CHICAGO | General Developments

[UPChicago]

WTH Did they install the wrong arches or something?

[sentinel]

^Yes, same corner (Aldiplatz)—but what's happening with those parabolic arches seen in the photo? Will those really flatten out under load so much that they become bowstring trusses whose top chords are the circular arcs shown in the rendering? The arches look like they're already anchored to abutments much too close together for them to flatten that much.

I was thinking the same exact thing, and I just assumed it was the difference between the two views (the photo being more or less head-on vs the angled view of the rendering), although I'm probably wrong :shrug:

[rlw777]

^Yes, same corner (Aldiplatz)—but what's happening with those parabolic arches seen in the photo? Will those really flatten out under load so much that they become bowstring trusses whose top chords are the circular arcs shown in the rendering? The arches look like they're already anchored to abutments much too close together for them to flatten that much.

The angle at which the 606 meets Milwaukee makes the arches look more parabolic in that photo than what they really are. Though they are still quite a ways off from the rendering

[PKDickman]

The angle at which the 606 meets Milwaukee makes the arches look more parabolic in that photo than what they really are. Though they are still quite a ways off from the rendering
They seem a little taller, but that was a conceptual sketch. I imagine it changed when actual engineers started crunching numbers.
That said, most of what you see is due to foreshortening when viewed from the same angle it is pretty close.

Its purpose is to allow the removal of the support piers on Milwaukee.
Each span of the original bridge is made of 4 pieces. They put big honkin" fish plates at the joints, but I doubt that it could support its own weight without shearing off the bolts, hence the arch.

The original bridge has been raised about a foot and a half and the arches are anchored to the tops of the original beams, cables will carry the load.

[UrbanLibertine]

That's going to be a really nice entryway and exterior focal point for the 606.

This is the same spot, right?

http://the606.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2013.06.12_MVVA_Milwaukee-Leavitt-930x516.jpg

http://the606.org/design/final-design-plans/

[mark0]

Uh, wrong. Traffic is absurd along Milwaukee from Division to Logan. It's especially bad between Division and North and then also between Armitage and Fullerton. On any given day that 2 mile stretch will take up to 30 minutes to pass! It is a serious problem as it is now, much less after MORE development along Milwaukee

I think the real problem on Milwaukee and most major intersections ( Im looking at you Chicago Ave. at LaSalle) is the lack of left turn arrows. This city is plagued by left turn lanes waiting a full light sequence to let one car turn, while the right lane is blocked by single right turner waiting for pedestrians. I cant fathom how Chicago is so poorly left turn laned in 2014. I've watched intesections be rebuilt 2 and 3 times in in my lifetime without addressing the turning situation.

[PKDickman]

I think the real problem on Milwaukee and most major intersections ( Im looking at you Chicago Ave. at LaSalle) is the lack of left turn arrows. This city is plagued by left turn lanes waiting a full light sequence to let one car turn, while the right lane is blocked by single right turner waiting for pedestrians. I cant fathom how Chicago is so poorly left turn laned in 2014. I've watched intesections be rebuilt 2 and 3 times in in my lifetime without addressing the turning situation.

I have noticed this on several diagonal intersections. I don't know why, perhaps timing is a mathematically insoluble problem. On Milwaukee it is aggravated by the bike lanes precluding rush hour parking bans.

Elston, Damen and Fullerton is another. Despite being labeled as the worst intersection, there is only one left turn signal.

I could fix that one for pocket change. Turn arrows, eliminate street parking on Damen as far as the expressway, and pass an ordinance making it illegal to make a left hand turn into a fried chicken stand.

Problem solved.

[wierdaaron]

If you'd like to see some choice quotes about MDP from outraged LSE residents: http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20141210/loop/maggie-daley-park-dog-ban-park-district-reverses-course-angers-residents

I can't have my dog poop in the new 55 million dollar park, therefore it's stupid and ugly! Surprised nobody tried to bring up the first amendment.

[Via Chicago]

not a good season for Chicago historic buildings and fires

Roofers blamed for extra-alarm restaurant fire
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-extraalarm-fire-burns-at-south-loop-eatery-20141210-story.html

Chicago Firehouse, 1401 S. Michigan Ave.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5488873c/turbine/chi-chicago-firehouse-restaurant-blaze-20141210/600/600x338
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5488873c/turbine/chi-chicago-firehouse-restaurant-blaze-20141210/600/600x338

WHYYYYY is torch roofing still allowed

[Mr Downtown]

Be careful what you wish for. Left-turn arrows may reduce driver frustration at certain times of day, but they also reduce total intersection throughput (because of the time taken out of the signal cycle). For the same reason, they make intersections less friendly to pedestrians.

Until recently, Phoenix traffic engineers were quite proud of how few left-turn signals their city needed. It was considered a sign of a fully functioning dispersed grid of streets, as opposed to suburban-style networks where a small number of big arterials carry all the through traffic—requiring left-turn arrows and even dual turn lanes at major intersections.

[sentinel]

not a good season for Chicago historic buildings and fires


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-extraalarm-fire-burns-at-south-loop-eatery-20141210-story.html

Chicago Firehouse, 1401 S. Michigan Ave.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5488873c/turbine/chi-chicago-firehouse-restaurant-blaze-20141210/600/600x338
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5488873c/turbine/chi-chicago-firehouse-restaurant-blaze-20141210/600/600x338

WHYYYYY is torch roofing still allowed

Good question - correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the same thing that happened at Holy Name a few years back??

[Via Chicago]

yessir. and countles other buildings.

(actually, i dont know if Holy Name was roofing, but I know it was a restoration project using blowtoches)

[UrbanLibertine]

Anybody have a list of lower density/smaller residential developments or developers that have active websites or Facebook pages, similar to Flexhouse 2 or Basecamp, which post regular construction updates?

yessir. and countles other buildings.

(actually, i dont know if Holy Name was roofing, but I know it was a restoration project using blowtoches)

[SamInTheLoop]

^The buyer is an immigrant from India. He founded Vistex, in Hoffman Estates. Just goes to show the American dream is still alive. He should be your inspiration rather than your envy.


In jest, right? Look, the American dream is probably a slippery and elusive concept. But suffice it to say, I think many more people would equate the American dream with things like each generation having a better quality of life than the one prior, that social mobility in society is high and widespread, that one's socioeconomic status as a child were not a major determinant of socioeconomic status later in life, that homeownership if so desired and a smallish number of children if so desired were financially feasible options, that obtaining a high quality education were both not prohibitiviely expensive - and not prohibitively expensive unless taking on the burden of a lifetime of high 5 or 6 figure debt, etc etc etc - than equate it with things like moving to this country to start a technology company and buy an 8 figure penthouse as a showplace for clients.......

......just sayin'

(by the way, I neither envy the guy nor admire nor look down on him or up to him....and I most certainly acknowledge the continuing importance of all kinds of immigration to the US and entrepreneurship and innovation, by the US and foreign-born....

[Via Chicago]

i dont know what it is with high end properties, but it wouldnt surprise me to see this guy spend millions of dollars furnishing this thing only to decide its not what he imagined and tries to sell...for a loss. theres no possible way to re-coup that kind of furnishing investment as everyones tastes are different and high end stuff especially tends to look outdated very quickly and too tied to the eccentricities of its owner. id like to hold out hope it will be done tastefully, but he is coming from Barrington Hills...

hey, its his money. just hope his employees are getting bonuses.

[Rizzo]

Be careful what you wish for. Left-turn arrows may reduce driver frustration at certain times of day, but they also reduce total intersection throughput (because of the time taken out of the signal cycle). For the same reason, they make intersections less friendly to pedestrians.

Until recently, Phoenix traffic engineers were quite proud of how few left-turn signals their city needed. It was considered a sign of a fully functioning dispersed grid of streets, as opposed to suburban-style networks where a small number of big arterials carry all the through traffic—requiring left-turn arrows and even dual turn lanes at major intersections.

I wish ALL signaled intersections had turn arrows. They tell people what they are allowed to do vs what people THINK they can do. I've had way too many close calls with turning cars that failed to yield when I had a WALK sign. Why were they turning? Oh right, no left arrow available to direct traffic

[Rizzo]

If you'd like to see some choice quotes about MDP from outraged LSE residents: http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20141210/loop/maggie-daley-park-dog-ban-park-district-reverses-course-angers-residents

I can't have my dog poop in the new 55 million dollar park, therefore it's stupid and ugly! Surprised nobody tried to bring up the first amendment.

Glad there will be no dogs allowed. Public space needs a break from animals. Kids should be able to play in open grass space without having to step in dog sh*t.

[aaron38]

So you're implying that every single unit has someone from out of town or someone who is elderly or someone who is disabled visiting them at all times. Which is, I hope you realize, absolutely absurd.

Or their neighbors have cars so there isn't a spare spot for them to use. Or they do have a car because they have a small child. Or they work in the burbs. Or they want to be able to go shopping for something larger than a loaf of bread. Or they don't want their car broken into/crashed into. Or they'd like to be able to have someone visit on Christmas when it's snowing when street parking is impossible. I can go on. But one doesn't have to use a spot continuously for it to be a very useful thing to have.

We've visited friends in Brooklyn, 4 of us drive in versus flying. And it's their one off street parking spot that let us do that. They don't have cars, and we don't drive our car once in the week we're there. But that one spot makes the trip possible.
That spot doesn't make traffic in Brooklyn worse, doesn't make it a bad place for people.

Rule of thumb: If a place is great for cars, it's bad for people.
At my house in the burbs, I can legitimately park 10 cars in the driveway, and 5 more on the street. (done precisely that for some pretty epic parties) And that's in a very dense, very pedestrian friendly Metra oriented suburban core that does a good job balancing people and cars. But if 10 cars per unit is a great place for cars, I just don't see why 1 isn't great for people versus zero.

I've noticed that many urban planners treat parking the exact same way that Republicans treat taxes. Just cut, cut, cut, cause as many problems as possible, and hope that browbeats people into acting the way you want them to.

[OrdoSeclorum]

At my house in the burbs, I can legitimately park 10 cars in the driveway, and 5 more on the street. (done precisely that for some pretty epic parties) And that's in a very dense, very pedestrian friendly Metra oriented suburban core that does a good job balancing people in cars. But if 10 cars per unit is a great place for cars, I just don't see why 1 isn't great for people versus zero.

I've noticed that many urban planners treat parking the exact same way that Republicans treat taxes. Just cut, cut, cut, cause as many problems as possible, and hope that browbeats people into acting the way you want them to.

If a developer wants to build more parking spaces, nothing's stopping him. He can build 300 spaces for 50 apartments if he likes. I think developers should be allowed to build as many parking spaces as he thinks the market wants. Almost everyone here believes that. The problem you're describing does not exist. The fact is that the "planners" you refer to in every instance mandate a minimum amount of parking, but not a maximum. In only a few places in this country (Manhattan, a couple historic districts, a few TOD zones) is it even permitted to not build a large amount of parking for residences. Think about that. Georgetown, Lincoln Park, Back Bay, The French Quarter--there's not a city in the country where it would even be legal to build those neighborhoods that are in demand and great to spend time in.

I don't want to limit parking; I simply don't want parking that developers don't want to build and that residents don't want to use or pay for to be required by law.

[UPChicago]

Or their neighbors have cars so there isn't a spare spot for them to use. Or they do have a car because they have a small child. Or they work in the burbs. Or they want to be able to go shopping for something larger than a loaf of bread. Or they don't want their car broken into/crashed into. Or they'd like to be able to have someone visit on Christmas when it's snowing when street parking is impossible. I can go on. But one doesn't have to use a spot continuously for it to be a very useful thing to have.

We've visited friends in Brooklyn, 4 of us drive in versus flying. And it's their one off street parking spot that let us do that. They don't have cars, and we don't drive our car once in the week we're there. But that one spot makes the trip possible.
That spot doesn't make traffic in Brooklyn worse, doesn't make it a bad place for people.


At my house in the burbs, I can legitimately park 10 cars in the driveway, and 5 more on the street. (done precisely that for some pretty epic parties) And that's in a very dense, very pedestrian friendly Metra oriented suburban core that does a good job balancing people and cars. But if 10 cars per unit is a great place for cars, I just don't see why 1 isn't great for people versus zero.

I've noticed that many urban planners treat parking the exact same way that Republicans treat taxes. Just cut, cut, cut, cause as many problems as possible, and hope that browbeats people into acting the way you want them to.

How long is your commute? How close is your nearest grocery store? How many bars/entertainment venues do you have around you?

Land in the suburbs just isn't as valuable as land in the city and if you have to drive to a pedestrian friendly suburban core how pedestrian friendly is it? A car doesn't make life more convenient. I own a car and live in the city, like a lot of people, but I often will leave my car at home and walk to the store or take the train because it is more convenient. Once I get older and more unable to walk maybe I will settle into a more suburban mentality. No one is trying to browbeat anyone if you want amenities in a compact location you live in a city, if you are worried about a car and how many people with cars can get to you you need to live in the suburbs.

[SamInTheLoop]

If a developer wants to build more parking spaces, nothing's stopping him. He can build 300 spaces for 50 apartments if he likes. I think developers should be allowed to build as many parking spaces as he thinks the market wants. Almost everyone here believes that.


Sorry, but I don't buy this notion that a majority of the urbanistas that follow these pages would be against mandated parking maximums......not for a second. I'm whole-heartedly in favor of low parking maximum levels, particularly in transit-proximate areas. I bet there's a whole horde with me as well. Developers should not be able to build absolutely as many parking spots as they want, due to the adverse externalities (too much completely unnecessary congestion, pollution, et al). This is like the ultimate test of whether you're a completely ideologically-driven free market fundamentalist that is perpetually intellectually trapped in a fairy tale rational market expectations model world, or are you open to sensible, practical real world solutions.....

[untitledreality]

And that's in a very dense, very pedestrian friendly Metra oriented suburban core that does a good job balancing people and cars.
I think your view of "very dense" is rather inaccurate.

Palatine on the whole has a density of 5,000ppsm, and has maybe a dozen storefronts total in the only area of town that could be considered 'walkable'. As for being oriented around Metra, I see nothing here oriented around Metra except parking (http://goo.gl/maps/ECY6p)

Maybe your argument could hold water if you used Oak Park of Evanston, but each of those are in the 10,000ppsm range. Chicago neighborhoods that are comprised of nothing but walkups are already 20,000+ppsm, while traditionally dense neighborhoods along the lake are 30,000+ppsm.

[spyguy]

Not as cool but Chestnut Place (850 N State Street) across from State & Chestnut currently being built was purchased a few months ago by Golub. They are in the process of basically renovating the entire building into luxury units. This includes the lobby, business space where Go Roma was, etc.

If you stop by the lobby, you can see a few renderings of what the lobby is going to look like. Looks pretty nice - architects are Wright Heerema.

Updates to the street level as well it seems.

http://i60.tinypic.com/6o1or8.jpg

[Skyguy_7]

12/10/14

There are incredible views throughout the entire ribbon. Moreso than the rink at Millennium. It will certainly be an awesome experience for tourists and locals alike.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ARMuLfCgYlY/VImWsFBIrJI/AAAAAAAABy4/Cvvuqju4jOI/s520-no/14%2B-%2B1

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-BzAodzsyJpg/VImWsDcTzgI/AAAAAAAAB0Y/aNSjYZ52BNQ/w693-h520-no/14%2B-%2B2

This hot chocolate stand doubles as a snow disposal station..
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-93e2pC7SNKg/VImWsE-jumI/AAAAAAAABzA/_apjr_EeSZE/w693-h520-no/14%2B-%2B7

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-BQF_DrNP2Rs/VImWsD-saRI/AAAAAAAABzY/5xnYP0nnpJw/w693-h520-no/14%2B-%2B8

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-RdsF6dowjDc/VImWsLehvRI/AAAAAAAAB0A/XuX2dC3Bn8g/w693-h520-no/14%2B-%2B9

Skate rental lobby
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-zUlBIjvJu5A/VImWsOUhN9I/AAAAAAAAB0I/leCo_X1juCg/w977-h520-no/14%2B-%2B3

Looking south
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7gS-XLWC0dk/VImWsPELBPI/AAAAAAAABz0/y8r4tNJVZsI/w693-h520-no/14%2B-%2B4

Multi-purpose rooms
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-p1tQYblDaDM/VImWsD74mxI/AAAAAAAABzI/TZvxvgY_h10/w693-h520-no/14%2B-%2B6

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-e8FJcnBIkws/VImWsBKA7iI/AAAAAAAAB0Q/3rxNXu9TBZc/w693-h520-no/14%2B-%2B10

Bonus coverage: HVAC unit serving the fieldhouse. Quality work right here ;)
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Xsq8_fqbfDI/VImWsAP6usI/AAAAAAAABzQ/nB1YBikNVqA/w693-h520-no/14%2B-%2B11

[the urban politician]

Updates to the street level as well it seems.

http://i60.tinypic.com/6o1or8.jpg

^ I'd call that more than updates. Looks like they are significantly adding to their street level retail presence, correct me if I'm wrong.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Sorry, but I don't buy this notion that a majority of the urbanistas that follow these pages would be against mandated parking maximums......not for a second..

Shug. Maybe. I'm certainly for pedestrian designated zones and limits on curb cuts. Doesn't change the fact that persecution aaron38 perceives--regulations on parking maximums--essentially does not exist.

[aaron38]

I don't want to limit parking; I simply don't want parking that developers don't want to build and that residents don't want to use or pay for to be required by law.

Agreed, and I'm not asking for a minimum parking ratio either. Yes let the market decide. But I was responding to the comment that a 1:1 parking ratio was "absurd". I don't agree, and I don't think the market will either. If I'm wrong, great.
But access to the Blue Line is what lets people park their cars and not drive on a daily basis. It's what lets some units have zero cars, so that other units can have two if they need, or free up a space for visitors. Because living in the city and walking everywhere doesn't mean you don't still have in-laws in McHenry County, or a brother in Sheboygan.

Doesn't change the fact that persecution aaron38 perceives--regulations on parking maximums--essentially does not exist.
I didn't mean to imply that. I was referring mostly to the pundit class, not actual government regulations.



Palatine on the whole has a density of 5,000ppsm, and has maybe a dozen storefronts total in the only area of town that could be considered 'walkable'. As for being oriented around Metra, I see nothing here oriented around Metra except parking (http://goo.gl/maps/ECY6p)

Not to go too far OT: Yes we still have surface lots. But since 2002, 14 new ~5 story condo buildings were built, all with underground parking. Plus a ton of row houses. All walking distance to Metra. And another full block of parking was going to bite the dust for a 5 story, first floor retail complex from Focus Development, before the recession killed it off. But more development will happen. Those surface lots just mean we have room to grow. Just like the West Loop.

[emathias]

^ I'd call that more than updates. Looks like they are significantly adding to their street level retail presence, correct me if I'm wrong.

And I'd say they have no reason to be sorry for it, either ...

[wierdaaron]

And I'd say they have no reason to be sorry for it, either ...
It's an apology for not having better street level presence before!

Here's the current state:

http://i.imgur.com/r35eCNL.jpg (http://imgur.com/r35eCNL)

Not that bad tbh. Pretty aggressive upgrade, going to 2 floors of retail.

[emathias]

...
We've visited friends in Brooklyn, 4 of us drive in versus flying. And it's their one off street parking spot that let us do that. They don't have cars, and we don't drive our car once in the week we're there. But that one spot makes the trip possible.
That spot doesn't make traffic in Brooklyn worse, doesn't make it a bad place for people.
...

And, if you had to, you'd have been just as well-served to drive to some central parking center on the outer edges of the borough or in the industrial parts of Queens and then take a hired car or train into Brooklyn. Still cheaper than four plane or even four bus tickets, and only marginally less convenient than parking literally at your friends place. Parking doesn't have to be available for every unit in an area. Many of the uses you describe don't even need it to be available in the same neighborhood. There is certainly no reason to require it with the full force of the law.

[Via Chicago]

Finch's Plans Massive Brewery, Taproom on Chicago River

Finch's Beer Co. has plans to build a new brewery and tap room along the North Branch of the Chicago River in Lincoln Park.

The Chicago-based brewer announced the design and development of the brewery that is set to open in late 2016 or early 2017 along with riverwalk improvements and a beer-to-go growler and package store.
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20141211/lincoln-park/finchs-plans-open-brewery-on-chicago-river-lincoln-park

http://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/chicago_photo/2014/12/finchs-beer-company-1418329743.jpg/extralarge.jpg


pretty vague on the exact site but this looks awesome

[LouisVanDerWright]

Yesssss, I've always wanted more businesses to locate along the river and cater to boats. Think of how awesome the river could be if there were actual recreational points to travel to by boat? Combine that with a complete riverwalk network and you get :slob::slob::slob:

[hawainpanda]

Updates to the street level as well it seems.

http://i60.tinypic.com/6o1or8.jpg

cool i like it, I wished there was more curb space to accomadate more pedestrian traffic. I wonder if enterprise is going to leave permanently to make way for this new construction

[LouisVanDerWright]

Updates to the street level as well it seems.

http://i60.tinypic.com/6o1or8.jpg

WTF? There goes another piece of Chicago's architectural heritage. It's not Taj Mahal, but this little plaza and the building itself have a great design. It's a Weese who seems to be the architectural victim of the moment along with anyone else who ever dabbled in brutalism or monumental massing. I put this building in the same generation of extremely late Moderism that is slowly devolving into post modernism. I am not a fan of this wart they are planning to add to the base.

Seems we can't take one step forward (like the new tower across the street) without taking at least one, maybe two, steps backward. I was looking forward to the interaction of this plaza and the new building's arcade across the street. This was going to be a very unique public space with extreme density looming over it. Now it's just another street where there is retail just mashed up against the sidewalk.

[bcp]

^ yeah..if they just chamfered the main corner, like they did to the right, it would really make it more cohesive with what is above.

[wierdaaron]

Not huge news, but ever since Infinite Chicago (the restored Steger building on Jackson at Wabash) and now Old Colony, I've been really curious about this whole upscale student apartments concept and how it even makes sense.

After doing that piece on the Old Colony building restoration, I was in good enough graces with the parent company behind the student housing developments to be able to talk to their COO to have him explain it to me. I wrote up the gist of it here: http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2014/12/11/dont-call-them-dorms-inside-the-loopss-new-luxury-student-housing.php

They seem to be doing amazingly well with very fast growth. They mainly build their developments in college towns as close to campus as possible, but they don't affiliate with the schools at all. They compete against poorly-run and overpriced university owned dorms by having everything anybody could ever want in an apartment, priced just a little higher. Chicago is the first urban market they've entered, but there's so damn many schools downtown it makes sense to try out the concept here.

After I toured OCB I said here that it's a shame that building will be only for students, and maybe after a while they'll want to flip it to market rate residential. Turns out the company also has a market rate res portfolio, so they wouldn't even have to flip the building... if the market changes and student apartments doesn't work, they could change the business model to regular apartments in no time at all.

Also, the OCB property's website is up now, and on the gallery page they have some renders of the interiors, so you can see how they're handling the aesthetic with all the wood. http://arcatoldcolony.com/gallery/

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Golub sucks. I don't think they've produced/are producing anything of architectural merit.

[marothisu]

Updates to the street level as well it seems.

http://i60.tinypic.com/6o1or8.jpg

Oh wow..that's quite a change to what's there already. Crazy but this could be really interesting for the area with all the other new changes nearby - if they could fill this up. However, I'm not happy about the space being eaten up - it was a nice little thing there. Too bad it wasn't very well utilized.

[Tom Servo]

WTF? There goes another piece of Chicago's architectural heritage. It's not Taj Mahal, but this little plaza and the building itself have a great design. It's a Weese who seems to be the architectural victim of the moment along with anyone else who ever dabbled in brutalism or monumental massing. I put this building in the same generation of extremely late Moderism that is slowly devolving into post modernism. I am not a fan of this wart they are planning to add to the base.

Seems we can't take one step forward (like the new tower across the street) without taking at least one, maybe two, steps backward. I was looking forward to the interaction of this plaza and the new building's arcade across the street. This was going to be a very unique public space with extreme density looming over it. Now it's just another street where there is retail just mashed up against the sidewalk.

If by Weese you mean Harry Weese, then this is not a Harry Weese building.

That being said, I'm not a fan of whatever I'm looking at either. I'm never a fan of these clumsy additions. Just tear the whole thing down and start over or leave it alone.

[HomrQT]

cool i like it, I wished there was more curb space to accomadate more pedestrian traffic. I wonder if enterprise is going to leave permanently to make way for this new construction

Sad to see the trees and flowers go.

[marothisu]

Chestnut Place was designed by Weese, Seegers & Hickey. That's not Harry Weese, but his brother Ben.

One thing that you won't see unless you go into the building is that the nice atrium which was painted by Richard Haas has been now painted white by Golub (probably has to do with renovation phase).

[SamInTheLoop]

Agreed, and I'm not asking for a minimum parking ratio either. Yes let the market decide.


I would love for somebody - anybody - to come up with a compelling argument why the government of the city of chicago should allow developers no upper limit on the amount of parking spaces they build for new residential developents in greater downtown, and proximate to transit in the ward - that doesn't revolve around your own personal (misguided) free market ideology. Anybody. Just try it. The opportunity for excessive parking will result in some cases in excessive parking being built (excessive meaning that folks who could reasonably go without car spots, will instead be induced to grab one because - why not, my building has 300 parking spaces and I can save 10 minutes here and there and can still drive myself to costco (or whatever) whenever I want. Excessive parking results in more congestion, pollution (negative externalities) and all of the related social, economic, and environmental fallout. Therefore, one tool in the government's toolbox to address said negative externalities should clearly be for in these dense, transit accessible areas, to have no minimum parking spots, and to institute reasonable maximum number of parking spots.

Guys, this stuff is not that hard. Pretty straightforward, practical policy....

[SamInTheLoop]

If by Weese you mean Harry Weese, then this is not a Harry Weese building.

That being said, I'm not a fan of whatever I'm looking at either. I'm never a fan of these clumsy additions. Just tear the whole thing down and start over or leave it alone.


Yeah, I'm with you guys on this makeover - that rendering at least is a little f'ed up!!

[bcp]

I would love for somebody - anybody - to come up with a compelling argument why the government of the city of chicago should allow developers no upper limit on the amount of parking spaces they build for new residential developents in greater downtown, and proximate to transit in the ward - that doesn't revolve around your own personal (misguided) free market ideology. Anybody. Just try it. The opportunity for excessive parking will result in some cases in excessive parking being built (excessive meaning that folks who could reasonably go without car spots, will instead be induced to grab one because - why not, my building has 300 parking spaces and I can save 10 minutes here and there and can still drive myself to costco (or whatever) whenever I want. Excessive parking results in more congestion, pollution (negative externalities) and all of the related social, economic, and environmental fallout. Therefore, one tool in the government's toolbox to address said negative externalities should clearly be for in these dense, transit accessible areas, to have no minimum parking spots, and to institute reasonable maximum number of parking spots.

Guys, this stuff is not that hard. Pretty straightforward, practical policy....


does chicago currently have parking maximums in place for new developments?

[SamInTheLoop]

^ No - to my knowledge there are absolutely no maximums whatsoever - anywhere.

Having stated that, it's of course important to remember that essentially everything about a PD is 'negotiable', meaning that if an alderman wanted to withould support for a project unless it had less than xyz parking spaces, there's nothing to prevent him/her from doing that and in effect that would be a sort of ad hoc maximum. Alas, that would be quite the odd occurrence in practice, because as we all know the pandering tendency would be for alderman in general to try if anything negotiate the number of spaces upward to placate NIMBY voices!

[PKDickman]

Yeah, I'm with you guys on this makeover - that rendering at least is a little f'ed up!!

It is ugly.

But don't get your panties in a bunch just yet.
Chestnut Place is part of a of a larger planned development that limits the lot coverage at ground level to 86%.
As far as I can tell, the plaza on State St. is part of that 14% and it doesn't appear that they have received permission at this time.

[SamInTheLoop]

So wondering if anybody has heard anything about something planned for 1813 S. State in the South Loop? I noticed there were demo permits very recently issued for 1 and 2 story masonry building(s) located there......

[the urban politician]

It is ugly.

But don't get your panties in a bunch just yet.
Chestnut Place is part of a of a larger planned development that limits the lot coverage at ground level to 86%.
As far as I can tell, the plaza on State St. is part of that 14% and it doesn't appear that they have received permission at this time.

^ I highly doubt that a savvy developer is going to go through all this without having gotten the ok from Zoning.

You know, we're not talking about demolishing an old frame house in the neighborhoods (here's looking at you Novak), it's a skyscraper downtown.

I, for one, being a bit less design-oriented than the rest of you, welcome this project. It adds to the street level retail presence which is very good for River North. More and more people are migrating off the Mag Mile to do their shopping and that is the mark of Chicago's increasing global city awesome-ness.

[wierdaaron]

I know nothing about this building, so this could either be a tragedy or no big deal whatsoever, but I just noticed the old Western Union lettering from the side of this building on Congress is gone now and replaced with some newer company's signage.

http://i.imgur.com/tybOUKrl.jpg (http://imgur.com/tybOUKr)

[emathias]

Sad to see the trees and flowers go.

They look nice in photos, but are really unusable by pedestrians and cause considerable congestion for pedestrians during warmer months. I like trees a lot, but this isn't a particularly well-considered implementation of them.

[bcp]

^ No - to my knowledge there are absolutely no maximums whatsoever - anywhere.

Having stated that, it's of course important to remember that essentially everything about a PD is 'negotiable', meaning that if an alderman wanted to withould support for a project unless it had less than xyz parking spaces, there's nothing to prevent him/her from doing that and in effect that would be a sort of ad hoc maximum. Alas, that would be quite the odd occurrence in practice, because as we all know the pandering tendency would be for alderman in general to try if anything negotiate the number of spaces upward to placate NIMBY voices!


OK..then the free-market is working just fine...chicago is doing amazing, and although developers are allowed to build as much parking as they want...they don't. Welcome to our side! ;-)

[Jibba]

Demo permit was issued for 4027 Broadway (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9553061,-87.6510168,3a,48.7y,74.59h,87.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-o9WMh5lhn-kfQlKvBkhcQ!2e0!6m1!1e1) back in October. Hopefully that Studio Dwell project gets everything set to proceed.

4027 N Broadway
Preliminary proposal is 20 units, that might change to accommodate retail
Developer is Akara, designed by Studio Dwell
http://i59.tinypic.com/95sizp.jpg

[ardecila]

^ I highly doubt that a savvy developer is going to go through all this without having gotten the ok from Zoning.

You know, we're not talking about demolishing an old frame house in the neighborhoods (here's looking at you Novak), it's a skyscraper downtown.

I, for one, being a bit less design-oriented than the rest of you, welcome this project. It adds to the street level retail presence which is very good for River North. More and more people are migrating off the Mag Mile to do their shopping and that is the mark of Chicago's increasing global city awesome-ness.

Go through all what exactly? This rendering looks very conceptual, and is possibly being put out to gauge interest in the commercial market.

I, for one, will posit that the reason Mag Mile, Oak Street, etc are desirable retail streets is because of their wide sidewalks. The city screwed over North State Street long ago by cutting its sidewalks down to an uncomfortable narrow width, made worse by crumbling concrete and subway grilles.

The vast majority of new buildings along State Street have acknowledged this problem and included setbacks or arcades to widen the sidewalk, either by choice or because city planners required them to do so. This proposal is bucking the trend and actually removing open space at ground level, which is awful. The building owners may profit in the short term from commercial leases, but they will ultimately regret it when other retail space opens nearby in more pleasant environs, and they are stuck with low-rent tenants.

[PKDickman]

Go through all what exactly? This rendering looks very conceptual, and is possibly being put out to gauge interest in the commercial market.

I, for one, will posit that the reason Mag Mile, Oak Street, etc are desirable retail streets is because of their wide sidewalks. The city screwed over North State Street long ago by cutting its sidewalks down to an uncomfortable narrow width, made worse by crumbling concrete and subway grilles.

The vast majority of new buildings along State Street have acknowledged this problem and included setbacks or arcades to widen the sidewalk, either by choice or because city planners required them to do so. This proposal is bucking the trend and actually removing open space at ground level, which is awful. The building owners may profit in the short term from commercial leases, but they will ultimately regret it when other retail space opens nearby in more pleasant environs, and they are stuck with low-rent tenants.

Every PD has to apply for any changes, when zoning issues a letter of approval it gets appended to the PD file. I checked a couple lately and found that the letter showed up in the digital file within a couple of weeks.
There is no letter newer than 96 on PD227 when they added a floor to the lowrise portion on Dearborn.

There are also no permits in place or applied for.

This PD got a several cookies from the city including vacation of the public way and, depending on how you parse it, 30,000-60,000 sqft.

Those don't come for free, and if expanding the State St. sidewalk from its 6 ft width is one of the concessions the developer made to get those cookies, zoning will hold them to it.

[SamInTheLoop]

OK..then the free-market is working just fine...chicago is doing amazing, and although developers are allowed to build as much parking as they want...they don't. Welcome to our side! ;-)


You've either mis-read or misunderstood.

There should be parking maximums. In some cases - perhaps a lot of cases, too much parking has been built in residential developments in greater downtown and in transit-proximate neighborhood locations. In some cases developers on their own have built too much. In some cases, they've probably been prodded/mandated by pandering aldermen to do so. (this mandatory upper limit on parking would be to protect the city against developers building excess parking on their own as much as aginst aldermen and NIMBYs). Again, people, adding excessive parking spaces is just like what happens when you add more lanes to the freeway - it only encourages more driving - leading to the negative social, economic and environmental externalities of congestion, waste and pollution. What is it you can't accept about this? (oh - let me guess, it conflicts with your ideology, right?)

The point of parking maximums would be to limit excessive parking from the standpoint of what works for a healthy functioning downtown society, and to limit negative externalities - not to help the private market ensure that there are enough parking spots for everyone always (what's 'good' in maximizing individual choices for all individual agents is in many, many cases, not good for society, ie 'the market' overall). Newsflash: This is an example of private market failure (just like the 07-08 financial crises and great recession)

Guys - this stuff is not challenging. The rationale of your argument is perplexing - 'since there are no parking maximums currently, and the city is not in ruins, then no maximums must be working just fine - we've got this one figured out' - ........no, not perplexing - intellectually bankrupt is more apt....

[SamInTheLoop]

Demo permit was issued for 4027 Broadway (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9553061,-87.6510168,3a,48.7y,74.59h,87.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-o9WMh5lhn-kfQlKvBkhcQ!2e0!6m1!1e1) back in October. Hopefully that Studio Dwell project gets everything set to proceed.

No kidding - this is fantastic!

[wierdaaron]

So wondering if anybody has heard anything about something planned for 1813 S. State in the South Loop? I noticed there were demo permits very recently issued for 1 and 2 story masonry building(s) located there......
I'll ask around. With those two buildings demoed, that whole lot will be clear.

[ardecila]

Every PD has to apply for any changes, when zoning issues a letter of approval it gets appended to the PD file. I checked a couple lately and found that the letter showed up in the digital file within a couple of weeks.

Of course. I am aware of how the planning process works.

I'm saying that the developer did not necessarily secure planning approval before releasing a rendering. We don't even know they released a rendering, officially... spyguy just posted it. It all seems very conceptual at this point, I could assemble this rendering in an hour with a few stock photos and SketchUp.

[ardecila]

Crain's is reporting that Roosevelt Collection just signed Mago Grill & Cantina to fill one of the retail spaces - I'm excited for this, I'm a big fan of their suburban locations.

More interesting is another 17000sf lease with Regus for a shared workspace. I'm sure Sam will spin this as a missed opportunity for McCaffery, but I'm more interested in what this shows in terms of the downtown office market. Does this signal at least a small but growing demand for office space in the South Loop?

Nobody really takes it seriously at this point as an office location, but Roosevelt Collection is only 2 blocks from a rail hub with three different lines and direct transit access to much of the city. Admittedly, access from the suburbs is shitty, unless you happen to live near Metra Electric. But the Roosevelt Corridor has much better transit access generally than the booming Fulton Market area, even if it's not as trendy post-industrial.

[marothisu]

Demo permit was issued for 4027 Broadway (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9553061,-87.6510168,3a,48.7y,74.59h,87.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-o9WMh5lhn-kfQlKvBkhcQ!2e0!6m1!1e1) back in October. Hopefully that Studio Dwell project gets everything set to proceed.


Cool looking building. Stuff still in the works

http://webapps1.cityofchicago.org/buildingpermit/search/extendedapplicationstatus.htm?permitNumber=100561452

PRELIMINARY INTAKE REVIEW 2014-09-30 APPROVED
DRIVEWAY REVIEW 2014-11-25 CONDITIONAL PROJECT
LANDSCAPE REVIEW (ZONING) 2014-10-07 DENIED
ZONING REVIEW 2014-10-07 CONDITIONAL PROJECT

[PKDickman]

Of course. I am aware of how the planning process works.

I'm saying that the developer did not necessarily secure planning approval before releasing a rendering. We don't even know they released a rendering, officially... spyguy just posted it. It all seems very conceptual at this point, I could assemble this rendering in an hour with a few stock photos and SketchUp.

Sorry, because the quote button didn't include the the underlying quote from the Politician, it come out wrong.

I actually wrote what I did in support of your position.

I agree with you, both about the itsy bitsy sidewalks, and the fact that the rendering seems to prove bupkis in the effort department.

Bigger windows don't improve the pedestrian experience, if you have to walk in the gutter to get around three people looking at them.

[marothisu]

New 3 story parking structure for the Midtown Athletic Club on Elston near Fullerton is also going to have 19,000 sq ft of retail space.

[bcp]

You've either mis-read or misunderstood.

There should be parking maximums. In some cases - perhaps a lot of cases, too much parking has been built in residential developments in greater downtown and in transit-proximate neighborhood locations. In some cases developers on their own have built too much. In some cases, they've probably been prodded/mandated by pandering aldermen to do so. (this mandatory upper limit on parking would be to protect the city against developers building excess parking on their own as much as aginst aldermen and NIMBYs). Again, people, adding excessive parking spaces is just like what happens when you add more lanes to the freeway - it only encourages more driving - leading to the negative social, economic and environmental externalities of congestion, waste and pollution. What is it you can't accept about this? (oh - let me guess, it conflicts with your ideology, right?)

The point of parking maximums would be to limit excessive parking from the standpoint of what works for a healthy functioning downtown society, and to limit negative externalities - not to help the private market ensure that there are enough parking spots for everyone always (what's 'good' in maximizing individual choices for all individual agents is in many, many cases, not good for society, ie 'the market' overall). Newsflash: This is an example of private market failure (just like the 07-08 financial crises and great recession)

Guys - this stuff is not challenging. The rationale of your argument is perplexing - 'since there are no parking maximums currently, and the city is not in ruins, then no maximums must be working just fine - we've got this one figured out' - ........no, not perplexing - intellectually bankrupt is more apt....


hey man..we get it...but do you really think that because i don't agree with your ideology that i am dimwitted or intellectually bankrupt? stop throwing that crap around - sounds like a tantrum.

parking maximums have their place, yes i agree, especially near transit...but why not just say there are no requirements, and let developers take the risk of building too much or too little? what's the harm? a lot of people that have cars in the city BARELY use them. trust me, we are smart enough to figure that out without more zoning ordinances. Also, if a unit does not have parking...yet the market says it should...guess what? prices come down, real affordability happens.

rest assured, i'm not a fan of what cars and car-policy have done to our cities (and country)...that's the real fight to be fought. but in the meantime, i prefer the cruelty of the free-market.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Mine isn't the hard ideological position though - quite the contrary. It's one of practicality, one that is reality-based. Just what works for the city - for the overall populace. It's how the real world actually works. Freemarketeerism would be the rigid ideological stance here.

I can tell that the sensibleness of my position is drawing you in ('parking maximums have a place - especially in dense centralized locations and near transit'......), but then, here comes the rigid market ideology, pulling you back ('this sounds like big government, how can the government know better than the market - wait a minute, what would Milton Friedman think about me agreeing with this.....on second thought'.....), and then we lose you all over again.

Also, by your last paragraph, I can tell that you're not quite understanding the concepts I'm presenting. Laissez Faire parking (ie no maximums) stance encourages developers and in effect their NIMBY and pandermen enablers to do everything they can to maximize parking revenue - with no regard for the negative consequences for the overall market. That works great for the individual developer, but it produces market failure - again, in the form of excess congestion, pollution and all kinds of waste that the general population gets to endure, and these harsh externalities are not borne by these individual agents - they just cash their checks.

Here's the problem - I think the folks who get indoctrinated into this kind of freemarketeerism completely overlook private market failure and negative externalities, forget about them, pretend they don't exist, probably in some extreme cases don't believe they exist or truly don't understand them, or believe in fairy tale type solutions such as the market will just eventually figure it out (like anthropogenic global warming - 'don't worry, the market will come up with a solution in plenty of time'!)......total freshwater folly, and fail.

:speech: over

[SamInTheLoop]

Crain's is reporting that Roosevelt Collection just signed Mago Grill & Cantina to fill one of the retail spaces - I'm excited for this, I'm a big fan of their suburban locations.

More interesting is another 17000sf lease with Regus for a shared workspace. I'm sure Sam will spin this as a missed opportunity for McCaffery, but I'm more interested in what this shows in terms of the downtown office market. Does this signal at least a small but growing demand for office space in the South Loop?

Nobody really takes it seriously at this point as an office location, but Roosevelt Collection is only 2 blocks from a rail hub with three different lines and direct transit access to much of the city. Admittedly, access from the suburbs is shitty, unless you happen to live near Metra Electric. But the Roosevelt Corridor has much better transit access generally than the booming Fulton Market area, even if it's not as trendy post-industrial.


Good news on Mago - and I'm happy to hear (I've never been to any out in da burbs) that at least they have fans! Perhaps this is a much better operator than the original (also Mexican) restaurant that was planned for this space.

You know I'm alway happy to try to spin anything into a negative for McCaffery :D Actually, to be perfectly honest, it typically doesn't take much spin....just data, facts photographs and/or renderings are usually more than enough to paint a self-evidently very negative portrait!

But on this lease to Regus - it is kinda interesting indeed. Truthfully my reaction was that it says more about the greater difficulty of leasing out 'duplex' retail spaces - or just 2nd-level retail spaces for that matter - than anything necessarily positive about office space in this location (or near south more generally). Then, again, there's absolutlely nothing - nothing at all remotely like this anywhere close to it, so maybe it's also matter of just a real niche they can capitalize on - no competition for Regus - and my best guess is not likely to be much more of these anytime soon anywhere proximate.........how this location will turn out for Regus I have no idea whatsoever......could be a little bit of a risk for sure.........will be interesting to find out......

[bcp]

^ Mine isn't the hard ideological position though - quite the contrary. It's one of practicality, one that is reality-based. Just what works for the city - for the overall populace. It's how the real world actually works. Freemarketeerism would be the rigid ideological stance here.

I can tell that the sensibleness of my position is drawing you in ('parking maximums have a place - especially in dense centralized locations and near transit'......), but then, here comes the rigid market ideology, pulling you back ('this sounds like big government, how can the government know better than the market - wait a minute, what would Milton Friedman think about me agreeing with this.....on second thought'.....), and then we lose you all over again.

Also, by your last paragraph, I can tell that you're not quite understanding the concepts I'm presenting. Laissez Faire parking (ie no maximums) stance encourages developers and in effect their NIMBY and pandermen enablers to do everything they can to maximize parking revenue - with no regard for the negative consequences for the overall market. That works great for the individual developer, but it produces market failure - again, in the form of excess congestion, pollution and all kinds of waste that the general population gets to endure, and these harsh externalities are not borne by these individual agents - they just cash their checks.

Here's the problem - I think the folks who get indoctrinated into this kind of freemarketeerism completely overlook private market failure and negative externalities, forget about them, pretend they don't exist, probably in some extreme cases don't believe they exist or truly don't understand them, or believe in fairy tale type solutions such as the market will just eventually figure it out (like anthropogenic global warming - 'don't worry, the market will come up with a solution in plenty of time'!)......total freshwater folly, and fail.

:speech: over


...eh..nevermind, waste of time. free-markets suck, happy now?

[streetline]

...But the Roosevelt Corridor has much better transit access generally than the booming Fulton Market area, even if it's not as trendy post-industrial.

How do you figure? Unless you're counting the Red line a whole lot more heavily than any other el line, I'd say Fulton Market has better transit access (although it's not a big difference until you get west of the River).

Roosevelt Collection is about 1/3mi from the only el stop on Roosevelt, and Fulton St is within 1/3mi of an el stop (or two or three near Halsted) out to Elizabeth St. And neither one are exactly near Metra, but much of Fulton is still closer to the big West Loop Metra stations.

[wierdaaron]

Roosevelt Collection is about 1/3mi from the only el stop on Roosevelt

Uphill. Can't say that of many places in Chicago.

[ardecila]

How do you figure? Unless you're counting the Red line a whole lot more heavily than any other el line, I'd say Fulton Market has better transit access (although it's not a big difference until you get west of the River).

Roosevelt Collection is about 1/3mi from the only el stop on Roosevelt, and Fulton St is within 1/3mi of an el stop (or two or three near Halsted) out to Elizabeth St. And neither one are exactly near Metra, but much of Fulton is still closer to the big West Loop Metra stations.

Fortunately I don't need to speculate. Per Mapnificent (http://www.mapnificent.net), a 30 minute commute from each point is shown below. Notably, the 30-minute zone for Roosevelt Collection includes Midway Airport and larger chunks of Lincoln Park and Lakeview. Fair warning, this tool does not really understand Metra service and gives weird results once you get past city limits.

Fulton Market (Google HQ)

http://i58.tinypic.com/24cac6x.jpg

Roosevelt Collection

http://i57.tinypic.com/im5dkx.jpg

[Rizzo]

WTF? There goes another piece of Chicago's architectural heritage. It's not Taj Mahal, but this little plaza and the building itself have a great design. It's a Weese who seems to be the architectural victim of the moment along with anyone else who ever dabbled in brutalism or monumental massing. I put this building in the same generation of extremely late Moderism that is slowly devolving into post modernism. I am not a fan of this wart they are planning to add to the base.

Seems we can't take one step forward (like the new tower across the street) without taking at least one, maybe two, steps backward. I was looking forward to the interaction of this plaza and the new building's arcade across the street. This was going to be a very unique public space with extreme density looming over it. Now it's just another street where there is retail just mashed up against the sidewalk.

I disagree. The Google streetview image shows exactly how clumsy the existing base is. The fenestration and entrance canopy---awful design. The new design will remove all that. It doesn't really matter it's detached since there was never good composition or appeal at street level. I looked at this building to rent in when I first moved to Chicago. They should have made these changes then. Better late than never

[Vlajos]

Cool looking building. Stuff still in the works

http://webapps1.cityofchicago.org/buildingpermit/search/extendedapplicationstatus.htm?permitNumber=100561452

PRELIMINARY INTAKE REVIEW 2014-09-30 APPROVED
DRIVEWAY REVIEW 2014-11-25 CONDITIONAL PROJECT
LANDSCAPE REVIEW (ZONING) 2014-10-07 DENIED
ZONING REVIEW 2014-10-07 CONDITIONAL PROJECT
Link didn't work for me, what is it?

[Vlajos]

I disagree. The Google streetview image shows exactly how clumsy the existing base is. The fenestration and entrance canopy---awful design. The new design will remove all that. It doesn't really matter it's detached since there was never good composition or appeal at street level. I looked at this building to rent in when I first moved to Chicago. They should have made these changes then. Better late than never

I'm sure I'm a philistine for agreeing with you

[Tom Servo]

I disagree. The Google streetview image shows exactly how clumsy the existing base is. The fenestration and entrance canopy---awful design. The new design will remove all that. It doesn't really matter it's detached since there was never good composition or appeal at street level. I looked at this building to rent in when I first moved to Chicago. They should have made these changes then. Better late than never

Whereas I don't disagree with you regarding the design of the current base; I don't agree with you regarding the new design. The overall design is just clumsy. It looks cheap, oversized, and tasteless. This lot, as I said, would be better off left alone or completely demolished.

[chrisvfr800i]

I heard the tower at State & Huron is dead due to aldermanic interference. Has anyone else heard anything on it??

[marothisu]

This is finally happening it looks like as a building permit was issued for it yesterday.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130512/lakeview/sappanos-paint-building-owner-seeks-redevelop-into-residential

Halsted & Oakdale/Wellington. 4 story 25 unit building replacing a former 1 story paint store (Sappanos).

[Rizzo]

Whereas I don't disagree with you regarding the design of the current base; I don't agree with you regarding the new design. The overall design is just clumsy. It looks cheap, oversized, and tasteless. This lot, as I said, would be better off left alone or completely demolished.

I don't care for the new design as much either so that means we agree

[SamInTheLoop]

I heard the tower at State & Huron is dead due to aldermanic interference. Has anyone else heard anything on it??


Haven't heard anything, but is this the VDT-designed tower?

[untitledreality]

NIMBYs out and about for Montrose Green of all projects:

NORTH CENTER — Tempers flared as neighbors clashed during a community meeting Wednesday night to debate a zoning change request for a proposed transit-oriented development on Montrose.

Opponents of the mixed-use Montrose Green project took issue with its density, height and the lack of parking spaces.

sauce (http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20141211/north-center/neighbors-clash-over-proposed-transit-oriented-development-on-montrose)

This is simply mind boggling. If this city is serious about the TOD ordinance it needs to have some real teeth. A project like this should be as of right. It disgusts me that this needs any sort of aldermanic approval.

[marothisu]

NIMBYs out and about for Montrose Green of all projects:



This is simply mind boggling. If this city is serious about the TOD ordinance it needs to have some real teeth. A project like this should be as of right. It disgusts me that this needs any sort of aldermanic approval.


These people need to get the fuck out of Chicago and stop stopping its progress. They're bitching about height at 55 feet and 24 residential units? Who the fuck are these people? That's not even dense..GOD

[chrisvfr800i]

Haven't heard anything, but is this the VDT-designed tower?

That's the one. It was a 28 storey, 7500 sqft per floor tower. I hope it can be resurrected!

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

NIMBYs out and about for Montrose Green of all projects:



This is simply mind boggling. If this city is serious about the TOD ordinance it needs to have some real teeth. A project like this should be as of right. It disgusts me that this needs any sort of aldermanic approval.

These people need to get the fuck out of Chicago and stop stopping its progress. They're bitching about height at 55 feet and 24 residential units? Who the fuck are these people? That's not even dense..GOD

Ugh, you guys. I saw this on Curbed yesterday at work and was so annoyed that I was pretty much useless for the rest of the day. IIRC, something like 25% of Chicago households don't even own a car, making these assertions that "everyone drives" bald-faced lies right off the bat. (That statistic alone should shut down these debates.) And among those who do own cars, there's certainly a significant enough minority who doesn't even use them on a daily (or even weekly) basis, people like my brother (he walks to work) for whom the marginal benefit of having access to a private vehicle is made possible only because of the infinitesimally small costs imposed by the city; they are able to treat the public, tax payer funded roads along which they reside as virtually free private parking lots. (Of course, this also applies to people who drive more frequently, but I think the former scenario really underscores the lunacy of car policies: seventy-five square feet of public land continuously occupied by an individual's private property for the modest price of a vehicle sticker. Bananas.) So when these urban neanderthals show up, terrified that some kind of innate and deep-seated quality renders Americans unable to adapt to life without a car, I just want to shake them until they realize they already have. I mean, seriously, are these people friendless shut-ins who only come out to kick and scream about density? Because a huge number of my friends and the people I meet—students and professionals, single and coupled, living in these same neighborhoods—don't own cars, and I have a hard time believing that, as long as their social circles extend beyond the confines of their apartments, they aren't friends with or at the very least know people who don't, either.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

I heard the tower at State & Huron is dead due to aldermanic interference. Has anyone else heard anything on it??

Haven't heard anything, but is this the VDT-designed tower?

That's the one. It was a 28 storey, 7500 sqft per floor tower. I hope it can be resurrected!

Whoa, what? Which tower are you guys referring to? I performed a cursory search and it yielded nothing.

[Randomguy34]

Whoa, what? Which tower are you guys referring to? I performed a cursory search and it yielded nothing.

Really? It's located on the first post of the highrise thread.

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u291/kdickert/096013-stateampHuron.jpg

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Really? It's located on the first post of the highrise thread.

That probably would've been a good first place to look... :duh

[marothisu]

Ugh, you guys. I saw this on Curbed yesterday at work and was so annoyed that I was pretty much useless for the rest of the day. IIRC, something like 25% of Chicago households don't even own a car, making these assertions that "everyone drives" bald-faced lies right off the bat. (That statistic alone should shut down these debates.) And among those who do own cars, there's certainly a significant enough minority who doesn't even use them on a daily (or even weekly) basis,

Yeah, I think the percentage of households that don't own a car in the city is 26.8% as of the 2012 5 year ACS. There's 1,030,076 households in Chicago which puts the average household size around 2.6 people. That's 276,000 households without a single vehicle (not just a car, but motor vehicle). That works out to maybe around 725,000 people in the city with no access to a car for themselves on a daily basis. I'm one of them and I certainly have numerous friends with cars who almost never use them and only have them in case of....something.

[ardecila]

It's easy to get riled up about the vocal opposition, but seemed like Pawar wasn't buying it. He might be my favorite alderman, although I haven't worked with him personally. When was the last time an alderman campaigned for more bus service? Usually they are part of the elite driving class and do not consider the issues faced by those who do not drive.

I'm sure Pawar will probably work with the developer to find a few minor changes to address the neighbor concerns, and green-light the zoning change. Maybe they can get a good neighbor agreement to prohibit the use of the "18-wheeler" beverage trucks... hate those things.

[the urban politician]

When was the last time an alderman campaigned for more bus service? Usually they are part of the elite driving class and do not consider the issues faced by those who do not drive.


^ Which I especially find to be a humorous and outdated mode of thinking. The notion that the "driving class" is elite and the "transit using class" are poor is a half-century old (or more) mode of thinking.

It's clearly generational. Pawar is one of the younger Aldermen, and he appears to understand that professionals with good incomes may still choose to not own or use a car in the city, and their needs should be accommodated. I think we are a good 10-15 years before the Gen-Xers and Millennials will really start taking control of the levers of power, bringing their fresher perspective with them to the public policy table.

[Mr Downtown]

^Wait, what are the parking needs of a professional who chooses not to own a car? Never having to see any? Not having to walk across curb cuts?

Allowing cars (and offstreet parking) is not the same as requiring them.

[marothisu]

^ Which I especially find to be a humorous and outdated mode of thinking. The notion that the "driving class" is elite and the "transit using class" are poor is a half-century old (or more) mode of thinking.

It's clearly generational. Pawar is one of the younger Aldermen, and he appears to understand that professionals with good incomes may still choose to not own or use a car in the city, and their needs should be accommodated. I think we are a good 10-15 years before the Gen-Xers and Millennials will really start taking control of the levers of power, bringing their fresher perspective with them to the public policy table.


Yep, it's pretty generational. I make more than enough to own a nice car, live downtown (which I already do) and pay for the parking yet I choose not to. Why would I? To use it once a month for 2 hours? I moved to my area for a reason - because I can walk to tons of different things that I need, or just take public transit or a cab/uber. By doing this, I sacrifice next to nothing in my life, am able to use some of that money saved to go on international vacations, and still save more money per year than I would if I owned a car. The cost and practicality of having one in the city to me is 98% pointless and many people under the age of 40 have my same line of thinking. This line of thinking will continue to grow, I guarantee it.

[Vlajos]

These people need to get the fuck out of Chicago and stop stopping its progress. They're bitching about height at 55 feet and 24 residential units? Who the fuck are these people? That's not even dense..GOD

Wow, those are some stupid people. They are going to lose the views from their back deck. Lol, a view of the Brown line.

[spyguy]

9 W Erie
http://i59.tinypic.com/2rzxqhf.jpg
True Foods restaurant and Yoga Six

[the urban politician]

9 W Erie
http://i59.tinypic.com/2rzxqhf.jpg
True Foods restaurant and Yoga Six

^ Shouldn't that be starting pretty soon?

[ardecila]

Awesome. One more surface lot bites the dust in a dense, vibrant neighborhood.

I said earlier that nobody build "taxpayer" style buildings anymore, but that's actually not true, especially in River North. The key is waiting for the monthly income for retail/restaurant to exceed the monthly revenue from parking cars.

[PKDickman]

^People don't build parking lots in River North because it is highly lucrative; they do it because it is lucrative enough.
The real problem is that the price of land per buildable foot in downtown Chicago is so low compared to New York, or Boston, or San Francisco, that it is a sound investment strategy to landbank it until the market catches up.

As glad as I am to see the parking go, these lots are zoned DX7 and DX12. A two story store front is so far below their highest and best use, that there can be no doubt that this is just another way to cover the bills until the property values change the equation.

Given the useful life of the building and an income that covers the cap rate this guy bought himself 20 years to wait it out. The parking lot guy took a hard look at selling every year when it was time to sealcoat..

[the urban politician]

^People don't build parking lots in River North because it is highly lucrative; they do it because it is lucrative enough.
The real problem is that the price of land per buildable foot in downtown Chicago is so low compared to New York, or Boston, or San Francisco, that it is a sound investment strategy to landbank it until the market catches up.

As glad as I am to see the parking go, these lots are zoned DX7 and DX12. A two story store front is so far below their highest and best use, that there can be no doubt that this is just another way to cover the bills until the property values change the equation.

Given the useful life of the building and an income that covers the cap rate this guy bought himself 20 years to wait it out. The parking lot guy took a hard look at selling every year when it was time to sealcoat..

Whatever it is, I'm more than thrilled to see a parking lot be replaced with this. Not everything needs to be a highrise, but almost certainly surface parking is the most anti-urban use of land out there.

[ardecila]

I don't really care if the zoning is maximized, so long as they are contributing to a vibrant and active streetscape. You can walk past the 2 story River North restaurants- Cantina Laredo, Zed451, etc - from the sidewalk you don't really notice whether there is a 30 story tower above or not.

It's not like the owner is trying to build tall and the neighbors won't let him.

[munchymunch]

It's not like that building will last more then 30 years. I wouldn't be to worried about it.

[the urban politician]

It's not like that building will last more then 30 years. I wouldn't be to worried about it.

^ To the contrary, more buildings like this create the conditions for further highrise development in the future.

I would like to see more development like this on some of the parking lots in the South Loop and even Streeterville, frankly

[munchymunch]

I think we're past this stage in Streeterville, every available parcel in those areas will be a high-rise or a stump hospital building.

[marothisu]

New 22 acre park opens up in Little Village --> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-little-village-park-opening-met-20141214-story.html