organizations like a city or a company. There's a reason why companies continue to invest in developing and selling new products even when successful.

[wierdaaron]

Beyond just looking at the tourism draw, I think there's also just the added value of "public good". Even if zero tourists come to town specifically for the riverwalk or any new park, it still contributes to the value of the city by making people happy, making people willing to pay more to live and work near them, making workers stay in the area for longer before going home and thus spending more money, and benefits on and on.

What interests me is that the loan is from the U.S. Department of Transportation, when a riverwalk promenade isn't exactly what you think of when it comes to USDOT's primary interests. You'd think they'd be paying for wider interstate highways or something.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

Maybe the numbers are out there, and I just never come across them, but I would really like to see more analyses of how much extra tax revenue these projects are going to generate relative to costs.

Well, it's more of a scatter-shot approach. That's typically the way large corporations approach R&D, or the way movie studios fund projects. You fund 15-20 promising ideas, but only 2-3 will end up being big moneymakers. When you hit it big, it needs to be really big to cover all the ideas that don't pan out.

Cities do run like this to some extent... that's why every city checks the big boxes of stadiums, convention centers, airports, etc. But you can't run entirely like this, or your struggling neighborhoods would get completely cut off from investment.

[harryc]