CHICAGO | General Developments

[SolarWind]

June 6, 2019

https://imgur.com/W7gfQ0S.jpg

https://imgur.com/pzjqkEf.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 6, 2019

https://imgur.com/CIGZGu9.jpg

https://www.1114fulton.com/renderings-1 (https://www.1114fulton.com/renderings-1)

[Bonsai Tree]

This was the only uncovered section, can't wait to see it when its done!

Old Cook County Hospital:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016730987_4726c7724a_k_d.jpg

[Bonsai Tree]

Sears Tower Base:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016638912_c497bb7da4_k_d.jpg

[Bonsai Tree]

6/6 Gems II:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016648127_c710967e0b_k_d.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016571948_d964316399_k_d.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016647662_530c4fdf8f_k_d.jpg

[Bonsai Tree]

6/6 1220 W. Jackson:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016642746_f47452d576_k_d.jpg

[Bonsai Tree]

6/6 1201 N. Clark:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016640708_4b9a073a8e_k_d.jpg

[intrepidDesign]

June 6, 2019

https://imgur.com/dgwFrfQ.jpg


AIRE Rooftop to Debut First-of-Its-Kind Mural in the Loop
https://www.theparkerchicago.com/blog/2019/05/23/neighborhood-spotlight-aire-rooftop-to-debut-first-of-its-kind-mural-on-the-loop/ (https://www.theparkerchicago.com/blog/2019/05/23/neighborhood-spotlight-aire-rooftop-to-debut-first-of-its-kind-mural-on-the-loop/)

Bad Ass! I love murals, and I love the trend going on right now of painting over all these dull blank walls. This is the highest one I've seen so far, which is great. I also think murals are a good solution to all the (necessary evil) parking podia around town. More please.

[r18tdi]

Bonsai Tree really gets around! Nice shots

[Steely Dan]

* moderator edit *


i moved all of the pizza talk to the general discussions thread: https://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=208431&page=68

please continue the discussion there.

[Bonsai Tree]

6/6 Nobu:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016649313_e20beffc50_k_d.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016636621_d6523e12b8_k_d.jpg

[Bonsai Tree]

6/6 1139 N. State - New 3 story Retail
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016716102_fe0a90c5a8_k_d.jpg

[Bonsai Tree]

6/6 1115 W Fulton Market
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016639191_ad7b3a49ba_k_d.jpg

[Bonsai Tree]

6/6 939 W Fulton Market
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016639116_bdd47f9783_k_d.jpg

[F1 Tommy]

Fantastic updates!!! Cook County Hospital looks spectacular already and can't wait to see it completed. To think they almost tore it down several times is scary.

[the urban politician]

Meet the builders of Bronzeville:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/residential-real-estate/meet-builders-bronzeville

[west-town-brad]

Re: 6/6 939 W Fulton Market

I still don't understand why the top window glass panes are different than the lower two levels.

[k1052]

Re: 6/6 939 W Fulton Market

I still don't understand why the top window glass panes are different than the lower two levels.

The exterior of this building is so jumbled it's like they pulled what style glazing and details would go on a given part of the structure randomly out of a hat. Probably the biggest worst thing done on Fulton so far.

[SamInTheLoop]

Places like McKinley Park and Brighton Park for example on the Orange Line are still affordable. Will some people getting priced out currently who are looking to move soon look to some of these seemingly overlooked areas?

Yes.

https://www.redfin.com/blog/hottest-affordable-neighborhoods-2019

I am extremely bullish about Orange Line neighborhoods. In real estate, the huge money is made of course when areas are just on the cusp of transformation. Huge sums will be made on bets placed over the next few years from Chinatown all the way to Clearing. McKinley Park is maybe the epicenter. Phenomenally strong fundamentals.

So much TOD potential as well.

[Bonsai Tree]

6/6 1201 W. Lake:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016653653_936e25679c_k_d.jpg
All done!

[the urban politician]

So when is this Aldermanic privilege thing going to end (if ever)?

https://therealdeal.com/chicago/2019/06/07/back-to-square-one-new-alderman-halts-teachers-village-resi-project/

[LouisVanDerWright]

So when is this Aldermanic privilege thing going to end (if ever)?

https://therealdeal.com/chicago/2019/06/07/back-to-square-one-new-alderman-halts-teachers-village-resi-project/

Pretty absurd for a project that's 25% affordable housing and 35% "workeforce housing" whatever that means.

Oh well, more money for me...

[harryc]

May 31

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48027225377_9ef218692a_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gb15RX)Chicago | Nobu Hotel (https://flic.kr/p/2gb15RX) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

[the urban politician]

Pretty absurd for a project that's 25% affordable housing and 35% "workeforce housing" whatever that means.

Oh well, more money for me...

The understanding that I have is that he wants more family sized units.

Given that the building is of finite size, this means that the developer will need to build fewer apartments. Thus, less affordable housing.

This new Alderman is brilliant!

Anyhow, if I were the developer I would comply, and then just market it to groups of roommates.

[harryc]

May 31

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48027275156_c8d6a086c3_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gb1kEd)Chicago | GEMS II (https://flic.kr/p/2gb1kEd) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

[SamInTheLoop]

The understanding that I have is that he wants more family sized units.

Given that the building is of finite size, this means that the developer will need to build fewer apartments. Thus, less affordable housing.

This new Alderman is brilliant!

Anyhow, if I were the developer I would comply, and then just market it to groups of roommates.


Is that why it doesn’t meet “his standards”? I didn’t read that....but I did see earlier comments more generically about what he wants to see more of in his ward. Honestly I don’t know much about him or what to expect, but I can’t help but have a sneaking suspicion that we should expect less development broadly in the 1st, which of course means an acceleration in price and rent growth (though less a not insignificant supply-induced demand effect - which a lot of market watchers completely miss), and a corresponding acceleration in the pace of gentrification.

[SamInTheLoop]

Looks good for a McCaffery development, low bar as it is and all.

PS I consider Lincoln Commons more of a Hines.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Is that why it doesn’t meet “his standards”? I didn’t read that....but I did see earlier comments more generically about what he wants to see more of in his ward. Honestly I don’t know much about him or what to expect, but I can’t help but have a sneaking suspicion that we should expect less development broadly in the 1st, which of course means an acceleration in price and rent growth (though less a not insignificant supply-induced demand effect - which a lot of market watchers completely miss), and a corresponding acceleration in the pace of gentrification.

Supply induced demand? You actually think people are moving to Logan Square because they are building TOD there? Lol...

Listen, nobody moves places because big new buildings are being built, big new buildings are built because people want to live there. All this is going to do is massively accelerate price gains. I'm already seeing $800k+ SFH sales in Avondale where there has been categorically no large scale new construction. At this rate I expect to start seeing $1mil+ sales in the next couple of years.

The understanding that I have is that he wants more family sized units.

Given that the building is of finite size, this means that the developer will need to build fewer apartments. Thus, less affordable housing.

This new Alderman is brilliant!

Anyhow, if I were the developer I would comply, and then just market it to groups of roommates.

Yeah "family sized units" i.e. things I would lose my real estate license if I said...

I'm telling you, one of these days an alderman is going to get sued on Federal Fair Housing violations...

[jpIllInoIs]

Pretty absurd for a project that's 25% affordable housing and 35% "workeforce housing" whatever that means.

Oh well, more money for me...
I think workforce housing refers to City workers required to live within City boundaries. How this can be legislated is unknown to me.

[harryc]

June 3

at least this top corner is still clean.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48031623913_6934a49c2e_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gboCoM)Chicago | Sears Tower (https://flic.kr/p/2gboCoM) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48031624333_78b7085335_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gboCw2)Chicago | Sears Tower (https://flic.kr/p/2gboCw2) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

[AlpacaObsessor]

I think workforce housing refers to City workers required to live within City boundaries. How this can be legislated is unknown to me.

Whereas affordable housing is generally targeted towards people making <60% of the area median income, workforce housing is targeted towards people making 80% -120% of the area median income. I think it's a way aldermen have been trying to solve the problem of giving options to the ultra poor and ultra rich while leaving out people in the middle (not that I agree with these sorts of prescriptive solutions).

[harryc]

The East bank of the river - real-estate folk are pretty dumb.

June 3

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48032658648_39a9e4de2a_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gbtVZ3)Chicago | South Bank (https://flic.kr/p/2gbtVZ3) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48032726092_3bae2db0f6_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gbuh2S)Chicago | South Bank (https://flic.kr/p/2gbuh2S) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48032727177_5a9fcac10c_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gbuhmz)Chicago | South Bank (https://flic.kr/p/2gbuhmz) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

[SIGSEGV]

^ The riverwalk looks really nice... it's not open for public use yet right?

[harryc]

^ The riverwalk looks really nice... it's not open for public use yet right?

Not last week when I was there.

[harryc]

June 4

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48033737553_d8efd6f2b2_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gbzsGR)Chicago | Tribune Tower (https://flic.kr/p/2gbzsGR) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48033736268_0493a80032_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gbzsjG)Chicago | Tribune Tower (https://flic.kr/p/2gbzsjG) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48033803252_efedbacb47_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gbzNeA)Chicago | Tribune Tower (https://flic.kr/p/2gbzNeA) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48033739153_edbc17aeb1_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gbztbr)Chicago | Tribune Tower (https://flic.kr/p/2gbztbr) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48033697071_b5ec7047e9_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gbzfET)Chicago | Tribune Tower (https://flic.kr/p/2gbzfET) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48033810027_141b2d76c2_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gbzQfp)Chicago | Tribune Tower (https://flic.kr/p/2gbzQfp) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

[harryc]

June 4

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48034071171_b26acb38d5_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gbBaST)zzIMG_4327 (https://flic.kr/p/2gbBaST) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48034182967_ed1ad0895f_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gbBK7p)zzP1160601 (https://flic.kr/p/2gbBK7p) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48034183492_b988ced4c1_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gbBKgs)zzIMG_4338 (https://flic.kr/p/2gbBKgs) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48034116388_dab9f2f08a_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gbBpju)zzIMG_4323 (https://flic.kr/p/2gbBpju) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48034184317_e65eb7ed78_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gbBKvF)zzIMG_4312 (https://flic.kr/p/2gbBKvF) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

[LouisVanDerWright]

June 3

at least this top corner is still clean.


Did anyone else see this awesome shot someone posted on Reddit?

https://i.redd.it/4owd8dujh8331.jpg

https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comments/byf3ct/chicagos_ghost_tower/

[gebs]

^^ Getting a Taipei 101 vibe from that shot for some reason. Love it.

[ardecila]

The understanding that I have is that he wants more family sized units.

Given that the building is of finite size, this means that the developer will need to build fewer apartments. Thus, less affordable housing.

This new Alderman is brilliant!

Anyhow, if I were the developer I would comply, and then just market it to groups of roommates.

The school is existing, but the plan includes new construction in the former parking lot/schoolyard. So there is a way for the developer to add square footage and put up a bigger building if needed.

Not that said "family-sized units" would be cost-effective to build...

[aaron38]

Yeah "family sized units" i.e. things I would lose my real estate license if I said...

I'm telling you, one of these days an alderman is going to get sued on Federal Fair Housing violations...


I'll defer to you guys because I'm not a real estate agent, but is it really a violation or discrimination for a politician to comment on housing mix? For example if an alderman says "I'm being told by people that it's hard for families to find housing, that means there needs to be more 3-4 bedroom units in the mix", is that discriminating against people who don't have kids?
Is it discrimination against families to want affordable studios and 1 bedrooms?

If we're at the point where saying "I want more 4 bedrooms built" is a fair housing violation because it restricts supply of studios, then we have a massive housing shortage and should focus on that.

[ardecila]

^ The anti-discrimination aspects of Fair Housing apply only to real estate professionals, a politician can say what they want to say since they're not technically involved in the process of building, selling, or leasing the housing units.

Usually the enforcement of the law trends toward protection of dis-advantaged groups; for example, the law prohibits any discrimination based on familial status, but families with children are considered to be a dis-advantaged group while families or individuals without children are not. It can cut both ways, though - just as I can see a landlord in a big city apartment complex discriminating against families with kids, I could see a real estate agent in a religious part of the country discriminating against childless couples or non-traditional families, so it's important to have the law be neutral.

However, the mix of units a builder chooses to provide is not (in itself) a form of discrimination, outside of accessibility laws mandating a certain amount of accessible units. The law leaves the mix of units up to the builder and local zoning authorities to determine.

[galleyfox]

I'll defer to you guys because I'm not a real estate agent, but is it really a violation or discrimination for a politician to comment on housing mix? For example if an alderman says "I'm being told by people that it's hard for families to find housing, that means there needs to be more 3-4 bedroom units in the mix", is that discriminating against people who don't have kids?
Is it discrimination against families to want affordable studios and 1 bedrooms?

If we're at the point where saying "I want more 4 bedrooms built" is a fair housing violation because it restricts supply of studios, then we have a massive housing shortage and should focus on that.

That's the thing. If you're looking at the entire city, the affordable housing waiting list by far consists of people looking for studios and 1-Bedrooms. These are seniors, homeless, disabled of all races - people on fixed incomes who really do have nowhere else to go and have trouble finding roommates.

There's actually a quite decent supply of affordable larger apartments throughout the city. But they're not in the school districts and neighborhoods that families want most. But poor schools and violence are not a developer's responsibility to solve.

So yeah, the alderman has sorta decided ahead of time who he and a vocal group of constituents want to house, and not who the city needs to house.

[LouisVanDerWright]

I'll defer to you guys because I'm not a real estate agent, but is it really a violation or discrimination for a politician to comment on housing mix? For example if an alderman says "I'm being told by people that it's hard for families to find housing, that means there needs to be more 3-4 bedroom units in the mix", is that discriminating against people who don't have kids?
Is it discrimination against families to want affordable studios and 1 bedrooms?

If we're at the point where saying "I want more 4 bedrooms built" is a fair housing violation because it restricts supply of studios, then we have a massive housing shortage and should focus on that.

But that's the thing, he isn't saying "I want 4 bedroom units", he is saying he wants "family housing". As a licensed broker I could lose my license, be fined up to $25k and possibly even serve jail time if I so much as said that, let alone went on the record with a newspaper.

^ The anti-discrimination aspects of Fair Housing apply only to real estate professionals, a politician can say what they want to say since they're not technically involved in the process of building, selling, or leasing the housing units.

Usually the enforcement of the law trends toward protection of dis-advantaged groups; for example, the law prohibits any discrimination based on familial status, but families with children are considered to be a dis-advantaged group while families or individuals without children are not. It can cut both ways, though - just as I can see a landlord in a big city apartment complex discriminating against families with kids, I could see a real estate agent in a religious part of the country discriminating against childless couples or non-traditional families, so it's important to have the law be neutral.

However, the mix of units a builder chooses to provide is not (in itself) a form of discrimination, outside of accessibility laws mandating a certain amount of accessible units. The law leaves the mix of units up to the builder and local zoning authorities to determine.

Yes, but this is where I think it will eventually be litigated. We aren't talking about developer's choice of unit mix, we are talking about government representatives saying things that would be blatantly illegal if they were landlords, developers, or licensed agents. Again, it's not illegal for a developer to say "I want to build more 3 bedroom units" just as it's not illegal for them to say "I don't want to buy in inner city neighborhoods, I am going to invest only in the suburbs". But it would be illegal for them to say "I don't want to rent to unmarried couples" or "I don't want to invest in black neighborhoods so I'm investing only in the suburbs".

You are correct, however, that the law really only applies to landlords, brokers, bankers, etc. Where it becomes a sticky issue is that guess who is the biggest landlord in Chicago? The CHA which is a municipal corporation and very much subject to fair housing laws. The only reason aldermen have gotten away with saying these things so far is that the Mayor appoints the CHA board and the city council doesn't have direct control.

Which brings me to the argument I've posted here before: aldermen might not be able to be prosecuted individually under the fair housing act, BUT they might find themselves in Trumpesque hot water from a policy perspective at some point. What I mean by that is courts do not just consider the letter of the law and whether your proposal technically violates it, they consider context and intent. When Trump's "Muslim Ban" was manifested in the form a "ban that just happens to be all Muslim countries plus North Korea", the courts immediately struck it down because they considered the context and intent. They took the things Trump said and considered the law he proposed in the context of multiple quotes about how bad Muslims are and how he was going to ban them.

My question is how long until someone sues the city over a proposed zoning change (which is an ordinance, i.e. a law just like the muslim ban) because the Alderman sponsoring it has had multiple staffers state that the goal is to "stop too many white people from moving in" or to "provide more housing for families"? Just as Trump can't go around saying he's going to ban Muslims and expect the courts not to eventually attack his policy proposals with his words, alderman shouldn't expect to be able to parade around saying things that blatantly violate fair housing laws and expect not to eventually get the city, CHA, or their buddies who are affordable housing developers sued in the same manner.

[aaron38]

I guess I just don't understand how "family housing" is a euphemism for anything negative. It means big units, right? A 4-bedroom can be rented by a straight family, a gay family, a single mother with 3 kids, or 4 friends. Discrimination would be on the sales/rental end, not in construction.
If someone can point to an alderman telling a developer not to rent to "those people", then fire away with the lawsuits.

I mean, "traffic and congestion" are much more real euphemisms when an alderman says they're going to chop 10 floors and 200 units off a development. That's where supply of studios and single bedrooms is actually restricted. If it's discrimination to say "family housing", it should equally be discrimination for an alderman to say "This development is too tall, too dense and out of context with the neighborhood"

The only thing creating a zero-sum game between single-occupant housing and family housing is the city restricting zoning and chopping down developments.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^ The law isn't about "negative euphemisms" it's about what things you can discriminate based on in housing. One of those protected classes is quite literally "familial status". That means you can't refuse to rent to people with kids. That means you can't refuse to rent to unmarried people. That means you can't refuse to rent to single people. So where does an elected official get off saying "we need more families to move here" which is quite literally saying "we need to discriminate against single people"....

If they were saying "we need a more diverse unit mix" or "our neighborhood lacks larger rental units" that would be one thing, but they aren't. They are saying we need more families and less single people in our neighborhood which is quite literally illegal if you are in any way involved with the sale or rental of real estate.

[aaron38]

The only way “more families” equals “fewer single people” is if the supply of housing is restricted. Otherwise developers will build enough units for everyone who wants to live in a neighborhood. We want these neighborhoods to grow, and grow for everyone. It should not be zero-sum.
I don’t see any issue with an alderman saying he wants more families. That’s natural, kids are natural. The problem is saying “I want ONLY families, and cut that 300 unit building down to 80 units, and make it all 3 bedrooms”.

[OrdoSeclorum]

The only way “more families” equals “fewer single people” is if the supply of housing is restricted. Otherwise developers will build enough units for everyone who wants to live in a neighborhood.
I don’t see any issue with an alderman saying he wants more families. That’s natural, kids are natural. The issue is saying “I want more families, and cut that 300 unit building down to 80 units, and make it all 3 bedrooms”.

I think you're right and there isn't anything wrong with saying that you value families. However, it has been a strategy for decades to wink as one says "We want more three bedroom condos and apartments." What is plainly meant is "We want to make it more challenging for lower income folks to afford this neighborhood by only supplying housing that comes in large sizes."

It was said when they banned courtyard buildings. It was said when they banned 4+1's. It's said every time a building is proposed that contains a significant number of studios. It's said whenever a suburb imposes a large minimum lot size. Saying "we want family housing" is sometimes like saying, "I favor state's rights" instead of openly supporting some unpalatable initiative that a state may have proposed. It's a commonly understood to be coded language.

[LouisVanDerWright]

The only way “more families” equals “fewer single people” is if the supply of housing is restricted. Otherwise developers will build enough units for everyone who wants to live in a neighborhood. We want these neighborhoods to grow, and grow for everyone. It should not be zero-sum.
I don’t see any issue with an alderman saying he wants more families. That’s natural, kids are natural. The problem is saying “I want ONLY families, and cut that 300 unit building down to 80 units, and make it all 3 bedrooms”.

Fair enough, and maybe it isn't the case here, but Ordo is right, "family units" is a dog whistle for "less scary single people". It's also, as I said above, not the way the law works at least for professionals. For example, as a broker you aren't even allowed to say something like "JUST STEPS FROM THE TRAIN!" in a listing anymore because the word "STEPS" is considered discriminatory against handicapped people who can't walk. I know it sounds absurd, but this is very much how the law works and, as Ordo said, there is a LONG history of winks and nudges in real estate that resulted in generational segregation of poverty along race and other lines which is why we have laws like this to begin with.

Sure, they may not be saying "we want less single people", but a good litmus test as to whether something should be said is to replace the word in question with "white". If you change the sentence "we need more housing for families" to "we need more housing for whites", well, you get the picture...

And that's what they beat into you in RE continuing education these days; the language of anything you say about housing must be absolutely and totally neutral or you will eventually get sued. You do not go into describing the potential buyer, you don't say "close to hip bars and restaurants, perfect for the hip single young professional" or "right next to the park, perfect for famlies". You leave it at "close to the hottest bars and restaurants" or "right by the park". You are drilled to stick to only describing the property itself and the location in the most factual terms possible. Politicians would be wise to do the same. If you want larger units then shut your damned mouth about who you want to rent those units and stick with "we already have a ton of 1 and 2 bedroom units, could you include more larger units?"

[marothisu]

Herman Miller moving their showroom from The Mart to Fulton Market - specifically 1100 Fulton Market. That is a planned development which will rehab the building there and make an addition which is currently a small surface lot. In total, they'll take up 45,000 square ft. Knoll did the same thing very recently. Herman Miller has been at The Mart since 1939

[SolarWind]

June 11, 2019

https://imgur.com/MPnG4WV.jpg

https://imgur.com/66mLQU2.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 11, 2019

https://imgur.com/dn47nd4.jpg

https://imgur.com/ptb9HQg.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 11, 2019

https://imgur.com/vXueGuY.jpg

[SolarWind]

May 22, 2019

https://imgur.com/R5mfW28.jpg

June 12, 2018

https://i.imgur.com/EbsdbvS.jpg

^ last year

[SolarWind]

June 3, 2019

https://imgur.com/rArtwvp.jpg

https://imgur.com/mSXfpIu.jpg

[SolarWind]

June 3, 2019

https://imgur.com/GFDwhnF.jpg

https://imgur.com/NWIHTCp.jpg

[Busy Bee]

My god it's still shocking. Honey I blew up the 6-Flat.

[BonoboZill4]

Mille is the ugliest building built in the city in the 21st century...

[rlw777]

Mille is the ugliest building built in the city in the 21st century...

Nah that award goes to amli river north

[SamInTheLoop]

^^ It is quite cheap-looking. The cladding is not doing this one any favors, that's for certain.

^ Seconded on AMLI River North. That is a classically bad building.

[SamInTheLoop]

But that's the thing, he isn't saying "I want 4 bedroom units", he is saying he wants "family housing". As a licensed broker I could lose my license, be fined up to $25k and possibly even serve jail time if I so much as said that, let alone went on the record with a newspaper.



Yes, but this is where I think it will eventually be litigated. We aren't talking about developer's choice of unit mix, we are talking about government representatives saying things that would be blatantly illegal if they were landlords, developers, or licensed agents. Again, it's not illegal for a developer to say "I want to build more 3 bedroom units" just as it's not illegal for them to say "I don't want to buy in inner city neighborhoods, I am going to invest only in the suburbs". But it would be illegal for them to say "I don't want to rent to unmarried couples" or "I don't want to invest in black neighborhoods so I'm investing only in the suburbs".

You are correct, however, that the law really only applies to landlords, brokers, bankers, etc. Where it becomes a sticky issue is that guess who is the biggest landlord in Chicago? The CHA which is a municipal corporation and very much subject to fair housing laws. The only reason aldermen have gotten away with saying these things so far is that the Mayor appoints the CHA board and the city council doesn't have direct control.

Which brings me to the argument I've posted here before: aldermen might not be able to be prosecuted individually under the fair housing act, BUT they might find themselves in Trumpesque hot water from a policy perspective at some point. What I mean by that is courts do not just consider the letter of the law and whether your proposal technically violates it, they consider context and intent. When Trump's "Muslim Ban" was manifested in the form a "ban that just happens to be all Muslim countries plus North Korea", the courts immediately struck it down because they considered the context and intent. They took the things Trump said and considered the law he proposed in the context of multiple quotes about how bad Muslims are and how he was going to ban them.

My question is how long until someone sues the city over a proposed zoning change (which is an ordinance, i.e. a law just like the muslim ban) because the Alderman sponsoring it has had multiple staffers state that the goal is to "stop too many white people from moving in" or to "provide more housing for families"? Just as Trump can't go around saying he's going to ban Muslims and expect the courts not to eventually attack his policy proposals with his words, alderman shouldn't expect to be able to parade around saying things that blatantly violate fair housing laws and expect not to eventually get the city, CHA, or their buddies who are affordable housing developers sued in the same manner.


Again - as you've stated yourself, the law only applies to those selling, renting real estate. I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't take one to realize that any such lawsuits (if they're based on the real estate non-discrimination laws) would seem to be beyond long shot, if someone not involved in the actual selling or renting of property is the named defendent.

[SamInTheLoop]

Supply induced demand? You actually think people are moving to Logan Square because they are building TOD there? Lol...

Listen, nobody moves places because big new buildings are being built, big new buildings are built because people want to live there. All this is going to do is massively accelerate price gains. I'm already seeing $800k+ SFH sales in Avondale where there has been categorically no large scale new construction. At this rate I expect to start seeing $1mil+ sales in the next couple of years.


Wait....what now? Are you serious? You authentically do not believe in a supply-induced demand effect?

That's crazy.

Of course it's a real phenomenon. Happens across real estate markets, be they office space, apartments, hotels, retail, logistics...what have you.

In some cases it may only be at the margin. In other cases, it's more significant in terms of overall market impact. There will typically be somewhat greater absorption, all else being equal, with incrementally larger amounts of new supply.

I'm not by any means a supply-sider in terms of my economic worldview, but I don't deny the existence of legitimate supply-side phenomena.

Again, in a lot of cases, this can be more at the margin.

It's interesting though that you gave such a great example, that I can use to illustrate my point. Logan Square - and all the new TOD, smaller-unit apartment developments. The fact that all those new units are coming online has absolutely pushed up unit absorption in recent years in that neighborhood. Unquestionably. This one isn't even at the margin....this is somewhat more substantial. Just think about it for two minutes. These options now exist in considerably larger numbers than they did just 4 or 5 years ago. And, they are attracting a lot more of certain demographic slices of the population, significant proportion of which previously wouldn't have considered - or would have given much less weight in search for housing to the neighborhood. These added choices in the form of this new product induces an absorption level in Logan Square that is somewhat above and beyond what it would be without them - hands down.

In the long-term, supply constraints (whatever form they take - physical, political, etc) certainly help to drive up price appreciation faster than would otherwise be the case - however, in the short-to even the-medium term, new construction itself (through this supply-induced demand effect) can sometimes actually play a role (again varies widely depending on a large number of variables) in driving up rent growth even faster - believe it or not. Again, back to your Logan Square example - this new type of construction is adding Milwaukee corridor buzz and foot traffic, and with it additional retail and restaurant options, thus helping to drive up overall Logan Square housing prices in the near-to-medium term above and beyond what the already strong appreciation would have been absent this new TOD investment. Again, long-term, perhaps a different story. But, this is one example of demand inducement from new supply at work.

[the urban politician]

What’s up with the Apple store redo?

Did the stairs and walkway get too damaged from overuse or did they decide it needs a make over?

[ChiPlanner]

What’s up with the Apple store redo?

Did the stairs and walkway get too damaged from overuse or did they decide it needs a make over?

All the trees they planted immediately died :runaway:

[aaron38]

^^^ That tends to happen when trees are planted in a few inches of dirt and then covered over with concrete. It's almost as if trees need massive quantities of water or something.

[Via Chicago]

it also happens when planting is immediately followed by a winter that gets down to -35F. dont underestimate the cold we had, there are a LOT stressed/dead trees all over the city this spring, and if it was a sapling without an established root system (or non-native) it was especially vulnerable. sadly it dosent seem like the city is moving fast enough to replace them either. there was a recent WBEZ article which mentioned we've actually lost 100k trees over the past decade and this most recent winter definitely will be exacerbating that. but yea, it seems like every tree the city puts in near downtown is surrounded by concrete and tends to not survive more than 5 years.

[gebs]

Nah that award goes to amli river north

My vote still goes to 200 N Dearborn for turkiest architectural turkey.

[Steely Dan]

My vote still goes to 200 N Dearborn for turkiest architectural turkey.

oh, 200 n dearborn is a monumental turkey, no doubt, but it was built way back in 1989, so it can't be part of a "worst in the 21st" discussion.

[west-town-brad]

there was a recent WBEZ article which mentioned we've actually lost 100k trees over the past decade and this most recent winter definitely will be exacerbating that.

those trees were lost due to the Emerald Ash Borer (Illinois as a state has lost 90% of it's ash trees due to this thing)

[Vlajos]

those trees were lost due to the Emerald Ash Borer (Illinois as a state has lost 90% of it's ash trees due to this thing)

Ash borer decimated some areas. The city has since done a great job saving trees though. We have six ash trees on the parkway around our house and all are doing very well.

[Jim in Chicago]

those trees were lost due to the Emerald Ash Borer (Illinois as a state has lost 90% of it's ash trees due to this thing)

To be more precise, WBEZ said that some of that loss can be accounted for by the Ash Borer mass removal, but not all. The real story is that not only did the city no meet the goal of adding a millions trees, they're not even replacing trees at the same number they're being removed. Trees are removed every year for all sorts for all sorts of reasons, and the city isnt keeping up.

[Via Chicago]

To be more precise, WBEZ said that some of that loss can be accounted for by the Ash Borer mass removal, but not all. The real story is that not only did the city no meet the goal of adding a millions trees, they're not even replacing trees at the same number they're being removed. Trees are removed every year for all sorts for all sorts of reasons, and the city isnt keeping up.

right this was my point. the goal was 1 million trees over 10 years, we planted something like 100k, and due to all the losses due to disease/age/weather on top of it, our canopy is being lost. and many of the saplings the city plants i doubt make it to maturity, simply look at how many stumps are along major commercial corridors or downtown (to say nothing of the fact that every developer chainsaws everything within a block radius every time they initiate a project). not to mention the city wont plant a parkway tree unless a resident specifically requests one

[LouisVanDerWright]

it also happens when planting is immediately followed by a winter that gets down to -35F. dont underestimate the cold we had, there are a LOT stressed/dead trees all over the city this spring, and if it was a sapling without an established root system (or non-native) it was especially vulnerable. sadly it dosent seem like the city is moving fast enough to replace them either. there was a recent WBEZ article which mentioned we've actually lost 100k trees over the past decade and this most recent winter definitely will be exacerbating that. but yea, it seems like every tree the city puts in near downtown is surrounded by concrete and tends to not survive more than 5 years.

Yeah, ash borer didn't do much damage to city trees, they were well treated. However, the ash trees in my neighbors yard along the alley are all dead or half deal and dropping huge branches.

The city is absolutely pathetic about planting trees. The worst part is they are dirt cheap and easy to plant if you get like 3' saplings and they tend to take root more vigorously than a juvinille tree that has had half its root ball cut off so it can be transplanted. The city could easily plant a tree in front of every building in the city for like $1 million if they just did a massive order of 3' saplings from arbor day.

One thing I always do at all my properties is make sure there's a tree planted out front in the parkway. Trees can soak up tremendous amounts of water and, given the torrential rains that seem more and more common here, we need them to drink up every drop they can.

[woodrow]

For all the mistakes Daley the Younger made, his commitment to planting trees was impressive. Maybe Mayor Lightfoot will be interested and willing to push.

[Vlajos]

right this was my point. the goal was 1 million trees over 10 years, we planted something like 100k, and due to all the losses due to disease/age/weather on top of it, our canopy is being lost. and many of the saplings the city plants i doubt make it to maturity, simply look at how many stumps are along major commercial corridors or downtown (to say nothing of the fact that every developer chainsaws everything within a block radius every time they initiate a project). not to mention the city wont plant a parkway tree unless a resident specifically requests one

Where are all the stumps? I rarely see them.

[Jim in Chicago]

Where are all the stumps? I rarely see them.

Sometimes you won't. The people developing 717 S. Clark just mowed down all the trees for pretty much the full block and then filled in the open spots in the sidewalk with CONCRETE. Not a sign that the trees ever existed.

[Vlajos]

Sometimes you won't. The people developing 717 S. Clark just mowed down all the trees for pretty much the full block and then filled in the open spots in the sidewalk with CONCRETE. Not a sign that the trees ever existed.

Got it, I definitely don't go to the South loop often where I imagine this is more common.

[Investing In Chicago]

Where are all the stumps? I rarely see them.

The Southport Corridor in Lakeview is full of stumps - I counted roughly 45 trees that were removed in about a 4 block radius from my home this spring.

[vexxed82]

Not sure if this is a good place to share this, but if you're interested in a photo-op, 360 Chicago and I are hosting a *sunrise* meet-up at the observatory on the solstice (Friday, June 21). Tickets are $11.50 and you can get them on Eventbrite here > https://www.eventbrite.com/e/summer-solstice-2019-tickets-62511453440

You get sunrise access, coffee & donuts, rides on TILT, and up-and-dow access all-day so you can come back for sunset.

Full disclosure: I'm an ambassador of the observatoy so I do get paid to help plan and promote events and share the work I create from the atop the building. Regardless, I thought this might be a cool opportunity for some of the forums photographers to meet-up and shoot - though everyone is welcome!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8JiRpLWwAAdyGZ.jpg

[BonoboZill4]

^ I'm intrigued, but also lazy in the morning... what are the hours?

[harryc]

^ I'm intrigued, but also lazy in the morning... what are the hours?

it's an all day ticket - I'll be stopping by before and after work. The last time I was up in the Hancock I had to listen to a 60 minute sales pitch (SSL Decryption boards).

[BonoboZill4]

it's an all day ticket - I'll be stopping by before and after work. The last time I was up in the Hancock I had to listen to a 60 minute sales pitch (SSL Decryption boards).

Good to know!

[vexxed82]

^ I'm intrigued, but also lazy in the morning... what are the hours?

Elevators start running at 4:30am - sunset is at 5:16am.The observatory normally opens at 8:00am on Friday

But as harry said, you can pop in and out throughout the day. Most people come for sunrise and sunset.

Looking forward to seeing you there, Harry!

[Mr Downtown]

Chicago Has Fewer Burdens To New Construction Than Other U.S. Metros

says the National Apartment Association

story in Bisnow (https://www.bisnow.com/chicago/news/multifamily/chicago-has-fewer-burdens-to-new-construction-than-other-us-metros-99423)

link to study
(https://www.naahq.org/news-publications/barriers-apartment-construction-index)

[boeing738]

You get sunrise access, coffee & donuts, rides on TILT, and up-and-dow access all-day so you can come back for sunset.



This sounds very interesting! So even if I won't be able to make the sunrise, I can still stop by in the middle of the afternoon and evening?

I'll definitely be checking my calendar to see if I can make it downtown!

[vexxed82]

This sounds very interesting! So even if I won't be able to make the sunrise, I can still stop by in the middle of the afternoon and evening?

I'll definitely be checking my calendar to see if I can make it downtown!

Correct! You don't need to come to the sunrise portion in order to get access later in the day. That said, there won't be coffee & donuts all day, and I don't believe the free TILT rides will continue once normal operating hours begin.

But the cost of this ticket is only a couple bucks more than the standard Chicago resident admission price so even if you don't make it to sunrise, it's still a good deal...especially if you visit twice in one day

[AMWChicago]

Chicago Has Fewer Burdens To New Construction Than Other U.S. Metros

says the National Apartment Association

story in Bisnow (https://www.bisnow.com/chicago/news/multifamily/chicago-has-fewer-burdens-to-new-construction-than-other-us-metros-99423)

link to study
(https://www.naahq.org/news-publications/barriers-apartment-construction-index)

Thank you for linking yet another website I can visit daily with anticipation of interesting Chicago news lol

[Jim in Chicago]

Elevators start running at 4:30am - sunset is at 5:16am.The observatory normally opens at 8:00am on Friday

But as harry said, you can pop in and out throughout the day. Most people come for sunrise and sunset.

Looking forward to seeing you there, Harry!

As they say - if the sun rises in the West, don't pay the rent.

[Handro]

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/commercial-real-estate/500-apartments-planned-along-fulton-markets-west-end

Three new buildings proposed at the western edge of Fulton district, including a 21-story at the corner of Randolph and Ogden.

This is great news. The area around Union Park has a lot of potential to be a cool res area, especially if (when) they rehab the Ashland green line stop. I wonder when the lot on the northwestern corner of Madison and Ashland is going to go? Can’t stay a gravel wasteland for long with all this development happening nearby, right?

[glowrock]

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/commercial-real-estate/500-apartments-planned-along-fulton-markets-west-end

Three new buildings proposed at the western edge of Fulton district, including a 21-story at the corner of Randolph and Ogden.

This is great news. The area around Union Park has a lot of potential to be a cool res area, especially if (when) they rehab the Ashland green line stop. I wonder when the lot on the northwestern corner of Madison and Ashland is going to go? Can’t stay a gravel wasteland for long with all this development happening nearby, right?

Absolutely. Right now the Ashland station is more than slightly dilapidated, but it wouldn't take too much to modernize it. At that point, the development directly along Ogden Ave. would have nothing stopping it, opening up areas to the west and toward the U.C...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[OrdoSeclorum]

Absolutely. Right now the Ashland station is more than slightly dilapidated, but it wouldn't take too much to modernize it. At that point, the development directly along Ogden Ave. would have nothing stopping it, opening up areas to the west and toward the U.C...

Aaron (Glowrock)

Do you really think the station is an impediment to development? I use the Ashland Green line station more than any other. It's not modern, but it has some shabby charm. And the trains will arrive no matter what kind of platform I'm standing on.

[harryc]

Do you really think the station is an impediment to development? I use the Ashland Green line station more than any other. It's not modern, but it has some shabby charm. And the trains will arrive no matter what kind of platform I'm standing on.

Ashland station ( please don't put up glass on the bridge )

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47696502062_f5dba479d6_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2fEM3kQ)Chicago (https://flic.kr/p/2fEM3kQ) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32798175397_da72570a3d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/RYgdSH)Chicago in the morning (https://flic.kr/p/RYgdSH) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32796760507_41a2d82093_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/RY8Yh4)Chicago (https://flic.kr/p/RY8Yh4) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/4874/45897961924_be6c0d20e2_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2cVR427)Good Morning Chicago (https://flic.kr/p/2cVR427) by Harry Carmichael (https://www.flickr.com/photos/harryrcarmichael/), on Flickr

[BrinChi]

^^ Ashland station is awesome! They could maintain it better (goes for all CTA stations; they seem to take the approach of $50 million rehab... do nothing for 30 years+... $75 million rehab... etc), but they intentionally saved the historic station when it was last renovated.

[BrinChi]

Also, I'm happy for the proposals around Ashland, but do we really need to knock down another charming low rise? There are plenty of parking lots to build on. We really need to de-incentivize teardowns in this city.

[Handro]

Also, I'm happy for the proposals around Ashland, but do we really need to knock down another charming low rise? There are plenty of parking lots to build on. We really need to de-incentivize teardowns in this city.

Which low rise is charming? I guess the bellyq restaurant is charming in that it's old, but it doesn't really have any discernible historical features, I don't think?

Certainly the other is not going to be missed, basically just a blank brick structure.

^^ Ashland station is awesome! They could maintain it better (goes for all CTA stations; they seem to take the approach of $50 million rehab... do nothing for 30 years+... $75 million rehab... etc), but they intentionally saved the historic station when it was last renovated.

Views and details are great, but it could definitely use some love... I would hope it would never be replaced, just updated a la Quincy brown/purple line station.

[ardecila]

Views and details are great, but it could definitely use some love... I would hope it would never be replaced, just updated a la Quincy brown/purple line station.

Quincy had to be upgraded as it was not ADA-compliant. It was renovated in the 90s, but somehow they managed to avoid putting in an elevator. Ashland is already accessible. It just needs a fresh coat of paint and a thorough cleaning...

CTA was doing deep station cleans a few years ago, I remember them posting dramatic before/after photos. I guess that approach died out?

[emathias]

To be more precise, WBEZ said that some of that loss can be accounted for by the Ash Borer mass removal, but not all. The real story is that not only did the city no meet the goal of adding a millions trees, they're not even replacing trees at the same number they're being removed. Trees are removed every year for all sorts for all sorts of reasons, and the city isnt keeping up.

Several years ago, the City removed two trees outside my building and only replanted one, despite multiple calls requesting a second.

[marothisu]

Application was filed to replace this (https://www.google.com/maps/place/3347+N+Southport+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60657/@41.9430099,-87.6638896,3a,75y,87.22h,108.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEUDILFmGRE_lJDgDzpcU5w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x880fd25179d94b67:0x4ad4054213145895!8m2!3d41.9430071!4d-87.6635293) vacant 3 story building on Southport near the Southport Brown Line stop with a new 6 story (64 feet 1 inch) building with 35 units (efficiency) with 36 bike parking stalls and 0 car parking. Ground floor commercial space.

[marothisu]

This is what is supposed to go in what's currently the parking lot for Meet Fresh (and a few other things) at 2020 S Clark St in Chinatown. I think ground floor is commercial and the rest might be office.

Blech

https://s3.amazonaws.com/wsbx.prod.assets/team/6053/assets/upload_4076a45197c20d9c7e5d16fbb4244f0f.png

[glowrock]

Which low rise is charming? I guess the bellyq restaurant is charming in that it's old, but it doesn't really have any discernible historical features, I don't think?

Certainly the other is not going to be missed, basically just a blank brick structure.



Views and details are great, but it could definitely use some love... I would hope it would never be replaced, just updated a la Quincy brown/purple line station.

I agree that the views are fantastic, but it definitely needs some cleaning, upgrading (albeit probably mainly cosmetic, but still!), that kind of thing. It's not that I think it's necessarily a deterrent to development nearby, but a relatively small investment could pan out remarkably well in terms of new activity, you know?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[SIGSEGV]

This is what is supposed to go in what's currently the parking lot for Meet Fresh (and a few other things) at 2020 S Clark St in Chinatown. I think ground floor is commercial and the rest might be office.

Blech

https://s3.amazonaws.com/wsbx.prod.assets/team/6053/assets/upload_4076a45197c20d9c7e5d16fbb4244f0f.png

Wow that is truly an ugly building. That area will never look good aesthetically though until something is done about the Hilliard grounds.