CHICAGO | General Developments

[r18tdi]

676 N. LaSalle? Isn't this the site of the proposed Latin American Cultural Zebra Rainbow Pile Zig-zag Centre Thingie?

[marothisu]

Clearly the Near North Side community area will easily pass 90,000 residents in the 2020 census. Anyone think it will manage to hit 100,000? (It was just over 80,000 in 2010)


If a decent rate were to continue and vacancy rates stay low, then I think over 100K people is definitely possible. Pretend right now there's 88,000 residents. Pretend for the 2016-2020 there's an average of 2000 new units delivered and 95% of them get taken with an average of 1.5 people per unit. It would creep over 100,000 people in that case by a few thousand.

[rlw777]

676 N. LaSalle? Isn't this the site of the proposed Latin American Cultural Zebra Rainbow Pile Zig-zag Centre Thingie?

Yes but that was a vision more than a proposal

They'll probably keep the ground floor commercial.
114 units in 132000 feet would be 1000ft plus apts. Not Cedar Street's modus operandi. Those guys are all about small units. Take out 22000 for one floor of commercial and the apt size is a more typical 820 ft.

This is really surprising to me. River North office space is in high demand at the moment with the lowest vacancy rate in the city.

[marothisu]

This is really surprising to me. River North office space is in high demand at the moment with the lowest vacancy rate in the city.

Yeah, but at the same time if they are doing this, it might mean that there needs to be a new office buildings built in RN ....maybe.

[ChiTownWonder]

676 N. LaSalle? Isn't this the site of the proposed Latin American Cultural Zebra Rainbow Pile Zig-zag Centre Thingie?

beat me to it

[the urban politician]

Yeah, but at the same time if they are doing this, it might mean that there needs to be a new office buildings built in RN ....maybe.

^ Exactly. A development like this will only spur more boutiquish tech office development in River North, such as that one dual office/apt proposal near the bend of the L tracks

[emathias]

They'll probably keep the ground floor commercial.
114 units in 132000 feet would be 1000ft plus apts. Not Cedar Street's modus operandi. Those guys are all about small units. Take out 22000 for one floor of commercial and the apt size is a more typical 820 ft.

Well, upwards of 30% of raw square footage is lost to hallways, elevators, stairwells, mechanicals, etc. So 132,000 square feet is really more like 92,400 square feet of apartment space, which is 810 square feet without removing any for commercial space. But you're probably right - there will likely be at least *some* ground-floor commercial space, which would mean even smaller average unit sizes. You can cram 2 bedrooms into 800 square feet, and with a mix of studios and 1-bedrooms included you could easily average under that.

[PKDickman]

Well, upwards of 30% of raw square footage is lost to hallways, elevators, stairwells, mechanicals, etc. So 132,000 square feet is really more like 92,400 square feet of apartment space, which is 810 square feet without removing any for commercial space. But you're probably right - there will likely be at least *some* ground-floor commercial space, which would mean even smaller average unit sizes. You can cram 2 bedrooms into 800 square feet, and with a mix of studios and 1-bedrooms included you could easily average under that.

It's not nearly that bad. The good designs are about 90% efficient. bad ones 85%. Not including amenities like gyms. But a 500 sqft gym on this would only be about 4/10 of a percent.

I can't lay my hands on the prints for the Cedar St. Milwaukee ave project but my recollection is that they weren't sloppy.

In any event, my numbers were based on it being 7/8 efficient which is the rule of thumb I use when I don't have the energy to measure all the hallways on the prints.

But in general, Cedar St likes a <600 ft unit The 820 number was being generous simply to prove my point about the ground floor.

[spyguy]

Which reminds me, whatever happened to the tower across the street (1 South Halsted)? Is the proposal dead? It looks like they got zoning approved and then...nothing.

I heard something about Fifield getting in on that project. Not sure what the latest is however.

[rlw777]

^ It will be a shame if nothing ever comes of that 1 S Halsted proposal. Nothing of that size is getting approved in the west loop again for a long time.

[Randomguy34]

Don't forget 590 Madison which is going to be 582ft. Although if you're talking about West Loop west of the expressway, then you're most likely right.

[rlw777]

Don't forget 590 Madison which is going to be 582ft. Although if you're talking about West Loop west of the expressway, then you're most likely right.

Yes I mean west loop excluding west loop gate

[ardecila]

^ Yeah, the Aldermanic involement and this stuff you mentioned about residential zoning being exempt (I never knew that till now) are huge barriers.

Looks like my dream came true, at least for the aldermanic part. Now if they could just extend the reduced parking requirements to RT and RM districts...

• A streamlined process for accessing the minimum lot area, floor area ratio (FAR), and building height incentives by allowing developers to secure these benefits through an Administrative Adjustment from the Zoning Administrator, as opposed to a zoning map amendment by City Council under current law.

Other details:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2015/july/mayor-emanuel-introduces-transit-oriented-development-reform-ord.html

[Skyguy_7]

7/27
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/462/20064285812_d737264cff_c.jpg[/url]

[the urban politician]

Looks like my dream came true, at least for the aldermanic part. Now if they could just extend the reduced parking requirements to RT and RM districts...



Other details:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2015/july/mayor-emanuel-introduces-transit-oriented-development-reform-ord.html

^ Holy crap, that's huge. Amazing how such a tiny snippet can mean so much.

[Chi-Sky21]

I still think they should go 1 step further. Have a charge for parking spots in relation to how close they are to public tran....with all money from this actually going to public tran.

[LouisVanDerWright]

They should go one step further and get rid of aldermanic prerogative all together and let people who actually have degrees in urban planning make planning decisions...

[Randomguy34]

Knock on wood that they don't approve a watered down version of the new ordinance like they did for the 2013 version because all these changes are necessary.

[k1052]

In unrelated news it seems the permit logjam is breaking up somewhat. We actually got called back in and now expect to receive permits very soon. Our contractor is having trouble scheduling now because lots of other people have received them or are expecting them shortly. Appears the new Commissioner is kicking some asses into gear.

[Vlajos]

In unrelated news it seems the permit logjam is breaking up somewhat. We actually got called back in and now expect to receive permits very soon. Our contractor is having trouble scheduling now because lots of other people have received them or are expecting them shortly. Appears the new Commissioner is kicking some asses into gear.

Very good news!

[LouisVanDerWright]

Yeah, I finally got a sit down about a week ago and we submitted plans with new comments/revisions as per our discussions with them. Should be finding out any day now whether they've come up with some new bullshit comments or whether they are finally going to let us start working.

[wierdaaron]

1,000% increase in the number of properties that would have parking reductions? Sold.

Now just keep going in that direction until there's no such thing as parking requirements. That seems like a market condition, anyway, not a municipal one. Why's the city even in the business of mandating parking spaces anyway? The thinking that if buildings didn't offer them, cars would all have to park on the street and clog up the works? I guess that makes sense historically, if you're working under the midcentury assumption that every human comes with at least one automobile.

[LouisVanDerWright]

The city is in the business of mandating parking spaces because aldermen control the process and the NIMBY hordes believe parking is a constitutional right.

[k1052]

1,000% increase in the number of properties that would have parking reductions? Sold.

Now just keep going in that direction until there's no such thing as parking requirements. That seems like a market condition, anyway, not a municipal one. Why's the city even in the business of mandating parking spaces anyway? The thinking that if buildings didn't offer them, cars would all have to park on the street and clog up the works? I guess that makes sense historically, if you're working under the midcentury assumption that every human comes with at least one automobile.

Neighborhood NIMBYs basically loose their minds anytime this is suggested. I mean I've known people who even want the city to reject as of right developments because they want a particular surface parking lot they use preserved or live in terror that they'll have a harder time finding street parking. I'm broadly in favor of anything that makes an alderman unable/unwilling to pander to these people.

[wierdaaron]

I gotta say, I very nearly lost all interest in city/development issues after that last community meeting for River North where the woman held up her daughter as a prop and said the kid wouldn't know what the moon is because a new building would block their view. That sucked all the wind out of my sails and made me think about finding some new hobbies.

I just don't understand why there needs to be any deference to residents as far as what gets built in the future, as long as it isn't a 90-foot mural of satan taking a dump on baby jesus or something. If anybody's voice should be heard during the conception of a new residential project, it should be the people who might want to live there. Somewhere in suburban Cleveland right now is a kid going to high school who one day might move to Chicago and has no plans to own a car and would want to live in an active neighborhood with strong street-level commerce and little chance of getting run over when crossing the street. Where is that guy's voice? Somebody who already lives in that neighborhood thinks it should have parking? Who gives a shit? They aren't going to live there. Should we ask them what color the carpet should be, too?

Like Natarus said (at that very meeting), if he'd asked everybody's opinion in the 70s there wouldn't even be a River North or any downtown high rise. I like the public meeting system of today only because it gives me, an enthusiast/journalist, early access to new developments.. but if the whole development system of today is just a circlejerk that lets politicians ride a wave of defacto support from *current* residents under the intrepid banner of "nothing is allowed to change", I can't imagine the amount of patience and perseverance it must take from the private sector to get anything of any worth built in this town.

TOD reform is very encouraging and seemingly out of left field from the mayor's office. I hope it means there's more stuff like that coming the city can get back to building.

As for the community meeting process, before I ran out of hope and youthful ambition last time, I was thinking that maybe something like a press conference where plans/proposals are shown to some grownups first. That way, curbed and dnainfo and the people here could get their info and get the word out first, and then if neighbors want to bitch they can do so at their own private bitching sessions. Otherwise, if I ever go to one of those meetings again I think I might have to leave as soon as the Q&A starts.

[ardecila]

Many high-end developers will continue to provide parking as an amenity to help sell/rent units, although creating a much larger reserve of TOD-eligible property will help developers to assess what the real demand for parking is instead of building to a required minimum.

TBH, the parking minimums came out of the bad old days of 4+1s where car ownership kept increasing across the city as CTA degraded and street crime went up. New residential units really did mean a loss of street parking. Now those trends are reversing. In terms of rates, I think we are at peak car for the core neighborhoods. Outlying neighborhoods may continue to increase car usage as bus service gets suckier.

[the urban politician]

I won't go so far as to say that community residents shouldn't have a say in zoning in their neighborhoods. I just don't think that a vocal minority should have an outsized voice just because the same 20 people show up to every meeting to bitch.

At the end of the day, though, a whole hell of a lot of dense development still gets approved, so I wouldn't call it a huge problem for Chicago, at least not on the level of a San Francisco or Boston.

[k1052]

At the end of the day, though, a whole hell of a lot of dense development still gets approved, so I wouldn't call it a huge problem for Chicago, at least not on the level of a San Francisco or Boston.

And we'd like to keep it that way. There has been a not inconsequential amount of neighborhood friction against TOD for no legitimate reason.

Living part time in SF has made me extraordinarily wary of excessive "community input".

[spyguy]

Mormon church on Clark, north of Bush Temple apartment conversion
http://i58.tinypic.com/5ls2e1.jpg
And south of Pritzker's townhome development
http://i60.tinypic.com/amwp48.jpg

[BWChicago]

Mormon church on Clark, north of Bush Temple apartment conversion

That's not just bad, it's unsettling.

[pilsenarch]

I consider myself a socialist, but when it comes to parking, I'm a total Milton Friedman free market capitalist... Let the developers decide how much parking they need... Although I would like to see caps... So maybe not so free market after all...:cool:

[harryc]

1,000% increase in the number of properties that would have parking reductions? Sold.

Now just keep going in that direction until there's no such thing as parking requirements. That seems like a market condition, anyway, not a municipal one. Why's the city even in the business of mandating parking spaces anyway? The thinking that if buildings didn't offer them, cars would all have to park on the street and clog up the works? I guess that makes sense historically, if you're working under the midcentury assumption that every human comes with at least one automobile.

Parking restrictions are insisted on by the residents who have no parking and must fight for street parking.

[wierdaaron]

I definitely understand the need to account for cars in planning and development, just as much as they account for people's biological waste when they add toilets and people's clothing when they consider laundry facilities. There was a time when basically every household needed somewhere to stick their car, so it's obvious that this would be a major thing that would be on home hunters' requirements list when they enter the market. So I suppose, along with basic human conveniences that a city or country might mandate a residence be equipped with like running water and ventilated bathrooms and heating or cooling in climates that necessitate, maybe a place to put your car got written into the rules in order to maintain a quality of life.

I was just thinking recently that if science or technology ever came up with an idea that could completely replace toilets it could probably never get wide adoption because it's illegal in many places to build a home without a toilet. As a consumer product, toilets stand (or sit) alone with maybe faucets and possibly refrigerators in having the rare market opportunity of being being a legally required product for some people.

It's unlikely we'll ever find a way to outmode the family commode, but I'm sure at one point it would have been equally strange to imagine that most people wouldn't have a car. But unlike biological functions, technology and human progress can reduce or eliminate the need for a car. Continuing to have enforced marking minimums in city planning feels to me like living in a world where nobody needs to poop anymore but we still have to install toilets.

[spyguy]

That's not just bad, it's unsettling.

Yes, it looks like a parking garage disguised as a HS/college gym, with a steeple.

---
In other news, a new 7 story, 99 room hotel with 50 parking spaces is being proposed for the Shell gas station on North and Ashland. Pretty basic design it seems.

[Randomguy34]

Well, looks like we lost the opportunity to develop the lot behind the Pritzker townhomes. It would have been really nice to develop that lot into a good highrise overlooking Bush Temple.

[the urban politician]

The Mormon Church is depressing.

The North/Avenue hotel is exciting.

[Near North Resident]

do we seriously need ANOTHER church in that area? no!

[wierdaaron]

The church looks someone used "content aware stretch" in Photoshop to extend it from 2 floors.

[Randomguy34]

I'm actually curious the odds of the church being approved. Reilly might not want backfire for people saying he prevented a religion from exercising their beliefs. Does DX-5 zoning allow for churches anyway?

[BVictor1]

I went to the 5th Ward Alderman meeting for a hotel in Hyde Park. For the most part, the crowd was cautiously supportive of the project. There were come concerns about traffic and cars and this sentiment mostly came from older residents. Funnily enough, there are still some people who are upset about the Vue53 project :) But they lost that one. There was one elder woman who was wearing a 'sky not skyscraper' button from her losing battle with the previously mentioned project. The older residential building from the 1920's to the northwest is taller.

The developers are using a TOD bonus for height (75')because of it's proximity to Metra electric. I believe that current zoning is B1-2. The developer also mentioned the proposed amendment change to the TOD ordinance being presented at city hall tomorrow.

There were no renderings to speak of yet, just massing studies. There will supposedly be another meeting in September.


Hotel for the corner of Dorchester and 53rd St.

botique hôtel/smart hôtels/the olympia companies

GREC Architects

commitment to local hiring and workforce development

height is an issue???

21,000 sq ft site

20' wide sidewalks on both Dorchester and 53rd additional 10' on Dorchester

30' from the south property line

10' setback from the alley easement

hotel 75' (staying within zoning)

parking/height/density?????

spring of 2016 and 12-15 months of construction

many people are pro-vitality

new transit oriented density (bonus from metro distance)

someone asked about permitted parking and the alderman says that it pushes the issue from one block to another (they're public streets)

one guy who's a resident said to sell your car and walk… (lives in the area)


https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5d909b3127ccee9ed6aa691d100000030O00AcNmjhy5atmwPbz4C/cC/f%3D0/ls%3D00606599846820150729030452365.JPG/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5d909b3127ccee9ec1e40b14100000030O00AcNmjhy5atmwPbz4C/cC/f%3D0/ls%3D00606599846820150729030451368.JPG/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5d909b3127ccee9ecb3d8f11700000030O00AcNmjhy5atmwPbz4C/cC/f%3D0/ls%3D00606599846820150729030532467.JPG/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5d909b3127ccee9ece893b1e900000030O00AcNmjhy5atmwPbz4C/cC/f%3D0/ls%3D00606599846820150729030532634.JPG/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5d909b3127ccee9ed748e10c600000030O00AcNmjhy5atmwPbz4C/cC/f%3D0/ls%3D00606599846820150729030607215.JPG/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D720/ry%3D480/

[LouisVanDerWright]

I'm actually curious the odds of the church being approved. Reilly might not want backfire for people saying he prevented a religion from exercising their beliefs. Does DX-5 zoning allow for churches anyway?

My religion says that every block of Chicago should consist solely of highrises and historic buildings. Hopefully he will take that into consideration...

[ChickeNES]

I also attended the 5th Ward meeting tonight. BVictor has already covered most of the details above. The majority definitely seemed to be for the proposal, judging by the applause for comments in favor compared to a few scattered claps for those opposed.

I was surprised that apparently this plan did not originate with the UofC. Apparently Smart Hotels came to UofC with this proposal and they agreed to sell. Given that the UofC just rehabbed the existing building on the corner of the site a year ago, the offer must have been attractive. Seems like Hyde Park is starting to gain the attention it rightfully deserves, and hopefully this means that the current pace of new development in HP will continue.

I was a bit confused that they claimed to be seeking a PD, while also saying a zoning change would not be required. IIRC, the existing zoning is either B1-2 or -3, but I honestly don't know the zoning system well enough to know what that allows.

Also, Hairston mentioned that next month's ward meeting would be about a development for the South Shore. I'd hazard to guess that this will be regarding her crusade to bring a Mariano's there.

[Near North Resident]

So somehow this slipped through the cracks, 750 N. Hudson got its building permit (foundation at least) 25 stories!

http://www.chicagocityscape.com/permits.php?pid=100604891
"New construction 25 story mixed use high rise consisting of retail at the first floor, parking at basement through the 3rd floor and dwelling units at floors 3 through 25 with amenity spaces at floors 3 and 4. 750 north hudson street- foundation only"


Only information I could find from the last year is this retail flyer, has pictures though
http://x.lnimg.com/attachments/AF42AEAD-DC28-495F-8547-765528CD499D.pdf

This area needs retail on Chicago ave, DESPERATELY so while the project itself is quite blandish, the potential for 6 smallish businesses in the podium/base of this building right on the street is excellent.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Does DX-5 zoning allow for churches anyway?

I don't know, but I assume, that the government can't in most circumstances tell a church where it can or cannot build due to the establishment clause?

[harryc]

So somehow this slipped through the cracks, 750 N. Hudson got its building permit (foundation at least) 25 stories!

http://www.chicagocityscape.com/permits.php?pid=100604891
"New construction 25 story mixed use high rise consisting of retail at the first floor, parking at basement through the 3rd floor and dwelling units at floors 3 through 25 with amenity spaces at floors 3 and 4. 750 north hudson street- foundation only"


Only information I could find from the last year is this retail flyer, has pictures though
http://x.lnimg.com/attachments/AF42AEAD-DC28-495F-8547-765528CD499D.pdf

This area needs retail on Chicago ave, DESPERATELY so while the project itself is quite blandish, the potential for 6 smallish businesses in the podium/base of this building right on the street is excellent.

Curbed article (http://chicago.curbed.com/tags/750-n-hudson) from last year

[LouisVanDerWright]

I don't know, but I assume, that the government can't in most circumstances tell a church where it can or cannot build due to the establishment clause?

No, they still have to adhere to zoning and building codes like everyone else. They couldn't build a church in M or PMD zoned land, for example. They also probably couldn't build in some C or B zonings as well.

DX is fairly unrestrictive when it comes to use, so I'm not surprised they are allowed to build that. However, it seems puzzling that they'd waste all the FAR since they probably paid for it in the price of the land.

[Near North Resident]

Curbed article (http://chicago.curbed.com/tags/750-n-hudson) from last year

Yeah that was over a year ago :P

But it appears as though nothing has changed on the renderings

[ChiTownWonder]

Is there a zoning map of Chicago somewhere? im trying to get more familiar with Chicago's zoning and terms like "DX-5" or "B" or "C" zoned areas

[emathias]

Mormon church on Clark, north of Bush Temple apartment conversion
http://i58.tinypic.com/5ls2e1.jpg
And south of Pritzker's townhome development
http://i60.tinypic.com/amwp48.jpg

Did Reilly make them do brick? I'm a long way from being a fan of the LDS Church, but if they did it in white marble like many of their actual temples are built in it would at least provide a visually interesting variation to the streetscape. This brick thing looks like they're trying to build something that incorporates things from Moody Bible College and Moody Church. If I was either Moody I'd be annoyed that an LDS church (which I'm quite sure many at either Moody still consider to be a cult) tried to ape my architecture.

Parking restrictions are insisted on by the residents who have no parking and must fight for street parking.

I fight parking requirements because I have a parking space I rent to other people and the less competition, the better. ;)

Well, looks like we lost the opportunity to develop the lot behind the Pritzker townhomes. It would have been really nice to develop that lot into a good highrise overlooking Bush Temple.

Amen.

The Mormon Church is depressing.
...

And so is that building they want to construct ...

I'm actually curious the odds of the church being approved. Reilly might not want backfire for people saying he prevented a religion from exercising their beliefs. Does DX-5 zoning allow for churches anyway?

I'm pretty sure DX-5 allows damn near anything short of a coal plant.

Is this still actually Reilly's ward? Isn't the line at Chicago Ave or even Superior after the redistricting? Whoever the alderman is, I just really wish that the church would be actual high-grade stone instead of brick.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Is there a zoning map of Chicago somewhere? im trying to get more familiar with Chicago's zoning and terms like "DX-5" or "B" or "C" zoned areas

Second City Zoning is the way to go:

http://secondcityzoning.org/

Its faster and better than the city's GIS map unless you are looking for detailed information. Also be sure to turn on the Sim City 2000 background music for the full effect.

[stevevance]

Is there a zoning map of Chicago somewhere? im trying to get more familiar with Chicago's zoning and terms like "DX-5" or "B" or "C" zoned areas

Yes, there is! Use Second City Zoning (http://secondcityzoning.org) to find the zoning district of any part of Chicago (based on the September 2014 zoning map). They also have a handy guide to explain what's possible (http://secondcityzoning.org/zones/) in each district.

Zoning district identifiers represent uses and densities

R: Residential only (however R districts allow things like police/fire stations, hospitals, schools, and foreign consulates)
B: Mixed use, residential and retail/commercial
C: Mixed use, residential and retail/commercial, but more uses, like drive throughs and things that require special approvals (day cares, taverns, adult uses, hospitals)
D: Downtown (everything, and densely)
M: Industrial and manufacturing (these are probably the most liberal zones, but they don't allow residential except for transitional shelters)

How to read a zoning district

Example district is "B2-3"
B is the use category (business, mixed use residential and retail/commercial)
2 is the use grouping (elderly housing is permitted in B2 and higher, but not B1)
-3 is the density description (how many elderly housing units can be built?)

Read the zoning code yourself (http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicagozoning/chicagozoningordinanceandlanduseordinanc?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicagozoning_il).

[marothisu]

So somehow this slipped through the cracks, 750 N. Hudson got its building permit (foundation at least) 25 stories!

http://www.chicagocityscape.com/permits.php?pid=100604891
"New construction 25 story mixed use high rise consisting of retail at the first floor, parking at basement through the 3rd floor and dwelling units at floors 3 through 25 with amenity spaces at floors 3 and 4. 750 north hudson street- foundation only"


Only information I could find from the last year is this retail flyer, has pictures though
http://x.lnimg.com/attachments/AF42AEAD-DC28-495F-8547-765528CD499D.pdf

This area needs retail on Chicago ave, DESPERATELY so while the project itself is quite blandish, the potential for 6 smallish businesses in the podium/base of this building right on the street is excellent.

Awesome! The building mostly sucks, but Chicago Avenue needs to get rid of most of its vacant lots. If it does that, then downtown gets much better for walkability in general. it's always a buzz kill to run into those things.

[Randomguy34]

Is there a zoning map of Chicago somewhere? im trying to get more familiar with Chicago's zoning and terms like "DX-5" or "B" or "C" zoned areas

Along with Second City Zoning, Daniel Kay Hertz made a simplified zoning map if you just want to see possible unit density. I found it very helpful when I first started learning about zoning and I still use it now. http://danielkayhertz.com/2015/04/16/the-simplified-chicago-residential-zoning-map/

[Near North Resident]

Awesome! The building mostly sucks, but Chicago Avenue needs to get rid of most of its vacant lots. If it does that, then downtown gets much better for walkability in general. it's always a buzz kill to run into those things.

I look forward to the day that the barren wasteland west of the river to milwaukee ave gets "fixed" on chicago ave. From the lake to the river though, is getting filled up very fast, pretty soon there won't be anything left to build :yes:

[PKDickman]

Yes, there is!

R: Residential only (however RM districts allow things like police/fire stations, hospitals, schools, and foreign consulates)


Not quite true. Schools, churches, libraries, fire houses and cemeteries. are permitted as of right in all R districts. Police stations and crematoriums are a special use in all R districts.
Hospitals, colleges, community centers and consulates all require a min RT4.

And to the original question.
Churches are as of right in a DR district, and a special use in DX, DC, DS.

[george]

'Gas station at 1551 W. North Ave., has filed plans with the city for a seven-story hotel on the site, which sits just west of the Kennedy Expressway. The project is the latest of a growing number of hotels proposed in Chicago neighborhoods.'

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150729/NEWS07/150729804/out-with-the-gas-pumps-in-with-the-key-cards

[marothisu]

'Gas station at 1551 W. North Ave., has filed plans with the city for a seven-story hotel on the site, which sits just west of the Kennedy Expressway. The project is the latest of a growing number of hotels proposed in Chicago neighborhoods.'

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150729/NEWS07/150729804/out-with-the-gas-pumps-in-with-the-key-cards

Good - I bet the city will be in favor of this as added tax revenue in the form of a hotel. Across the street there is a 30 unit building going up too with ground floor retail.

[OrdoSeclorum]

I look forward to the day that the barren wasteland west of the river to milwaukee ave gets "fixed" on chicago ave. From the lake to the river though, is getting filled up very fast, pretty soon there won't be anything left to build :yes:

Speaking of that, has anything come from the plan for a big development at the Gonnela baking site east of Ogden on Chicago? That place is still baking bread...

[Rizzo]

Good - I bet the city will be in favor of this as added tax revenue in the form of a hotel. Across the street there is a 30 unit building going up too with ground floor retail.

I was wondering what that was under construction

[bcp]

Speaking of that, has anything come from the plan for a big development at the Gonnela baking site east of Ogden on Chicago? That place is still baking bread...

Good! Jobs, aromas, and mixed-use is good...there are plenty of gas stations and vacant land to develop first - no need to sterilize.

[streetline]

I noticed Fred Latsko's Structure Management demolishing the half built illegal condos at Kinzie and Morgan (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20120829/CRED03/120829774/latsko-close-to-purchase-of-near-west-side-site) today. Anyone know if they're going to do something with that lot soon?

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150729/OPINION/150729787/fourth-city-heres-how-to-encourage-more-people-to-live-in-chicago

July 29, 2015
OPINION
'Fourth City'? Here's how to encourage more people to live in Chicago
By: KYLE SMITH

A recent study showing Chicago soon may lose its position as the nation's third-largest city to Houston misses the point. The study, conducted by the Kinder Institute on Urban Research at Rice University, shows that Houston has grown by 1.6 percent over the past four years. Chicago grew by just 0.2 percent. And in 2014, Chicago added just 83 people.

The core of the study's argument is that at 600 square miles, Houston has a lot of land on which it can add new housing. And at 228 square miles, Chicago doesn't—and isn't, according to the study. It could be just a matter of time before the Second City becomes the Fourth City.

But the Center for Neighborhood Technology contends that Chicago has land. It's near Chicago Transit Authority and Metra systems, and it's in demand as baby boomers and millennials move away from car ownership and toward transit-oriented development. Right now, Chicago does too little to permit such development in places where demand is strong or encourage it when demand is weak.

[harryc]

I noticed Fred Latsko's Structure Management demolishing the half built illegal condos at Kinzie and Morgan (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20120829/CRED03/120829774/latsko-close-to-purchase-of-near-west-side-site) today. Anyone know if they're going to do something with that lot soon?

Noooooooo

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-x1-lHWYSIMQ/STHEAIzorOI/AAAAAAAB7n8/U4uRABoDnGc/s1152-Ic42/P1100919_20_21.jpg
2008

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-aoPNuFdrLKE/VbmP9Ibva1I/AAAAAAAEVkE/t2UbqLfKrB0/w1226-h766-no/P1150912_3_4_tonemapped.jpg
2013

[Tom Servo]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150729/OPINION/150729787/fourth-city-heres-how-to-encourage-more-people-to-live-in-chicago

July 29, 2015
OPINION
'Fourth City'? Here's how to encourage more people to live in Chicago
By: KYLE SMITH

Who gives a fuck how many people live here? And what does it matter if Houston annexes the rest of south Texas to become the third largest US city? Houston's growth is hugely deceptive anyway.

I've always been annoyed by fools who focus so much on a city's population... as if it's some kind of measure of a city's worth. San Francisco, for example, is MUCH smaller than San Antonio. Does that make San Antonio the "bigger" feeling "city" or somehow better? No. Houston is a boring, sprawled out and sleepy oil town with really a lot Mexican food and a NASA center. It's population will never have any influence on us.

I don't give a shit if we get surpassed by nine cities and become the *whatever* largest city. :rolleyes:

What a goofy concern.

...

In any event... Anyone have some renderings on the new Blackhawks practice facility? The reason I signed on haha

[BVictor1]

Who gives a fuck how many people live here? And what does it matter if Houston annexes the rest of south Texas to become the third largest US city? Houston's growth is hugely deceptive anyway.

I've always been annoyed by fools who focus so much on a city's population... as if it's some kind of measure of a city's worth. San Francisco, for example, is MUCH smaller than San Antonio. Does that make San Antonio the "bigger" feeling "city" or somehow better? No. Houston is a boring, sprawled out and sleepy oil town with really a lot Mexican food and a NASA center. It's population will never have any influence on us.

I don't give a shit if we get surpassed by nine cities and become the *whatever* largest city. :rolleyes:

What a goofy concern.

...

In any event... Anyone have some renderings on the new Blackhawks practice facility? The reason I signed on haha


Because population matters in terms of tax intake for the upkeep of infrastructure and services. The depopulation that Chicago has seen was a catalyst in the closing of schools.

I've always been annoyed by fools who don't realize that a more concentrated population is what helps create a lively environment and gives reason for public transportation.

San Antonio may be larger in area and general population over San Francisco, but guess who wins on density per square mile.

Detroit at one time supported a population of 1.8 million and now has under 700,000. Which do you think is better? Which one was more economically vibrant?

[ChiTownWonder]

thank you to everyone who directed me to some easy to read zoning maps and some guides, really helpful! I'm starting to get a sense of how zoning works now, thanks!!:D

[Skyguy_7]

^^^ WTF, Tom? :sly:


At any rate.. If I read the article correctly, this new 2-rink training center will take the place of the big, black Malcom X building. Sweet! The Blackhawks are building up one hell of a footprint in the neighborhood.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CG/20150729/BLOGS04/150729768/AR/0/AR-150729768.jpg&maxw=600&q=100&cb=20150730050608&cci_ts=20150730050557

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150729/BLOGS04/150729768/blackhawks-city-to-build-new-practice-facility

[the urban politician]

Who gives a fuck how many people live here? And what does it matter if Houston annexes the rest of south Texas to become the third largest US city? Houston's growth is hugely deceptive anyway.

I've always been annoyed by fools who focus so much on a city's population... as if it's some kind of measure of a city's worth. San Francisco, for example, is MUCH smaller than San Antonio. Does that make San Antonio the "bigger" feeling "city" or somehow better? No. Houston is a boring, sprawled out and sleepy oil town with really a lot Mexican food and a NASA center. It's population will never have any influence on us.

I don't give a shit if we get surpassed by nine cities and become the *whatever* largest city. :rolleyes:

What a goofy concern.

...

In any event... Anyone have some renderings on the new Blackhawks practice facility? The reason I signed on haha

^ 100% agree.

[the urban politician]

^^^ WTF, Tom? :sly:


At any rate.. If I read the article correctly, this new 2-rink training center will take the place of the big, black Malcom X building. Sweet! The Blackhawks are building up one hell of a footprint in the neighborhood.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CG/20150729/BLOGS04/150729768/AR/0/AR-150729768.jpg&maxw=600&q=100&cb=20150730050608&cci_ts=20150730050557

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150729/BLOGS04/150729768/blackhawks-city-to-build-new-practice-facility

^ What pisses me off is that we have a sea of parking lots in the area, and this new rink takes the place of a perfectly good building.

[sentinel]

^^^ WTF, Tom? :sly:


At any rate.. If I read the article correctly, this new 2-rink training center will take the place of the big, black Malcom X building. Sweet! The Blackhawks are building up one hell of a footprint in the neighborhood.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CG/20150729/BLOGS04/150729768/AR/0/AR-150729768.jpg&maxw=600&q=100&cb=20150730050608&cci_ts=20150730050557

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150729/BLOGS04/150729768/blackhawks-city-to-build-new-practice-facility

Hold up, I thought the old Malcolm X building was to be converted into an arts-based High School for CPS???

[munchymunch]

Who gives a fuck how many people live here? And what does it matter if Houston annexes the rest of south Texas to become the third largest US city? Houston's growth is hugely deceptive anyway.

I've always been annoyed by fools who focus so much on a city's population... as if it's some kind of measure of a city's worth. San Francisco, for example, is MUCH smaller than San Antonio. Does that make San Antonio the "bigger" feeling "city" or somehow better? No. Houston is a boring, sprawled out and sleepy oil town with really a lot Mexican food and a NASA center. It's population will never have any influence on us.

I don't give a shit if we get surpassed by nine cities and become the *whatever* largest city. :rolleyes:

What a goofy concern.

...

In any event... Anyone have some renderings on the new Blackhawks practice facility? The reason I signed on haha

I get how it doesn't matter what postion we are, but a growth by what 92 people? Is not good for the economy we should be sustaining a growth that's level to the rest of the major cities in the United States.

[Randomguy34]

Hold up, I thought the old Malcolm X building was to be converted into an arts-based High School for CPS???

You mean ChiArts? They moved to Ukrainian Village near Humboldt Park

[Via Chicago]

i dont really see why the old MXC needs to come down...completely wasteful behavior

[killaviews]

DNA Info, amazingly, has two articles by the same reporter with two different views on a community meeting for a development on Devon. It seems like their reporting is getting weaker. They realized new developments, parking, and bike lanes are hot topics and will now cover them in the most salacious way possible.

Edgewater Brew Pub Owners Get Support From Community During Packed Meeting
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150730/edgewater/edgewater-brew-pub-owners-get-support-from-community-during-packed-meeting

Parking, Rowdy Behavior Among Concerns Over Lifting Devon Liquor Ban
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150730/edgewater/parking-rowdy-behavior-among-concerns-over-lifting-devon-liquor-ban

[sentinel]

i dont really see why the old MXC needs to come down...completely wasteful behavior

Agree 1,000%!! There are about 3 massive parkings lots that could have been used to build this facility....and they would have barely made a dent in overall parking needs for the United Center. Additionally, why not make this ADJACENT or closer to the UC, instead of having the new Malcolm X college between the two?? :shrug:

[marothisu]

Who gives a fuck how many people live here? And what does it matter if Houston annexes the rest of south Texas to become the third largest US city? Houston's growth is hugely deceptive anyway.

I've always been annoyed by fools who focus so much on a city's population... as if it's some kind of measure of a city's worth. San Francisco, for example, is MUCH smaller than San Antonio. Does that make San Antonio the "bigger" feeling "city" or somehow better? No. Houston is a boring, sprawled out and sleepy oil town with really a lot Mexican food and a NASA center. It's population will never have any influence on us.

I don't give a shit if we get surpassed by nine cities and become the *whatever* largest city. :rolleyes:

What a goofy concern.

...



I don't agree with you much, but I agree 1 million percent with you here. Anybody who only focuses on population (yes it's important) is an utter n00b.

[ChiTownWonder]

yea i really want to see the area around the united center become a vibrant hotel neighborhood with plenty of shopping and good cheap Chicago food restaurants.

[marothisu]

I get how it doesn't matter what postion we are, but a growth by what 92 people? Is not good for the economy we should be sustaining a growth that's level to the rest of the major cities in the United States.


Except not - you're too simple. Just because you only grew by 92 people doesn't mean it was a proportional change. In any big city, there's always people coming and going.

So if we say that Chicago between 2013 and 2014 lost 10,000 people but gained 10,100 people and the mean income of those 10,000 people was $25,000 per year, but the mean income of the 10,100 people gained was $40,000. There are a lot more factors? Are the new people more likely to be property owners? Do the new people spend more money? If both groups spent 10% of their gross income yearly on taxable goods at an average rate of 9.25%, the first group leaving accounts for $2.3 million. The second group, incoming, even though it's only 100 people more, accounts for $3.7 million. That's a 61% increase on tax revenue even though it's only 100 people added.

And while it would be great to keep those 10,000 people there for a total of $6 million, it's not proportional which is my point. Most people who don't think about these things would think that those 10,100 people would just add only $23,000, when it's actually $1.4M on top of what was there before in that situation.

There's a hell of a lot more to figuring out financials than people. Not everyone is the same - people all make different amounts of money, have different spending habits, some own property while others don't, etc. All of these things play into economics. If population was the only factor to this then Detroit would be more economically viable than Seattle because it has a greater population, but that's not the case or even close. You have to take in all factors, not just population. Yes, having the most population is great to a point, but having a lesser population doesn't automatically mean that the economy of the city is going to decline too. It might, but then it might not because there's so many factors.

[PKDickman]

I get how it doesn't matter what postion we are, but a growth by what 92 people? Is not good for the economy we should be sustaining a growth that's level to the rest of the major cities in the United States.

It's pathetic, growth is essential and that wasn't growth, it was a loss. If we had retained our existing population, the rate of natural increase would have increased our pop by 15000 in 2014.

But, contrary to the article, our problem isn't from lack of housing (according to CMAP we had 138,000 vacant units in 2010), nor is it lack of develop-able land. We have 10s of thousands of acres in vacant lots and parking lots There must be 100 acres on Wash Blvd alone.

Even if all the city's vacant land was RS3 we would fit at least another 1/2 million before we get into the gas stations and strip malls.

[sentinel]

^^Until the state/Chicago budget crisis is resolved, until the underfunded pension issue for both the state/Chicago is resolved, and until a lot of socio-economic issues in the most blighted and neglected communities in Chicago are stabilized, there will never be a large net-positive influx of people moving into Chicago (or Cook county, for that matter). Increased development due to zoning modifications can only do so much, sadly.

[marothisu]

^^Until the state/Chicago budget crisis is resolved, until the underfunded pension issue for both the state/Chicago is resolved, and until a lot of socio-economic issues in the most blighted and neglected communities in Chicago are stabilized, there will never be a large net-positive influx of people moving into Chicago (or Cook county, for that matter). Increased development due to zoning modifications can only do so much, sadly.

True, but again - it's not proportional in economics. Not everyone who comes into the city has the same earning/buying power as who left. And while it's not going to be a huge change, it could be sizable.

[sentinel]

True, but again - it's not proportional in economics. Not everyone who comes into the city has the same earning/buying power as who left. And while it's not going to be a huge change, it could be sizable.

True, to a point. I think sometimes people forget that those individuals or families in lower income brackets who leave for cheaper cities (or cheaper surrounding suburbs) still maintain a large purchasing power which is being ignored, somewhat. What good is it having just higher income earners/higher income bracket demos when you've completed priced-out everyone else/the majority, who happen to be below a certain threshold? Trickle-down economics don't work to begin with, so then what happens when everyone below a certain threshold has to move out of Chicago for Cicero, or worst-case scenario, Atlanta or suburban Indy?

If the baseline quality of life issues for 'Average Joe or Jonelle in Chicago' are not being addressed, then what's being created? A solely plutocratic City-state where everyone else is relegated to the provinces? Frankly, I don't want to see Chicago become like Monaco.

[SamInTheLoop]

^^ I think many of us recognize your difficulty here: you're completely ignoring the forest for the trees - no, not even the trees - you're mixing it up entirely within the weeds........the forest misses you, at least acknowledge her existence and say "hi" once in a while (no, clearly the forest isn't everything, but it's far from nothing as well, and your approach here needs a good dose of forest to rebalance - come out from the thorny underbrush, old friend)....

[marothisu]

True, to a point. I think sometimes people forget that those individuals or families in lower income brackets who leave for cheaper cities (or cheaper surrounding suburbs) still maintain a large purchasing power which is being ignored, somewhat. What good is it having just higher income earners/higher income bracket demos when you've completed priced-out everyone else/the majority, who happen to be below a certain threshold? Trickle-down economics don't work to begin with, so then what happens when everyone below a certain threshold has to move out of Chicago for Cicero, or worst-case scenario, Atlanta or suburban Indy?

It's not being ignored, but at the same time their purchasing power is not the same as someone who makes double what they do. Even if you had 10,000 people who made double what another group did on average but 5000 of them spent the same as the people who made half as much as them (half the percentage), you'd still see a positive economic impact from that new group. Or should I say a lot more positive than people think. I'm talking strictly about tax revenue at this point. And yes, when people are spending more money, the businesses make more money. It's up to them how to manage that money though which is one reason trickle down doesn't always work in practice.


Obviously keeping everyone is the most optimal and I'm not saying otherwise. All I'm saying is that just because you add 100 people doesn't mean that the economic impact would be the same from adding 100 people of the previous group. You could have 5000 people who come into the city and make $250K/year and love to spend money and 25% of them buy/buy and build expensive property. The economic impact from that, even if 10,000 people leave and your net is -5000 might still see positives for the city. A previous page had an example of mine that wasn't terribly far fetched which showed that. People need to start thinking in a more complex manor when dealing with economics. Economics are not so simple all the time.

[sentinel]

^^ I think many of us recognize your difficulty here: you're completely ignoring the forest for the trees - no, not even the trees - you're mixing it up entirely within the weeds........the forest misses you, at least acknowledge her existence and say "hi" once in a while (no, clearly the forest isn't everything, but it's far from nothing as well, and your approach here needs a good dose of forest to rebalance - come out from the thorny underbrush, old friend)....

Good God Sam, I expect more from you. You're argument is what, exactly?? Stop trying to be Mike Royko.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ you know that was a response to marothisu, right??

[sentinel]

^ you know that was a response to marothisu, right??

No I didn't, it wasn't clear who you were responding to.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ OK, sorry - so let it be clear.

Also, just to play it super-safe: You know I wasn't really making an ecological argument, correct?

;)

[sentinel]

^ OK, sorry - so let it be clear.

Also, just to play it super-safe: You know I wasn't really making an ecological argument, correct?

;)

No worries, although I love weed(s), er..

[marothisu]

^ you know that was a response to marothisu, right??

You actually missed my point. Especially when I said that losing people is not the most optimal thing and obviously you want to keep everyone, but that wasn't even my point even though I already believe that losing people sucks.

However, you're missing the other point made that it's not proportional. if you don't understand that, then you shouldn't ever be talking about Economics. Anybody who thinks that adding X number of people is automatically going to be proportional to the previous group is a complete neophyte, especially in a big city with so much turnover of population (and yes, that goes for growing cities like LA, Houston, and NYC).

[the urban politician]

....So I was able to check out the interior of the Cold Storage project (ie Googleplex) in the West Loop yesterday.

That place is going to be rad.

[BVictor1]

St. Dominick's demolition...

07/30/15
https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5d911b3127ccee9e97a785cb400000030O00AcNmjhy5atmwPbz4C/cC/f%3D0/ls%3D00606599846820150731062641111.JPG/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5d911b3127ccee9e9c33a1c3200000030O00AcNmjhy5atmwPbz4C/cC/f%3D0/ls%3D00606599846820150731063449248.JPG/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D720/ry%3D480/

[pilsenarch]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Tom Servo too... and marothisu...

regardless of whether Chicago is 3, 4, 5 or whatever in the count, we will always have a unique concentrated urban environment with amenities (uhh, lake?) public infrastructure and transportation system that is just about impossible to recreate... particularly from a mosquito infested Texas suburban sprawl like Houston...

Chicago is in the midst of redefining itself... somebody posted recently some stats on #of empty units, empty lots, etc... that's concerning, but that is the old definition of Chicago where nobody wanted to live in filthy, noisy downtown...

That, as we are all aware of, is drastically changing and as it does, we need to keep this in the forefront of our planning minds as the city inevitably starts to ever-so-slowly expand back into those abandoned neighborhoods...

[Kenmore]

Chicago should see a massive boom when sea level rise and climate change renders large swaths of America uninhabitable in 50-100 years, it's unavoidable at this point.

[stevevance]

Not quite true. Schools, churches, libraries, fire houses and cemeteries. are permitted as of right in all R districts. Police stations and crematoriums are a special use in all R districts.
Hospitals, colleges, community centers and consulates all require a min RT4.


Thanks, I updated my post.

[marothisu]

That, as we are all aware of, is drastically changing and as it does, we need to keep this in the forefront of our planning minds as the city inevitably starts to ever-so-slowly expand back into those abandoned neighborhoods...


IF the city can add more jobs, as they've kind of been doing in some spaces, and make it accelerate, we'd probably see a little of this happen. My friend in Dallas was talking about how he's known a bunch of people leave for NYC from Dallas who will live in dangerous areas of the Bronx because they can't afford anything else but got jobs in NYC and want to be there.

We won't be like that, but would I be surprised in 10 years to see a place like Washington Park emerge (and it actually does have a little action right now)? Not entirely.

[sentinel]

Crain's has an article about what Rush is planning on doing with that 11 acres on the old Malcolm X college site: apparently, they want to build a "state-of-the-art medical school and student housing." Hmmmmmmm.

[Near North Resident]

Chicago should see a massive boom when sea level rise and climate change renders large swaths of America uninhabitable in 50-100 years, it's unavoidable at this point.

uh... ok :haha:

[sentinel]

uh... ok :haha:

Well, they're not entirely wrong - being pretty far inland will have more advantages in the future than perhaps now. Also, it doesn't hurt being right on the banks of the largest freshwater system in the world; That will be an even bigger factor that rising ocean levels.

[Kenmore]

uh... ok :haha:

it's pretty straight forward science at this point, chicago just has to tread water in the meantime