CHICAGO | General Developments

[SolarWind]

July 21, 2016

http://i.imgur.com/1Mku3pr.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/QCLTwm0.jpg

^ Aurélien & Chicago Temple of Church LDS' tower crane in the background

A worker mentioned that Chestnut Row Homes construction will start August 1.

[Jibba]

I heard from a fairly reliable source (though he is somewhat biased as he builds similar buildings elsewhere) that 2215 n Milwaukee, a/k/a "L", hit 1/3 leased almost instantly then crickets. That would explain their odd "we will provide you roommates" leasing campaign offering furnished apartments and unit sharing. Either the market is oversaturated, there just isn't a market for that kind of price point that far up Milwaukee, or the twin towers are raining on that developers parade. Either way Milwaukee Ave is becoming severely over built in my estimation.

Well, considering how many variables you just listed (and there are more that I can think of off the cuff), it's quite a speculation to come to that conclusion about that portion of Milwaukee in general. This type of market of apartments in that area is in its infancy, so (purportedly) slow leasing of buildings that haven't even been finished is not really an indicator of anything, IMO.

[maru2501]

all that development within just a few blocks in almost every direction from the holy name parking lot. That thing has to be going up up up in value daily

[marothisu]

all that development within just a few blocks in almost every direction from the holy name parking lot. That thing has to be going up up up in value daily

Yeah, it's quite valuable now. Also the parking lot north of it along Chicago Ave between the YMCA and Dunkin Donuts. I wish that would be developed. Loyola owns it.

[the urban politician]

^ The longer you hold out, the richer you get.

Especially if you aren't paying a penny in taxes

[LouisVanDerWright]

Well, considering how many variables you just listed (and there are more that I can think of off the cuff), it's quite a speculation to come to that conclusion about that portion of Milwaukee in general. This type of market of apartments in that area is in its infancy, so (purportedly) slow leasing of buildings that haven't even been finished is not really an indicator of anything, IMO.

Well it is an indicator of one of those three scenarios. I have a feeling it is largely because the twin towers are cannibalizing sand for the 2215 building.

[ardecila]

Well it is an indicator of one of those three scenarios. I have a feeling it is largely because the twin towers are cannibalizing sand for the 2215 building.

Lots of strange aspects about "L"/2211. Seems to be a high percentage of larger units, but with the larger units you generally want to provide parking, and this building has very little. I wonder if the developers made that decision, or if they were pushed into it by meddling neighborhood groups who want "more units for families" and are afraid of unmarried 20-somethings.

I think that's why they're doing the roommate thing, to fill the larger units with sets of (largely car-free) single people, but for that rent level a single person can easily find a whole apartment nearby in Logan Square, even new construction. Then the question is whether the amenities of the building outweigh the inconvenience of living with a roommate that you may or may not even know.

[J_M_Tungsten]

7/22
Apple Store
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/more/094F06EF-386D-4C48-BF66-3BB290CBDE7C.jpg (http://s592.photobucket.com/user/JMTUNGSTEN/media/more/094F06EF-386D-4C48-BF66-3BB290CBDE7C.jpg.html)

[the urban politician]

I thought this was intriguing:

Where's the McDonald's museum in company's headquarters plan? (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/ct-rosenthal-mcdonalds-headquarters-museum-0624-biz-20160623-column.html)

[The Lurker]

On the left of the picture with tower crane

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8705/28211724310_b0ca6e5ed5_b.jpg

[The Lurker]

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7772/28390104262_63afe1a45f_b.jpg

[Suburban Shadow]

On the left of the picture with tower crane

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8705/28211724310_b0ca6e5ed5_b.jpg

Great picture, but I think that is 1330 W. Fulton.
171 is not out of the ground yet.

[The Lurker]

Great picture, but I think that is 1330 W. Fulton.
171 is not out of the ground yet.

Thanks! That makes more sense. I can't keep track of everything going on in West Loop right now.

[harryc]

July 21
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-o-4bdjXR_U0/V5O8jr1rdUI/AAAAAAAEh80/tn7XdJUgFPY-IffdjbePcYlG-rx_RXkIwCCo/s912/IMG_0873.CR2.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ac95QnjZ-Js/V5O8j6noulI/AAAAAAAEh84/n8HVHEOQ3_k-CAyxvIroinr9FEsmG0haACCo/s912/IMG_0877.CR2.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JEVuLfDcT5Y/V5O8kAkBuII/AAAAAAAEh88/hesEeXGzS9UwTc4YD3gzQvHB11P_Jd6rwCCo/s912/P1450662.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1o9B68F1qMM/V5O8kUMgLUI/AAAAAAAEh9A/5DAbtE0BVtUzjY6Kf9DSVqkAG9OZ-Rp4QCCo/s1024/20160721A.jpg

[harryc]

July 18
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-K8VLpNel2RY/V5O-fh4QE2I/AAAAAAAEh9M/3nmMq7J9f2Qo2FmbxD-P8v_g4I8_Yww2gCCo/s1024/P1450651.JPG
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-McEJkaK5-Xk/V5O-f-GwlUI/AAAAAAAEh9Q/q0JI36QsehUtVHEaFehefMl2xmxnd_F_wCCo/s512/P1450652.JPGhttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jPFCDHy7at0/V5O-gD_7USI/AAAAAAAEh9U/7KZnspdxexAvGQdpuBV9TtI-QwiXVyHbACCo/s512/P1450653.JPGhttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-m_h-X40CHlQ/V5O-gaXV9rI/AAAAAAAEh9Y/TE1kuPN4n3AdKCGP3kv1C5SCdAGcoi-5ACCo/s512/P1450654.JPG
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-d1OdqwDHGNM/V5O-g8Ubn2I/AAAAAAAEh9c/SxbYSRnBEUsSxZlP7XfV2zE9aGqdHSy9gCCo/s1024/IMG_0528.CR2.jpg

[denizen467]

^ Will be great when this is finished, and many more like this or The 606 should be prioritized around the city. But it does feel like NASA sent Juno to Jupiter in less time than this has taken.

[Kngkyle]

^ Will be great when this is finished, and many more like this or The 606 should be prioritized around the city. But it does feel like NASA sent Juno to Jupiter in less time than this has taken.

This was talked about a few months ago. I believe the reason for the slow construction schedule is due to the federal grant being used to fund the project. Essentially the grant only pays out so much money per year so they scheduled the construction to match what they could actually pay for. I agree though - it's frustratingly slow, but it's better than not having it at all.

[emathias]

I heard from a fairly reliable source (though he is somewhat biased as he builds similar buildings elsewhere) that 2215 n Milwaukee, a/k/a "L", hit 1/3 leased almost instantly then crickets. That would explain their odd "we will provide you roommates" leasing campaign offering furnished apartments and unit sharing. Either the market is oversaturated, there just isn't a market for that kind of price point that far up Milwaukee, or the twin towers are raining on that developers parade. Either way Milwaukee Ave is becoming severely over built in my estimation.

Assuming that the availability shown on the website is accurate, they're way past 1/3 leased. It only shows 8 available units across all move-in dates and unit sizes. For example, it only shows one 3-bedroom available, for $3,300 a month. That's about what 1-bedrooms go for in the 707 N Wells building in River North, so it's still a good value for new construction overall.

[harryc]

July 14
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-h0EDYPt1GKU/V5S3jwmHPZI/AAAAAAAEiAQ/z1kl6Y_TUj4Xl6GBuUITJXBNscGCT42YACCo/s912/IMG_0227.jpg

[the urban politician]

Assuming that the availability shown on the website is accurate, they're way past 1/3 leased. It only shows 8 available units across all move-in dates and unit sizes. For example, it only shows one 3-bedroom available, for $3,300 a month. That's about what 1-bedrooms go for in the 707 N Wells building in River North, so it's still a good value for new construction overall.

3 bedrooms for $3,300 per month out in the hoods? God Bless America.

I'm rehabbing a beautiful 3 flat in Lincoln Park, and in a duplex down we completed I just signed a lease for $3440 for a 4 bed/2 bath.

There is definitely some demand out there in the hoods, especially if you are near the L. I do all that I can to buy property within a 1/2 mile of an L stop these days.

[UrbanLibertine]

You sure this isn't Grand and Paulina?

July 14
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-h0EDYPt1GKU/V5S3jwmHPZI/AAAAAAAEiAQ/z1kl6Y_TUj4Xl6GBuUITJXBNscGCT42YACCo/s912/IMG_0227.jpg

[harryc]

You sure this isn't Grand and Paulina?

Corrected - ty

[harryc]

July 19
Shot from 321 N Clark
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Z6inuwa2-UE/V5U0IYfwmeI/AAAAAAAEiDc/VrJhUMjlfXEmvhUGrl1ZjAQ4eUyUaq5QwCCo/s800/IMG_0590.jpg

[tjp]

Assuming that the availability shown on the website is accurate, they're way past 1/3 leased. It only shows 8 available units across all move-in dates and unit sizes. For example, it only shows one 3-bedroom available, for $3,300 a month. That's about what 1-bedrooms go for in the 707 N Wells building in River North, so it's still a good value for new construction overall.

Yeah - I heard from someone last week that there are only 8 market rate units left.

[ardecila]

^ Will be great when this is finished, and many more like this or The 606 should be prioritized around the city. But it does feel like NASA sent Juno to Jupiter in less time than this has taken.

Yeah, but this is only Phase I, which has zero usefulness. Walk along the lakefront trail by Ogden Slip and you will see the stub end of the bridge just hanging in mid air, with no work begun on the connecting piece (Phase 2) that makes it useful.

https://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/chicago_photo/2015/04/navy-pier-flyover-1428352455.jpg/extralarge.jpg

[UrbanLibertine]

This is a bummer: WRECK & REMOVE 3 STORY BRICK BUILDING KNOWN AS ST BONIFACE CHURCH (issued on Friday)

[ardecila]

^ According to EVA, the Music Academy plans are progressing for St Boniface. The academy developers need a zoning change and they've been fine tuning that. My understanding is that Burnett is in support.

http://www.eastvillagechicago.org/2016_07_01_archive.html?m=1

[the urban politician]

^ Wow if St Boniface gets saved here it will be by the skin of its teeth. This Music Academy better save the day or I suspect this will be our last chance to prevent demolition

[ardecila]

^ I hope they can pull it off, but they seem like they are woefully underprepared for this kind of thing.

They're also looking at St Adalbert's in Pilsen and Epiphany Church in West Loop, for simultaneous expansions. That's crazy. Well-managed nonprofits just don't expand that fast. Each one of those sites is a highly complex project, and their org chart is pretty lacking (http://www.chicagoacademyofmusic.org/team-partners/) in people with the right experience in construction, project management, or even fundraising. It seems like just a bunch of musicians.

The Academy's applied for state grants to renovate St Adalberts, so I'm hoping they get the grant and do the needed restoration work to keep the building standing before it topples onto 17th St.

[Via Chicago]

yea im fairly skeptical of the whole thing. wheres all their cash coming from?

[BB 1871]

Harpo is coming down as of lunch today. 2 excavators wear tearing into the north side of the building. Wasn't able to snap a pic

[Jibba]

Well it is an indicator of one of those three scenarios. I have a feeling it is largely because the twin towers are cannibalizing sand for the 2215 building.

Without looking into a lot of the particulars, a unit in the twins would be my pick of the two. It's right on top of the station at California and is that much closer to Logan Square's gourmet ghetto.

[Jibba]

Belmont & Clark
http://i.imgur.com/iaYEBpz.jpg?1

[Busy Bee]

^More of this everywhere please!

[Vlajos]

^More of this everywhere please!

I agree, that's a huge change for the better!

[HowardL]

^More of this everywhere please!

Looking at you, Clark/Halsted/Barry/Schaumburg intersection.

[colemonkee]

^ For that lowered expanse of concrete on the eastern side of the river bend in that last shot, is there any plan to add landscaping to make it part of the river walk?

[Clarkkent2420]

#

[Izzi]

^ For that lowered expanse of concrete on the eastern side of the river bend in that last shot, is there any plan to add landscaping to make it part of the river walk?

yes. Final part.

http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/October-2014/What-the-Chicago-Riverwalk-Will-Look-Like-and-What-That-Means/

[ChickeNES]

This is great news, I was hoping it would be saved:

Lincoln Square Sears Spared Demolition; Reuse Proposed As Housing, Retail
Patty Wetli - July 25, 2016 - DNAInfo

LINCOLN SQUARE — Developers are planning a mixed-use reuse of the Lawrence Avenue Sears store, retaining the facade of the 90-year-old building while gutting the interior to accommodate 40 housing units and ground-floor retail.

A proposal obtained from the 47th Ward office shows that West Loop-based Springbank Real Estate Group, which specializes in transit-oriented developments, has designs on the Sears building at 1900 W. Lawrence Ave.


https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160725/lincoln-square/lincoln-square-sears-spared-demolition-reuse-proposed-as-housing-retail

[rlw777]

New Mixed-Income, Mixed-Use Development on Its Way in Woodlawn (http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/7/25/12276536/trianon-lofts-woodlawn-chicago-poah-construction) - curbed

Good to see the southside getting some development

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/xjdR5y-dh5jvuxN9mIrDaFJUOEk=/800x533/filters:focal(261x158:359x256):no_upscale():format(webp)/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/50198381/trianonlofts.0.jpg

[harryc]

Any Ideas ? Looking N NW from 321 N Clark
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vLbcZZwS03c/V5akvS3ZqoI/AAAAAAAEiMk/HlEit4kq1LQ728sdu_UOcMFmVRl5bQYzwCCo/s912/IMG_1322.jpg

[J_M_Tungsten]

^Lincoln Park hospital conversion. Getting new walls and windows now. Webster Square.

[Rizzo]

^More of this everywhere please!

Totally agree. I was at the west lakeview neighbors meeting recently and some grumpy lady actually said "have we proven that TOD works? Shouldn't we wait before always approving these to see if people will actually move in?" I nearly spit out my beer in disbelief that someone would ask that. Kind of got a chuckle from the crowd.

[UrbanLibertine]

More of this (in every underdeveloped part of the city)!


New Mixed-Income, Mixed-Use Development on Its Way in Woodlawn (http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/7/25/12276536/trianon-lofts-woodlawn-chicago-poah-construction) - curbed

Good to see the southside getting some development

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/xjdR5y-dh5jvuxN9mIrDaFJUOEk=/800x533/filters:focal(261x158:359x256):no_upscale():format(webp)/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/50198381/trianonlofts.0.jpg

[Mr Downtown]

I was at the west lakeview neighbors meeting recently and some grumpy lady actually said "have we proven that TOD works? Shouldn't we wait before always approving these to see if people will actually move in?" I nearly spit out my beer in disbelief

I suppose occupancy is not really a public policy concern, but do we have real, hard evidence that TOD occupants own fewer vehicles or drive fewer miles? The minimum parking rules we're so anxious to sweep away were, after all, put in place for a reason.

[Tom Servo]

^More of this everywhere please!

Um. No thanks. This shit is horrible.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Webster Square has taken forever...

[the urban politician]

I suppose occupancy is not really a public policy concern, but do we have real, hard evidence that TOD occupants own fewer vehicles or drive fewer miles? The minimum parking rules we're so anxious to sweep away were, after all, put in place for a reason.

The fact that they are having no problem leasing up pretty quickly is good evidence.

Not sure, beyond that, why one would believe there should be a burden of proof laid down on car-lite buildings. If the market "approves" of it, then you have your answer.

[Busy Bee]

Um. No thanks. This shit is horrible.

It's been awhile since I've posted—very busy lately. I've just been reminded why you are so unpopular here.

[ardecila]

I suppose occupancy is not really a public policy concern, but do we have real, hard evidence that TOD occupants own fewer vehicles or drive fewer miles? The minimum parking rules we're so anxious to sweep away were, after all, put in place for a reason.

Permit parking is a lot more widespread than it was in the era of the 4+1 parking hysteria.

The 1611 W Division building has been fully leased despite the fact that virtually all surrounding blocks are permitted, and building residents are ineligible. If those residents own cars, they are walking many blocks to find street parking. The more likely explanation is that the residents just don't own cars, or at least don't use cars enough to need them in nearby parking places.

The other TODs are really too new to show results.

[XIII]

I suppose occupancy is not really a public policy concern, but do we have real, hard evidence that TOD occupants own fewer vehicles or drive fewer miles? The minimum parking rules we're so anxious to sweep away were, after all, put in place for a reason.

The lack of parking in this city is issue #1. All parking lots in this city should be vigorously defended, by legal means, if necessary.

Img (http://www.trbimg.com/img-56fbf920/turbine/ct-lucas-museum-parking-met-20160329)

/s

[the urban politician]

I do think there needs to be a balance, with some off street parking mandated in all but the densest areas. But I have no doubt that 1:1 parking for each residential unit is far too high.

Anecdotally, only about 1 in 5 of my rental tenants own cars

[LouisVanDerWright]

Why should the government mandate anything that has negative externalities? If developers don't want to build parking, why should they have to? Makes absolutely zero sense to force them to build something that unquestionably has negative impacts on the entire environment from natural environment to built environment. If developers see a demand for parking, let them build it, if not then leave them alone.

Parking is going to be all but irrelevant in 10-20 years. Uber has all but taken over in our generation. Do you know how absurdly cheap Uber has gotten? My girlfriend, who is a staff accountant making "middle class" wages, uses it almost as much as she uses the train to commute. Why? Because Uber pool is almost as cheap as the train during all but the highest peak hours. She can get from the Loop to Logan Square for $3.50 or $4 and only have to wait for one or two other people to be dropped off at most. I guarantee that's what everyone in the TOD does too. If they need or want direct auto transport, it's cheaper and faster and more convenient to get picked up by an Uber. They are there faster than you could go find your car parked on the street and probably as fast as it would take for you to wind your way out of a parking garage with your own car. Most of these people probably commute to their jobs on transit and use Uber for groceries or other errands that require cargo capacity. It has totally eliminated all the last inconveniences of not having a car while the inconveniences (parking tickets, maintenance, trying to find parking, etc) of owning a car remain the same or are increasing.

This is just the start, someday in the not too distant future cars will be self driving and Uber will be even cheaper (no driver, more efficient routing) and there will be even less demand for parking as the Uber vehicles circle in the city all day and vacate at night or off peak hours to the outskirts of town for maintenance or storage. I suspect that there will be a profitable cottage industry in a couple of decades of figuring out how to deconvert all these parking podia into actually useful space.

[marothisu]

It's been awhile since I've posted—very busy lately. I've just been reminded why you are so unpopular here.

The density of it is decent, but I agree with Tom Servo - it doesn't look that good at least right now. I've been waiting and hoping they're going to make the facade better but I am doubting it somehow. Not a fan of it other than the decent density of it and how it replaced a one story dunkin donuts + parking lot.

[Mr Downtown]

Why should the government mandate anything that has negative externalities? If developers don't want to build parking, why should they have to?

To minimize disputes over use of the commons.

For better or worse, Chicago was laid out with 66-foot streets, far more than needed for passage. So there's a strong tradition of using the sides for auto storage that even the most ardent carhater will not be able to dislodge any time soon. Ironically, curb parking is an important tool in making streets more pedestrian-friendly, because it both slows through traffic and shields those on the sidewalk from the vehicles speeding past.

Perhaps one day soon, we'll be able to seamlessly charge rent for using curb space, in the same way we now have boothless tollways, but it's not here yet and it won't be popular in most neighborhoods. Introduction of such a system might retire quite a few aldermen.

For folks who want to encourage development (and redevelopment), it's counterproductive to have the folks who live in a neighborhood view any new arrivals as stealing a scarce resource.

[UPChicago]

Parking is going to be all but irrelevant in 10-20 years.

Yea I'm very doubtful given the priorities of our local, state and federal governments when it comes to transportation spending I highly doubt this will be a reality at least not in my lifetime (late 20s btw).

But I will admit your vision of the future sounds awesome!

[Via Chicago]

i think you guys are underestimating how many people are going to want to own self driving cars. theres still going to be a need for parking whether we like it or not. in fact, i see public transit funding taking a serious hit as the infrastructure for self driving vehicles takes off and solidifies the existing auto culture.

the notion that theres just going to be autonomous vehicles circling everywhere without congestion is pretty idealistically utopian. they still need streets to drive on, and if everyone abandons the train and bus because the alternative has gotten so cheap and easy...youre still going to have massive gridlock. it dosent change the math at all. if anything it makes it worse.

[Via Chicago]

on another note, surprised theres been no mention of the Lawrence Sears redevelopment

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160725/lincoln-square/lincoln-square-sears-spared-demolition-reuse-proposed-as-housing-retail

https://assets.dnainfo.com/photo/2016/7/1469476459-267042/extralarge.jpg
https://assets.dnainfo.com/photo/2016/7/1469476459-267042/extralarge.jpg

looks great except for...yup, 90 parking spaces on the second floor. right across from a metra station.

[Mr Downtown]

^Not really "another note." How is the proximity of a Metra station relevant to whether residents will want to own automobiles? Do you assume that the only trips anyone ever makes is to an office in the Loop?

[Via Chicago]

^Not really "another note." How is the proximity of a Metra station relevant to whether residents will want to own automobiles? Do you assume that the only trips anyone ever makes is to an office in the Loop?

you mean aside from the fact that its also 2 blocks away from an L stop, and directly on a east/west bus line too? i dont see why this project couldnt have been considered TOD.

also, as someone who is in his 30s and has never owned a car, i can assure you it is possible to do so (and in this area specifically quite easily. ive done it, used to live a couple blocks away and this was even before Marianos was there. id take the lawrence bus to do grocery shopping at Harvestime).

i guess my point is generally, id prefer to see less cars and i still oppose developments that rely heavily on that model. i also understand cars arent going away. i also understand that regardless of whether the cars are self driving or user driven, there will be congestion and they should generally be dissuaded in crowded, dense urban centers.

[marothisu]

^Not really "another note." How is the proximity of a Metra station relevant to whether residents will want to own automobiles? Do you assume that the only trips anyone ever makes is to an office in the Loop?

Both of you conveniently left out the fact that this is pretty close to a Brown Line stop. Unless the retail going in here is more of a big box type (i.e. a Target, Best Buy, etc) or furniture type of store, there's no reason to have 90 spots for that. We'll see who they get as a tenant though if that many parking spots is justified in that type of setting.

[r18tdi]

...someday in the not too distant future cars will be self driving and Uber will be even cheaper (no driver, more efficient routing) and there will be even less demand for parking as the Uber vehicles circle in the city all day and vacate at night or off peak hours to the outskirts of town for maintenance or storage. I suspect that there will be a profitable cottage industry in a couple of decades of figuring out how to deconvert all these parking podia into actually useful space. My thoughts exactly.

[marothisu]

^ And we will all be ruled by the precogs.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Does anyone have information about the Sports Authority at this intersection?

The store is closing in five days. I hope it gets developed.

Me too, but with so many other underdeveloped parcels at that intersection, having one filled with something denser won't change much. You've also got that hideous mall. That intersection is hopeless.

[Busy Bee]

on another note, surprised theres been no mention of the Lawrence Sears redevelopment

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7512515&postcount=34390

[Via Chicago]

^
figured i missed it. hard to keep up these days!

[prelude91]

Me too, but with so many other underdeveloped parcels at that intersection, having one filled with something denser won't change much. You've also got that hideous mall. That intersection is hopeless.

Plus, Dicks Sporting Goods purchased what was left of Sports Authority, and is considering some of their stores for possible expansion. Though, with a Dick's at the New City development, it is unlikely they would open a store at Clark/Barry.

[Busy Bee]

^
figured i missed it. hard to keep up these days!

agreed

[UPChicago]

on another note, surprised theres been no mention of the Lawrence Sears redevelopment

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160725/lincoln-square/lincoln-square-sears-spared-demolition-reuse-proposed-as-housing-retail

https://assets.dnainfo.com/photo/2016/7/1469476459-267042/extralarge.jpg
https://assets.dnainfo.com/photo/2016/7/1469476459-267042/extralarge.jpg

looks great except for...yup, 90 parking spaces on the second floor. right across from a metra station.

Now this is awesome

[Via Chicago]

yea all other things aside, definitely glad theyre preserving the building. its a unique presence on Lawrence and will be even better once they punch the windows back out.

[Jibba]

The density of it is decent, but I agree with Tom Servo - it doesn't look that good at least right now. I've been waiting and hoping they're going to make the facade better but I am doubting it somehow. Not a fan of it other than the decent density of it and how it replaced a one story dunkin donuts + parking lot.

The design is a mess, and when I rode by it closely, I spotted some nasty precast on the first floor, which doesn't bode well for the supposed terracotta cladding. I'm not sure what circumstances were around this that convinced Tunney to ask Hirsch to redesign it to something 'referential', but in their attempt to satisfy everyone they have pleased no one. Programmatically, though, this could prove successful (main caveat being the traffic situation on Clark from Target's freight).

[Baronvonellis]

Glad they are restoring it. It was always an eyesore, and I never wanted to shop there. The 20 parking spots are ok for the residents, but I don't think they need 90 for retail. Everyone in the neighborhood walks along there to go to Marianos now. I'm wondering what kind of retail would go there. Lately, it seems little boutiques have been coming to this area. They don't need much parking. There's already a gym, grocery store, and bank next to it.

[SamInTheLoop]

The design is a mess, and when I rode by it closely, I spotted some nasty precast on the first floor, which doesn't bode well for the supposed terracotta cladding. I'm not sure what circumstances were around this that convinced Tunney to ask Hirsch to redesign it to something 'referential', but in their attempt to satisfy everyone they have pleased no one. Programmatically, though, this could prove successful (main caveat being the traffic situation on Clark from Target's freight).



Wait it minute - are you suggesting design by committee might not work?!



/sarcasm.

[SamInTheLoop]

i think you guys are underestimating how many people are going to want to own self driving cars. theres still going to be a need for parking whether we like it or not. in fact, i see public transit funding taking a serious hit as the infrastructure for self driving vehicles takes off and solidifies the existing auto culture.

the notion that theres just going to be autonomous vehicles circling everywhere without congestion is pretty idealistically utopian. they still need streets to drive on, and if everyone abandons the train and bus because the alternative has gotten so cheap and easy...youre still going to have massive gridlock. it dosent change the math at all. if anything it makes it worse.


Agreed.

The folks who contend that car ownership will largely go away in 15-20 years are smoking some strong stuff.


It's going to be especially critical to significantly ramp-up public investment in transit (in addition of course to other types of) infrastructure over the next decade.....to this end, I'm getting more optimistic then I'd been a few years ago that this is finally going to happen in the years ahead....

[ardecila]

Ironically, curb parking is an important tool in making streets more pedestrian-friendly, because it both slows through traffic and shields those on the sidewalk from the vehicles speeding past.

This is New Urbanist dogma that makes sense to humanize a suburban environment, but in a bonafide city with a critical mass of pedestrians, I don't see why a wider sidewalk and an allee of trees won't have the same effect.

Which sidewalk would you rather walk on?

Narrow sidewalk with parking lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8776118,-87.6668807,3a,41.6y,356.75h,86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ2_vef5RibD6GVOhAlHsEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

What you could accomplish by eliminating the parking lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9032022,-87.672378,3a,25.4y,90.13h,83.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZwqbGkElS2GU5AbK2MO3aA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


For folks who want to encourage development (and redevelopment), it's counterproductive to have the folks who live in a neighborhood view any new arrivals as stealing a scarce resource.

Again, the permit parking system is specifically designed to eliminate this problem, and it is granular enough to exclude the residents of individual buildings. Nobody can stop a citizen from parking their car on a street somewhere, but many L stops are already surrounded by permit parking zones to discourage commuter parking so TOD residents can easily be restricted from parking cars nearby.

[Mr Downtown]

^Um, your Division street example has street parking. You need sidewalks as generous as Michigan Avenue to make for a comfortable pedestrian experience next to moving lanes. Look at the two streets flanking Dearborn Park to immediately see the difference. Clark and State have similar ROW widths and frontages (mostly walls, unfortunately). But one has street parking, and that's the one people walk along.

Permit parking as a long-term solution is inherently subject to political pressure. Whom do you think the alderman will most want to please in 2025: the 40 side-street homeowners or the 400 voters in the TOD highrise?

[ardecila]

^ Yes, Division does have street parking but also had the sidewalk width I was indicating. I was going to use a Parisian example but didn't want an apples-orange comparison.

[the urban politician]

Do the 400 people in the TOD highrise even vote?

[Via Chicago]

whoever said the Milwaukee corridor is getting overbuilt apparently didnt tell these guys

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20160726/CRED03/160729875/more-apartments-coming-to-hipster-highway#utm_medium=email&utm_source=ccb-realestatereport&utm_campaign=ccb-realestatereport-20160726

More apartments coming to 'Hipster Highway'

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CG/20160726/CRED03/160729875/AR/0/Clayco-plans-apartments-at-Milwaukee-and-Armitage.jpg&maxw=620&cci_ts=20160726105813

Another apartment developer has caught Milwaukee Avenue fever.

Clayco wants to build a 140-unit multifamily project in Humboldt Park, at the southwest corner of Milwaukee and Armitage avenues. The proposed building sits along the "Hipster Highway," a rapidly gentrifying stretch of Milwaukee heavy with commuter bike traffic that's also served by the CTA's Blue Line. It has become a popular spot for millennials—and residential developers.

"The strength of this area is the location and transit," said Alan Schachtman, director/residential business unit leader at Clayco, a Chicago-based contractor and developer. "You're downtown in 10 minutes and at O'Hare in 20 minutes."

Clayco's eight-story building would include only 28 parking spaces under the city's transit-oriented development ordinance, which allows developers to limit parking in residential projects that are close to train stations. The city changed its TOD ordinance last year to encourage more housing close to transit stops, with the goal of limiting car traffic.

[UPChicago]

^ Yes, Division does have street parking but also had the sidewalk width I was indicating. I was going to use a Parisian example but didn't want an apples-orange comparison.

But the example you gave is not an apples to apples comparison either, one street is far less commercial than the other which is why one is two lanes with wider sidewalks.

[Busy Bee]

The folks who contend that car ownership will largely go away in 15-20 years are smoking some strong stuff.

The folks who contend that autonomous vehicles will be proven practical, successfully implemented and universally adopted in 15-20 years are smoking some strong stuff.

[UPChicago]

The folks who contend that autonomous vehicles will be proven practical, successfully implemented and universally adopted in 15-20 years are smoking some strong stuff.

edit, missed autonomous lol

[the urban politician]

I'm loving that Clayco project. Logan square still has some horribly underutilized or auto-oriented lots, but slowly we are eating away at them

[LouisVanDerWright]

The folks who contend that autonomous vehicles will be proven practical, successfully implemented and universally adopted in 15-20 years are smoking some strong stuff.

Here we go again with blowing benign statements about sea change shifts that are already in process totally out of proportion again. I never said anything about ownership of cars ending and I certainly never said that autonomous vehicles would be "universally adapted" in 20 years. I observed that this technology is coming and will be here in the next two decades. When it arrives things change forever because it fundamentally alters what cars do and how we interact with them. It doesn't take total rejection of car ownership or universal adaptation of new technology to fundamentally shift society, it only takes a small, but significant, percentage of society choosing these new lifestyles or technologies to have a huge impact. If 10% or 20% of car owners today shift to Uber like autonomous car services by 2035, that creates a huge shift in overall demand for parking, traffic patterns, and automobile ownership models. It doesn't take everyone, it only takes a few.

[marothisu]

Not sure if this was talked about yet:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20160726/CRED0701/160729884/peerless-real-estate-plans-condos-near-mcdonalds-new-west-loop-hq
Condos planned next to new McDonald's West Loop HQ

Peerless Real Estate Investment plans two 109-foot-tall buildings with 28 units each at 15 N. May St. and 1111 W. Washington St., according to a zoning application filed with the city. The condos would be big, with three and four bedrooms and as large as 5,000 square feet,

Peerless needs a zoning change from the city for its project, which will cost $50 million. That process begins with meetings with community groups and aldermen, who traditionally have veto power over developments in their wards.

Complicating matters for Peerless, its project straddles two Chicago wards, the 25th, represented by Ald. Danny Solis, and the 27th, represented by Ald. Walter Burnett.

Neighbors of the West Loop, meanwhile, thinks the Peerless project, at 109 feet, is too tall. The group's development committee wants the project to be no taller than a Belgravia Group condo project under construction a block away, which rises 100 feet, Matt Letourneau, chairman of the committee, said in an email.


So they want it to be no taller than the 100 foot building nearby - so 109 feet is too tall? Kind of weird, but yeah...I guess if it's 100 feet it won't be the end of the world. That's still OK density, height, etc.

[Via Chicago]

that 9 feet is the deal breaker huh :P

[Randomguy34]

Here's a sketch of what the two suspects look like. The West Loop NIMBYs are going make sure that these two will get the proper punishment they deserve

https://s31.postimg.org/xs1xfkk4b/O2016_5573_page_042.jpg

[LouisVanDerWright]

Lol seriously, what a waste of space these people are. I can't wait until demand gets so pent up in the West Loop that all efforts to stop tall buildings are crushed by more connected and established developers. The highrises are creeping slowly in. Once the ones along 290 are done and that one across from the Parker that was just proposed is built, it's going to be awfully hard to say no to other landholders who want more density.

[SolarWind]

July 26, 2016

http://i.imgur.com/WL59ATH.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/TcJ32N4.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/2eUBmwl.jpg

[SolarWind]

July 26, 2016

http://i.imgur.com/hlDo2n8.jpg

[oshkeoto]

I suppose occupancy is not really a public policy concern, but do we have real, hard evidence that TOD occupants own fewer vehicles or drive fewer miles? The minimum parking rules we're so anxious to sweep away were, after all, put in place for a reason.


Yes, we do--in the sense that there's lots of evidence that people will own fewer cars and drive less if they have less access to free parking. I believe this has a review of some of the literature: http://www.cnt.org/publications/stalled-out-how-empty-parking-spaces-diminish-neighborhood-affordability

Parking requirements were developed for "a reason," but that reason was certainly not an analysis of car ownership rates in 1950 or whatever, and an application of that level of ownership by neighborhood. Requirements have been mostly one-size-fits-all, and premised on fairly suburban levels of ownership: up until the TOD law, you had to build the same number of spaces next to the Wilson Red Line as on the city limits in Dunning.

On top of that, it's not a one-way influence: the number of parking spaces available greatly affects the number of cars people have. If we had never required off-street parking, obviously some developers would have built it anyway, but car ownership rates would probably be lower than they are now.

[Mr Downtown]

If we had never required off-street parking, obviously some developers would have built it anyway, but car ownership rates would probably be lower than they are now.


But where's the empirical proof that people living in no-parking buildings—and I'm one of them—have lower auto ownership rates than those in similar buildings with onsite parking? There's nothing in the CNT study about that; it only looks at whether some existing spaces are going unused.

[the urban politician]

^ Where was the empirical proof in the 1950's that 1:1 parking spaces per housing unit in Chicago was reflective of actual car ownership, thus justifying the mandated ratio?

You are placing the burden of proof on a more recent policy that reverses an older policy which had never been justified to begin with. I'm hoping you're understanding what I'm trying to say

[PKDickman]

^ Where was the empirical proof in the 1950's that 1:1 parking spaces per housing unit in Chicago was reflective of actual car ownership, thus justifying the mandated ratio?

You are placing the burden of proof on a more recent policy that reverses an older policy which had never been justified to begin with. I'm hoping you're understanding what I'm trying to say

There is a misconception that, like Athena, off street parking ratios sprung fully formed from the 1957 zoning code in some attempt to leave-it-to-beaverize the city.

Although less onerous ratios, (1/1 low density 1/3 high) they became a requirement in 1940.
The original '57 code's ratios were also less. (3/4 high density 1/2 efficiencies)

1/1 didn't start until 1971 when the census told us the nearly 50% of the total Chicago population drove themselves to work.

Parking ratios evolved in response to existing auto ownership, not the other way around.

Current census estimates say there are 1.1 cars per household.

[Loopy]

Yeah, but this is only Phase I, which has zero usefulness. Walk along the lakefront trail by Ogden Slip and you will see the stub end of the bridge just hanging in mid air, with no work begun on the connecting piece (Phase 2) that makes it useful.

Are their any details or renderings for Phase 3? I have never seen any detailed description for how they are going to punch through the bridge houses on the Michigan Ave bridge.

[ardecila]

Are their any details or renderings for Phase 3? I have never seen any detailed description for how they are going to punch through the bridge houses on the Michigan Ave bridge.

There was a rendering floating around. It's not that difficult, the bridge houses are built on a steel frame so you just have to strip the stone away and create an opening for the northbound lane of the path.

[Via Chicago]

^ I hope they can pull it off, but they seem like they are woefully underprepared for this kind of thing.

They're also looking at St Adalbert's in Pilsen and Epiphany Church in West Loop, for simultaneous expansions. That's crazy. Well-managed nonprofits just don't expand that fast. Each one of those sites is a highly complex project, and their org chart is pretty lacking (http://www.chicagoacademyofmusic.org/team-partners/) in people with the right experience in construction, project management, or even fundraising. It seems like just a bunch of musicians.

The Academy's applied for state grants to renovate St Adalberts, so I'm hoping they get the grant and do the needed restoration work to keep the building standing before it topples onto 17th St.

skepticism warranted. fencing has gone up. people seem to think demo is imminent.

http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/7/26/12282410/st-boniface-sears-harpo-demolition-chicago-update#comments

[Jibba]

But where's the empirical proof that people living in no-parking buildings—and I'm one of them—have lower auto ownership rates than those in similar buildings with onsite parking? There's nothing in the CNT study about that; it only looks at whether some existing spaces are going unused.

All other variables being equal, buildings with on-site parking reduce the threshold of ownership. There is a certain amount of friction that has to be eased before car ownership will be worth someone's while. Of course, if there is exclusive primacy of the commute to their employment in their decision-making, and they are dead set on living where they live, then they're likely to grind through the friction and search for a street space every time they need to access their vehicle. But there must be a large amount of those whose situations place them very near the threshold of ownership, in which cases our current parking policy is pushing them to own, when they'd be quite comfortable not owning a vehicle. The TOD residents may bring vehicles into the fold, but perhaps they'll bring enough of them to create the pivotal amount of friction in the street-parking domain to get the marginal cases to ditch their cars, whether they live in a TOD or not.

[r18tdi]

Edit: repost