CHICAGO | General Developments

[Steely Dan]

yeah, despite my modern inclinations, i'll take decently-executed retro over cheap-out modern anytime.

the more photorealistic quality of the rendering for the new design also helps sell it better. ;)


https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2035-W-Irving-Park-Road.-Rendering-by-SPACE-Architects-Planners-777x506.jpg https://lede-admin.blockclubchicago.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-07-at-11.27.05-AM.png?resize=768,489



hopefully the design on the left is approved and faithfully executed.

[Ned.B]

yeah exactly. the next door building (basically a big house) was open to the elements and clearly in bad shape, but the main one was well secured and easily could have been an adaptive reuse. in fact, when i saw workers on the site i initially got excited because i thought a reuse would be a no brainer. was gutted to see the back of the budiling being dismantled when i got further down the street. the fact this was marketed as a parking lot opportunity is demoralizing. it was easily one the nicest historic buildings in the immediate vicinity, and they clearly wasted no time between getting the permit and beginning demo work, presumably to get ahead of anyone having a chance to react to it. sadly i dont think it was even orange rated.

Right it was rated green. I know this has been noted before here but it is well past time to reconsider the historic resources survey...if only the city could put the resources toward making it happen. What distinguishes orange and red building beyond their integrity from yellow, yellow-green, green, and purple is that they were determined to have potential significance to the surrounding community (orange) or city or nation, etc (red). Well potential significance is something that is subject to change over time, and there are so many buildings that were rated a lower color in 1995 that could potentially be considered orange if reconsidered today.

[Jibba]

yeah, despite my modern inclinations, i'll take decently-executed retro over cheap-out modern anytime.

the more photorealistic quality of the rendering for the new design also helps sell it better. ;)


hopefully the design on the left is approved and faithfully executed.

The contemporary design looks to me like it would have had promise -- the variations in the way the bricks are laid is a very pleasant effect to me (see the simple way it's done on these (https://goo.gl/maps/6GiYCWNL12njqJ17A) commercial buildings on Granville; it helps to break up the expanse of material). I like the beams at the sill and lintel of the windows, and the simple and clean way it meets the ground looks crisp and unfussy.

The 'contextual' design is OK, I guess. The clock tower, though, looks... silly (to put it charitably). If one is going to incorporate an anachronistic feature like that, I'd prefer something not so artificial.

[woodrow]

Hey all, loving Chicago so far. I have a question:

In Chicago, specifically on the north side, are there laws/regulations/zoning to require developers to use certain materials, namely brick and masonry? I’ve noticed that a lot of the multi-family development being built around places like Belmont are using high quality materials. I’m just used to developers in Philly slapping something together with Aluminum siding and calling it “contemporary.”

Just wait, you will see some of that here as well. Chicago is a masonry town, however. After the 1871 fire codes were changed and eventually implemented. There is no stick construction in the city and where you do find a frame house, it either predates the fire or was built in a "suburb" pre-1889(?) when the city annexed a bunch of townships.

[mcgrath618]

Just wait, you will see some of that here as well. Chicago is a masonry town, however. After the 1871 fire codes were changed and eventually implemented. There is no stick construction in the city and where you do find a frame house, it either predates the fire or was built in a "suburb" pre-1889(?) when the city annexed a bunch of townships.

Huh, I didn’t realize that it had to do with the fires. Thanks for the answer!

[the urban politician]

I do see non-masonry new construction (SFH, townhome) subdivisions getting built in Chicago. Are these somehow able to circumvent those rules?

[ardecila]

This condo development (https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/02/03/condo-building-planned-for-irving-park-road-in-north-center-rejected-by-alderman/) was proposed there before. It was rejected by the alderman after the neighbors complained about it "not fitting in."

The style is a red herring. Compare the two proposals. The alderman rejected a luxury 12-unit condo building on that site and the new proposal is for a 44-unit building. Who cares if we get ho-hum modernism or ho-hum traditionalism, the increased density and reduced parking are the real story here, near major bus and rail lines. And the units in the denser building are likely to be more affordable, at least to middle-class residents, than the 12 uber-luxe condos proposed originally.

This story combined with the similar one a few blocks away at Chicago Joe's really make me appreciate the line Martin is walking here - he is clearly a believer in YIMBY ideas but he's willing to compromise with the NIMBYs on architectural style.

I do see non-masonry new construction (SFH, townhome) subdivisions getting built in Chicago. Are these somehow able to circumvent those rules?

The law used to contain "fire limits" which were a blanket ban on wood frame construction within a given area of the city, before building codes really existed. It was adjusted outward as the city grew, and some neighborhoods gerrymandered themselves out of it. It was a pretty primitive approach to fire prevention that has been replaced with all the complexity of modern building codes. There is still a "fire limits" provision in the code but it's been pruned back to downtown only (inside of Division, Halsted, Roosevelt, LSD). You can see the border pretty clearly by comparing Dearborn Park I north of Roosevelt (all brick) to Dearborn Park II south of Roosevelt (wood framed fake Victorians).

Today wood-frame construction is tightly regulated but certainly allowable in many circumstances for townhome, SFH and even 2/3-flats in some cases.

[Rizzo]

The contemporary design looks to me like it would have had promise -- the variations in the way the bricks are laid is a very pleasant effect to me (see the simple way it's done on these (https://goo.gl/maps/6GiYCWNL12njqJ17A) commercial buildings on Granville; it helps to break up the expanse of material). I like the beams at the sill and lintel of the windows, and the simple and clean way it meets the ground looks crisp and unfussy.

The 'contextual' design is OK, I guess. The clock tower, though, looks... silly (to put it charitably). If one is going to incorporate an anachronistic feature like that, I'd prefer something not so artificial.

The modern version has a similar facade down the street at Wolcott and Irving. In reality it came out looking like a medical office building. Not the design language that’s popular with most buyers.

[Randomguy34]

Hey all, loving Chicago so far.

Glad you're loving Chicago so far! Philly is wonderful and am envious that you all are a proper rowhome city

ADU Pilot is now live:

https://www.chicago.gov/adu

Something I noticed in this pilot is that multi-unit buildings are allowed to increase their unit count by 33%! So someone could have a 100 unit building and add an extra 33 units without needing a zoning change. This might have a major effect on the amount of renovations we see across the pilot zones. This could be a really great way to bring back density on the North and Northwest Side without having to deal with homeowners complaining about traffic

[the urban politician]

Something I noticed in this pilot is that multi-unit buildings are allowed to increase their unit count by 33%! So someone could have a 100 unit building and add an extra 33 units without needing a zoning change. This might have a major effect on the amount of renovations we see across the pilot zones. This could be a really great way to bring back density on the North and Northwest Side without having to deal with homeowners complaining about traffic

^ Uhhh..... no.

Unless you can create 33 basement apartments in a 100 unit building, or 33 coach houses in a 100 unit building, nothing even remotely close to that will happen.

This ordinance is meant for smaller single-lot buildings like SFH, 2, 3, 4 flats, etc.

[Randomguy34]

^ Uhhh..... no.

Unless you can create 33 basement apartments in a 100 unit building, or 33 coach houses in a 100 unit building, nothing even remotely close to that will happen.

This ordinance is meant for smaller single-lot buildings like SFH, 2, 3, 4 flats, etc.

The ordinance (https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/doh/adu/adu_ordinance.pdf) and website reads that "properties with 5 or more units, coach houses are not permitted, but the property owner can create up to 33 percent more units as conversion units"

Conversion units are defined in Section 17-17-0240.6 as "A dwelling unit that is: (i) either newly constructed or rehabilitated for reuse, and (ii) located within a principal residential buildings that has been in lawful existence for 20 or more years, and (iii) established in accordance with Sections
17-2-0303-C and 17-9-0131."

Sections 17-2-0303-C and 17-9-0131 go on to affirm that any property with +5 units may increase their density by 33% in the case of "repair, remodeling, or alteration of residential buildings that are located in any RS2, RS3, RT or RM zoning districts" Furthermore, they are not subject to restrictions such as minimum lot area per unit, open spaces requirements, or parking minimums, which would otherwise prohibit conversion units. So yes, the example I provided is possible. Obviously there would have to be serious remodeling of a 100 unit building to accommodate an extra 33 units, but it can be done.

[the urban politician]

^ I never thought of it that way, but realistically I have a hard time seeing a large apartment building doing something like that. It would be ridiculously expensive and you probably won’t even make your building much more profitable, if at all.

This ordinance is meant to benefit owners who want to create living space where it currently doesn’t exist. So a basement, attic, etc. That increases revenue and hence your property’s value.

[west-town-brad]

^ I never thought of it that way, but realistically I have a hard time seeing a large apartment building doing something like that. It would be ridiculously expensive and you probably won’t even make your building much more profitable, if at all.

This ordinance is meant to benefit owners who want to create living space where it currently doesn’t exist. So a basement, attic, etc. That increases revenue and hence your property’s value.

I'm curious to know how one would feasibility add a living unit above an existing garage given the needed water, sewer, and gas line connections... it seems a bit prohibitive but maybe I don't understand. Wouldn't you have to tear up the primary building on the property to make the connections? I guess you could do electric instead of gas but that only solves one of three problems.

[ardecila]

I'm curious to know how one would feasibility add a living unit above an existing garage given the needed water, sewer, and gas line connections... it seems a bit prohibitive but maybe I don't understand. Wouldn't you have to tear up the primary building on the property to make the connections? I guess you could do electric instead of gas but that only solves one of three problems.

You would need to rebuild the garage from the foundation up. Most Chicago garages are shit construction quality anyway. Prefab or panelized construction can bring the costs down a bit, but yes getting water service to the coach house is among the more difficult and expensive challenges you would face.

Any added dwelling units will need a new water service at $20k-25k for the whole property. Expensive, but it does get the lead out (rimshot). The existing sewer tap is likely adequate for an additional unit, assuming it is in good condition (no tree roots, collapsed pipe, etc) and was done correctly to begin with, but there may not be enough slope to drain properly from the rear of the lot so you would need to install an ejector pit in the main building basement.

The ordinance (https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/doh/adu/adu_ordinance.pdf) and website reads that "properties with 5 or more units, coach houses are not permitted, but the property owner can create up to 33 percent more units as conversion units"

Very interesting... the only issue I see is that 50% of the new units must be maintained as affordable to 60% AMI. Obviously this would only be a viable redevelopment play under certain very limited circumstances.

[ardecila]

deleted

[west-town-brad]

You would need to rebuild the garage from the foundation up. Most Chicago garages are shit construction quality anyway. Prefab or panelized construction can bring the costs down a bit, but yes getting water service to the coach house is among the more difficult and expensive challenges you would face.

Any added dwelling units will need a new water service at $20k-25k for the whole property. Expensive, but it does get the lead out (rimshot). The existing sewer tap is likely adequate for an additional unit, assuming it is in good condition (no tree roots, collapsed pipe, etc) and was done correctly to begin with, but there may not be enough slope to drain properly from the rear of the lot so you would need to install an ejector pit in the main building basement.



new construction SFH might make the most sense to include an ADU so maybe we will see some of those hitting the market

[LouisVanDerWright]

yeah exactly. the next door building (basically a big house) was open to the elements and clearly in bad shape, but the main one was well secured and easily could have been an adaptive reuse. in fact, when i saw workers on the site i initially got excited because i thought a reuse would be a no brainer. was gutted to see the back of the budiling being dismantled when i got further down the street. the fact this was marketed as a parking lot opportunity is demoralizing. it was easily one the nicest historic buildings in the immediate vicinity, and they clearly wasted no time between getting the permit and beginning demo work, presumably to get ahead of anyone having a chance to react to it. sadly i dont think it was even orange rated.

This bullshit (along with the whole BLM public conversation, but that's a whole nother story) was the last straw in me deciding to move into North Lawndale. As of this weekend I will officially have an offer in on a large building and some vacant land near the Kedzie Pink Line. Little Village along the Pink Line has run out of the trashed, abandoned buildings that I need to fuel my business model and I've had it with the bullshit racial segregation in Chicago.

Time to anhilate disinvestment in North Lawndale. Ald Scott has done a great job working with Lawndale Christian around Central Park, time for private enterprise to attack all the bullshit vacancy between Central Park, Albany, Douglas Bolevard, and the Metra Tracks.

You all are on notice, I'm officially putting a bounty on the head of any flaming bag of hot garbage bombed out shell you can find me in that area. If anything historic gets torn down in that area for no good reason, it's not on me if y'all don't give me the heads up.

[LouisVanDerWright]

yeah, despite my modern inclinations, i'll take decently-executed retro over cheap-out modern anytime.

the more photorealistic quality of the rendering for the new design also helps sell it better. ;)


https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2035-W-Irving-Park-Road.-Rendering-by-SPACE-Architects-Planners-777x506.jpg https://lede-admin.blockclubchicago.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-07-at-11.27.05-AM.png?resize=768,489



hopefully the design on the left is approved and faithfully executed.


Cornice: Check

Multiple Brick Colors: Check

Chunky ass Clocktower holding corner: Check

Real Brick corbeling and insets: Check

Limestone or Caststone storefront base: Check


I don't give a shit if it's ye olde buildinge as long as you are putting forth actual effort. As long as you at least try at the detailing, time will do the rest. Most older buildings don't have perfect massing or details either, but 100 years softens that and gives it character. As long as you put real effort into any style, it will look great in 100 years 99 out 100 times.

[Busy Bee]

Well put

[Rizzo]

The ubiquitous modern metal or cementitious panel clad buildings don’t age well because the surfaces stain or warp and “oil can” because the thin materials don’t stay pristine in our climate. The better quality cladding is costly and you can definitely tell the difference on more expensive modem designs.

I’ve felt it’s important to design for neglect for decades. Don’t expect landlords or HOA’s to paint metal balconies when they are rusting or clean dirt or grime of the facade. At least a masonry building will stand up to weather and neglect longer and it looks better as it ages

[CrazyCres]

INVEST South/West Project Site Summaries

South Chicago:
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/invest_sw/rfps/response_summaries/south_chicago_response_summaries.pdf

North Lawndale:
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/invest_sw/rfps/response_summaries/north_lawndale_response_summaries.pdf

New City:
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/invest_sw/rfps/response_summaries/new_city_response_summaries.pdf

Bronzeville:
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/invest_sw/rfps/response_summaries/bronzeville_response_summaries.pdf

My Favorites:
South Chicago: Steel City Apartments
North Lawndale: Lawndale Redefined & OG Lawndale
New City: United Yards
Bronzeville: The Village

[marothisu]

This bullshit (along with the whole BLM public conversation, but that's a whole nother story) was the last straw in me deciding to move into North Lawndale. As of this weekend I will officially have an offer in on a large building and some vacant land near the Kedzie Pink Line. Little Village along the Pink Line has run out of the trashed, abandoned buildings that I need to fuel my business model and I've had it with the bullshit racial segregation in Chicago.

Time to anhilate disinvestment in North Lawndale. Ald Scott has done a great job working with Lawndale Christian around Central Park, time for private enterprise to attack all the bullshit vacancy between Central Park, Albany, Douglas Bolevard, and the Metra Tracks.

You all are on notice, I'm officially putting a bounty on the head of any flaming bag of hot garbage bombed out shell you can find me in that area. If anything historic gets torn down in that area for no good reason, it's not on me if y'all don't give me the heads up.

Like these?
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1427-S-Avers-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M83530-88501

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1827-S-Springfield-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M98389-41914

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1530-S-Spaulding-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M75277-81194

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1506-S-Sawyer-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M86165-34746

Vacant lots?
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1841-S-Sawyer-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M91714-08907

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1854-S-Sawyer-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M97919-36052

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1867-S-Kedzie-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M95097-28798


https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1915-S-Kedzie-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M89338-53756

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1936-S-Kedzie-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M81195-49410

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1867-S-Kedzie-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M95097-28798

[Rizzo]

INVEST South/West Project Site Summaries

South Chicago:
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/invest_sw/rfps/response_summaries/south_chicago_response_summaries.pdf

North Lawndale:
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/invest_sw/rfps/response_summaries/north_lawndale_response_summaries.pdf

New City:
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/invest_sw/rfps/response_summaries/new_city_response_summaries.pdf

Bronzeville:
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/invest_sw/rfps/response_summaries/bronzeville_response_summaries.pdf

My Favorites:
South Chicago: Steel City Apartments
North Lawndale: Lawndale Redefined & OG Lawndale
New City: United Yards
Bronzeville: The Village

All these look great. Especially like the north lawndale proposals

[nomarandlee]

INVEST South/West Project Site Summaries

South Chicago:
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/invest_sw/rfps/response_summaries/south_chicago_response_summaries.pdf

North Lawndale:
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/invest_sw/rfps/response_summaries/north_lawndale_response_summaries.pdf

New City:
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/invest_sw/rfps/response_summaries/new_city_response_summaries.pdf

Bronzeville:
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/invest_sw/rfps/response_summaries/bronzeville_response_summaries.pdf

My Favorites:
South Chicago: Steel City Apartments
North Lawndale: Lawndale Redefined & OG Lawndale
New City: United Yards
Bronzeville: The Village

Those are great! Chances of those coming to fruition? Guessing they are strictly conceptual. I especially love the Bronzeville one with the "The Village" ampatheatre cut-out.

[moorhosj1]

Those are great! Chances of those coming to fruition? Guessing they are strictly conceptual. I especially love the Bronzeville one with the "The Village" ampatheatre cut-out.

These are actual RFP responses (https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/sites/invest_sw/home/requests-for-proposals.html) to the city's Invest South/West program. I believe the goal is to select one project for each location, so some of these will very likely come to fruition. Background on the Invest South/West program (https://chi.streetsblog.org/2021/04/01/first-three-invest-south-west-projects-chosen-to-reinvigorate-neglected-neighborhoods/) for those interested:
Created in 2019, the plan seeks to invest $750 million in city funding and tap into the resources of community organizations and corporate and philanthropic funds. The priority neighborhoods for INVEST South/West are Auburn Gresham, Austin, Bronzeville, Greater Englewood, Humboldt Park, New City, North Lawndale, Greater Roseland, South Chicago, and South Shore.

In March, they announced 3 winners from a prior RFP:

- $37.5 million to Austin United Alliance, which will turn former the Laramie Building into a blues museum and café and a business incubator, with adjacent land into a mixed income rental development.

- $19.4 million to Evergreen Imagine JV LLC, which will turn vacant land at 79th and Halsted streets into 56 units of affordable housing with private garden lots, a playground for residents, private amenities, and public open spaces.

- $10.3 million to Englewood Connect, which will turn the landmark Green Street fire station into a commercial kitchen and establish a business incubator to train start-up businesses, create a community "living room" for local events. Vacant land will also be repurposed for hoop houses to make year-round farming.

[Steely Dan]

So, what do people here make of these reports of da Bears scoping out the race track in Arlington Heights for a potential new stadium?



I might die if it happens.

[the urban politician]

^ I don't see it happening. It's just a bargaining chip against the city

[rivernorthlurker]

So, what do people here make of these reports of da Bears scoping out the race track in Arlington Heights for a potential new stadium?



I might die if it happens.

urban politician probably right. Though I wonder what opportunities that would open up for Soldier Field? Second team? Bring the Fire back? Or something else...

[galleyfox]

So, what do people here make of these reports of da Bears scoping out the race track in Arlington Heights for a potential new stadium?



I might die if it happens.

Claim:The Bears hate Soldier Field and want to leave after the lease ends in 2033. TRUTH

In 2019, the team sent representatives to the Tribune River District to evaluate the site for potential stadium construction. There are probably other sites that they looked at.

Problem The team owners do not have the F-U money to build their own stadium (same as the other 10 times the team tried to leave Soldier Field), and leveraging the team itself is not a viable option without other collateral.

The team is looking for a real estate developer to eat some of the costs. Maybe the NFL will help with a loan after the new media deal. Maybe.


Personally, I think Arlington Heights is a red herring. For the past 15 years, the NFL has been trying to get stadiums close to downtowns, major airports, and convention centers in order to cash in on year-round entertainment and events.

I don’t see how Arlington Heights competes against the United Center, Wrigley Field, McCormick Place, Rosemont or even Schaumburg to make a stadium entertainment district viable 350 days of the year.


It’s a great publicity opportunity for the suburb of Arlington Heights so of course they’re banging the drums. However, I think the Horseman’s proposal to split up some of the land for industrial and moderate retail shopping to subsidize the racetrack is the most realistic.

[the urban politician]

^ Yes, I do hope it remains a racetrack (I'm not even into horse racing, but I feel that Chicagoland shouldn't lose its only major horse racing venue)

Also, if the Bears do leave SF, what will happen to SF?

[galleyfox]

^ Yes, I do hope it remains a racetrack (I'm not even into horse racing, but I feel that Chicagoland shouldn't lose its only major horse racing venue)

Also, if the Bears do leave SF, what will happen to SF?

The Chicago Fire remove the 400 level stands, and soccer becomes the main tenant at Soldier Field.

[bnk]

They really blew it when they did not build a retractable dome stadium right next to solder field in the size and cost of the NFL stadium that the Dallas Cowboys have. Could be used all year long, and for conventions, concerts, tourneys and NFL super bowl games.

The Bears built the smallest attendance stadium in the entire NFL, WTF can't even meet super bowl requirements on seating alone.

This is what we should have got


nZo6M1DSVtM

QchMgTkDSsA

[nomarandlee]

The Chicago Fire remove the 400 level stands, and soccer becomes the main tenant at Soldier Field.

I've always kind of hoped this scenario eventually plays out. Though I would like to see the Bears move to a retractable stadium (I'd even take a domed stadium at this point) as part of MP, or maybe they could move down near the south works site?

Then I'd like to see the 400 levels take out on the West side and the 200 levels on the north end. This would allow at least a partial view of the Colonades and the Field Museum from inside the stadium again and would remove the UFO effect. The east side of the stadium with the glass curtain wall is actually pretty awesome IMO. I'd guess this would take down the capacity to at least 40k, maybe even near 30k. Definitely on the big end for MLS but much more in line with the hopefully future numbers for the Fire.

The only way we see a new Bears stadium though is if they change ownership and the Bears largely finance themselves. I feel the chances of the Bears/State chipping in a large payment for another stadium are long gone.

[k1052]

The Chicago Fire remove the 400 level stands, and soccer becomes the main tenant at Soldier Field.

I could very much live with this.

[bnk]

I see where a lot of this discussion started. Casino in the 78? Stadium issues.






https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg-hinz-politics/lets-think-big-chicago-least-these-two-fronts


May 06, 2021 06:47 PM |



Let's think big, Chicago—at least on these two fronts
Some stars may be aligning in promising ways for the mayor's casino dream, the Bears' stadium ambitions and two development firms with a lot on the line.


Greg Hinz  


…. I’m thinking of two things in particular that may have more synergy than you might expect: hopes for a Chicago casino and a spate of renewed talk that the Chicago Bears have had it at Soldier Field, at least the Soldier Field we know.

...

Let me begin with casinos.

...


Anyhow, despite denials across the board, some insiders believe Rush Street is the favorite for two reasons. One, Bluhm’s daughter, Leslie Bluhm, went to law school with Lightfoot, and the family raised more than $200,000 for her mayoral campaign. After all, this is Chicago. Two, Rush Street has hooked up in its bid with Related Midwest, developer of the 78 property on vacant land just southwest of the Loop.

Related surely could use a big project for its very promising but somewhat stalled project, which arrived at just the wrong time: mid-pandemic. It’s located in the right spot, too, with plenty of space near downtown hotels and good highway access. However, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be better with a nice entertainment district right next to the casino in the form of a domed NFL football stadium with which it could share parking expenses and perhaps other overhead. I have no reason to believe Related is so pondering, but that doesn’t mean Team Lightfoot couldn’t. Name it Pritzker Stadium, too, to ensure wider buy-in.

Another two-birds-with-one-stone possibility is at Soldier Field itself, located just across the tracks to the east of developer Bob Dunn’s proposed One Central complex.

As in the case of Related, there is no sign Dunn is interested in building a dome. But what about doming (and somewhat) expanding Soldier Field, adding a retractable roof? That was considered in the 1980s, when the Bears agreed to their current Soldier Field lease, and rejected because of cost considerations. But construction techniques have changed a lot since then.

Ponder this: Dunn made his name in the development business by becoming involved in constructing or rebuilding football stadiums, including MetLife Stadium across the river from Manhattan, Lambeau Field in Green Bay and U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis. His proposed One Central complex of huge parking lots and hundreds of thousands of square feet of restaurant and retail space likely could squeeze in some Bears fans a few times a year. Further ponder this: A mayor who’s in at least some re-election trouble—and a Bears fan herself—likely could find a way to get some political credit if she built both a casino and a real home for the Bears, one that could host a Super Bowl or a Final Four tournament.


...

[LouisVanDerWright]

Like these?
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1427-S-Avers-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M83530-88501

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1827-S-Springfield-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M98389-41914

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1530-S-Spaulding-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M75277-81194

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1506-S-Sawyer-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M86165-34746

Vacant lots?
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1841-S-Sawyer-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M91714-08907

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1854-S-Sawyer-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M97919-36052

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1867-S-Kedzie-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M95097-28798


https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1915-S-Kedzie-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M89338-53756

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1936-S-Kedzie-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M81195-49410

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1867-S-Kedzie-Ave_Chicago_IL_60623_M95097-28798

Avers and Springfield are too far West right now, need to concentrate on a geographically contained area where I can do the most damage.

Zero interest in vacant lots at this stage unless I get them for free. There is no way the economics of new construction will work until every last abandoned building is cleaned up. Gotta stay East of Central Park for now and as close to the Pink line as possible!

Also those are all already under contract.

[kolchak]

Lawrence and Magnolia -
https://i.ibb.co/BGXpvTX/20210508-093217.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/bWQzz0R/20210508-093304.jpg

[harryc]

^^^ Thank you for putting it in context.

[the urban politician]

^ Pieces of the puzzle slowly are falling into place. Now we just need for the big one to finally be brought back to life...

[Busy Bee]

https://i.ibb.co/bWQzz0R/20210508-093304.jpg

It is sort of akin to the aluminum sided garage behind the stately blonde brick bungalow, no?

[r18tdi]

It is sort of akin to the aluminum sided garage behind the stately blonde brick bungalow, no? Haaa. yes

[jc5680]

550 w Randolph (https://550westrandolph.com) looks like it might have started it's reno/expansion. Signage on the old entrance on Clinton has said for a while that that tenant has moved—green fencing and dumpsters are new

https://www.j-carlson.com/share/550r_may8.jpg


I quite like this bit of spectacle added to the new base

https://www.j-carlson.com/share/sears_may8.jpg

[left of center]

It is sort of akin to the aluminum sided garage behind the stately blonde brick bungalow, no?

Honestly looks like it belongs in Seattle :haha:

[marothisu]

Ran the numbers for April for how many sales I could find in the city proper where the sale price was greater than the list price. I found at least 600 of them, which greatly surpasses the other months of the year.

April 2021: 600
March 2021: 306
January 2021: 172
February 2021: 125

All in all, that's 1203 sales this year from January 1 - April 30 where sale price > list price (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1S9YKQgaG3mBhs9MNnV4WWHLqbTygtI4P&ll=41.978894575732724%2C-87.7091955&z=13)

For April 2021 here's the top areas:
1. West Town: 50 sales
2. Lake View: 33
3. North Center: 27
4. Uptown: 26
5. Logan Square: 23
6. Lincoln Park: 20
7T. Near West Side: 19
7T. Portage Park: 19
9T. Irving Park: 17
9T. Near North Side: 17
11T. Near South Side: 16
11T. Rogers Park: 16
13. Norwood Park: 15
14T. Auburn Gresham: 14
14T. Roseland: 14
16T. Avondale: 13
16T. Dunning: 13
16T. Lincoln Square: 13
19T. Austin: 11
19T. Edgewater: 11
21T. Albany Park: 10
21T. Belmont Cragin: 10
21T. Chatham: 10
21T. Clearing: 10
25T. Bridgeport: 9
25T. The Loop: 9

For 2021 in total from Jan 1 - Apr 30:
1. West Town: 78 sales
2T. Lake View: 54
2T. Near West Side: 54
4. Logan Square: 41
5. North Center: 38
6T. Portage Park: 37
6T. Uptown: 37
8. Auburn Gresham: 35
9T. Near North Side: 34
9T. Near South Side: 34
11. Lincoln Park: 31
12T. Austin: 29
12T. Irving Park: 29
14. Roseland: 28
15. Rogers Park: 27
16. Norwood Park: 25
17T. Belmont Cragin: 24
17T. Chatham: 24
19. Lincoln Square: 23
20. Ashburn: 22
21T. Dunning: 21
21T. West Pullman: 21
23. Washington Heights: 20
24T. Albany Park: 19
24T. Garfield Ridge: 19

[SIGSEGV]

Ran the numbers for April for how many sales I could find in the city proper where the sale price was greater than the list price. I found at least 600 of them, which greatly surpasses the other months of the year.

April 2021: 600
March 2021: 306
January 2021: 172
February 2021: 125

All in all, that's 1203 sales this year from January 1 - April 30 where sale price > list price (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1S9YKQgaG3mBhs9MNnV4WWHLqbTygtI4P&ll=41.978894575732724%2C-87.7091955&z=13)

For April 2021 here's the top areas:
1. West Town: 50 sales
2. Lake View: 33
3. North Center: 27
4. Uptown: 26
5. Logan Square: 23
6. Lincoln Park: 20
7T. Near West Side: 19
7T. Portage Park: 19
9T. Irving Park: 17
9T. Near North Side: 17
11T. Near South Side: 16
11T. Rogers Park: 16
13. Norwood Park: 15
14T. Auburn Gresham: 14
14T. Roseland: 14
16T. Avondale: 13
16T. Dunning: 13
16T. Lincoln Square: 13
19T. Austin: 11
19T. Edgewater: 11
21T. Albany Park: 10
21T. Belmont Cragin: 10
21T. Chatham: 10
21T. Clearing: 10
25T. Bridgeport: 9
25T. The Loop: 9

For 2021 in total from Jan 1 - Apr 30:
1. West Town: 78 sales
2T. Lake View: 54
2T. Near West Side: 54
4. Logan Square: 41
5. North Center: 38
6T. Portage Park: 37
6T. Uptown: 37
8. Auburn Gresham: 35
9T. Near North Side: 34
9T. Near South Side: 34
11. Lincoln Park: 31
12T. Austin: 29
12T. Irving Park: 29
14. Roseland: 28
15. Rogers Park: 27
16. Norwood Park: 25
17T. Belmont Cragin: 24
17T. Chatham: 24
19. Lincoln Square: 23
20. Ashburn: 22
21T. Dunning: 21
21T. West Pullman: 21
23. Washington Heights: 20
24T. Albany Park: 19
24T. Garfield Ridge: 19

Here's the number of homes sold in what Redfin calls "The Loop" over the last year:

https://i.imgur.com/sLtEmZv.png

Boundaries appear to be Roosevelt and the river.

[jpIllInoIs]

^^ Noticeably absent, McKinley, Little Village, Brighton Park, Pilsen. Are those near SW communities represented in another district above? I dont think Bridgeport covers them.

Most encouraging is Auburn Gresham, Ashburn, Wash Hts, Roseland and Chatham.

[the urban politician]

^ Pilsen is under “Lower West Side”

I think it’s housing market (SFH at least) has not yet gentrified fully. It’s still full of student/college grad renters and older immigrant homeowners.

[marothisu]

^^ Noticeably absent, McKinley, Little Village, Brighton Park, Pilsen. Are those near SW communities represented in another district above? I dont think Bridgeport covers them.

Most encouraging is Auburn Gresham, Ashburn, Wash Hts, Roseland and Chatham.

^ Pilsen is under “Lower West Side”

I think it’s housing market (SFH at least) has not yet gentrified fully. It’s still full of student/college grad renters and older immigrant homeowners.

Also remember, the data I collected is purely on properties which sold for above their original list price (I have some standards - it would probably be more by others standards because they will just take the last "List" price even if there was a list record a month previous for the same property).

By my count, about 19% of all sales in the city (that I can see) in April sold for at or above their original list price. There were a bunch I couldn't get data on so it's probably 20%+.


Also I should have noted the numbers included multi unit buildings. Most of those sold in the records are small (2 or 3 units). So here's the breakdown from Jan 1 - Apr 30...


SFH
1. Portage Park: 28 SFH sales above list price
2. Auburn Gresham: 24
3T. Belmont Cragin: 23
3T. Norwood Park: 23
3T. Roseland: 23
6. Ashburn: 21
7T. Garfield Ridge: 18
7T. Washington Heights: 18
7T. West Pullman: 18
10. Chatham: 17
11. Irving Park: 16
12. Dunning: 15
13. Morgan Park: 14
14. Clearing: 13
15. West Lawn: 12
16T. Beverly: 11
16T. Logan Square: 11
18T. Austin: 10
18T. Greater Grand Crossing: 10
18T. Jefferson Park: 10
18T. Lincoln Square: 10
18T. Mount Greenwood: 10
18T. West Englewood: 10
24. Forest Glen: 8
25T. Albany Park: 7
25T. North Center: 7
25T. West Town: 7


Condo/Townhomes
1. West Town: 69 Condo/Townhome sales above list price
2. Near West Side: 52
3. Lake View: 48
4. Uptown: 36
5T. Near North Side: 34
5T. Near South Side: 34
7. Lincoln Park: 29
8. Logan Square: 27
9. North Center: 26
10. Rogers Park: 23
11. The Loop: 13
12. Edgewater: 12
13. Avondale: 11
14. Lincoln Square: 10
15T. Albany Park: 9
15T. Irving Park 9

Multi Unit Building
1. Austin: 19 multi unit building sales above list price
2. Auburn Gresham: 10
3. Brighton Park: 9
4. North Lawndale: 8
5T. Chicago Lawn: 7
5T. Greater Grand Crossing: 7
5T. Little Village: 7
5T. New City: 7
9T. Chatham: 6
9T. Portage Park: 6
9T. South Shore: 6
9T. West Garfield Park: 6
13T. Roseland: 5
13T. Washington Park: 5

[the urban politician]

I found this interesting, as is being played out in Pilsen (this trend towards having "spot" fees and "spot" policies in various places in the city troubles me, though):

May 10, 2021 09:51 AM UPDATED 47 MINUTES AGO
Pilsen demolitions resume with anti-gentrification fees attatched

The owners of a trio of buildings on 18th Street are the first to pay the $15,000-per-building surcharge, with the money going toward affordable housing.

Dennis Rodkin


The owners of a trio of vintage buildings on 18th Street in Pilsen are the first to take out demolition permits under the city’s new anti-gentrification plan that tacks $15,000 onto the existing cost of taking out a permit.

The Chicago City Council in late March approved the surcharge for demolitions in most of Pilsen and along the western reaches of the 606 Trail as a way to slow gentrification that displaces long-term residents.


The $45,000 “will bring benefits to our community that this development wouldn’t have brought in” prior to the new rules, said Pilsen-area Ald. Byron Sigcho-Lopez, 25th.


The $15,000-per-building fee will act as a disincentive to demolition in some cases, Sigcho-Lopez said, but “these developers saw it would still be profitable for them, with the fees.”


The buildings, just west of the 18th Street station on the CTA’s Pink Line, are owned by a limited liability company called Fox Chicago, which is not related to the television station. It’s associated with Oak Park-based development firm R.P. Fox & Associates and its affiliate, Fox Investment Management.


Mike Fox, an executive with the firm, did not respond to a request for comment; neither did Maria Cristiano, an attorney at the Oak Park law firm Pellegrini & Cristiano who is listed as the LLC’s agent.

Sigcho-Lopez confirmed the trio of permits—which first surfaced last week on Chicago Cityscape, an online permit-tracker—are the first demolitions in Pilsen since the new surcharge took effect. Crain's could not determine when the demolition is scheduled to occur.

The three buildings contain a total of 17 apartments, according to the Cook County Assessor. Built between 1894 and 1914, they are on a block of mostly the same vintage. A new replacement building would be the first on the block since the middle of the 20th century, from the look of the neighboring structures. In a four-block stretch of 18th Street, there are only three or four structures built in the 21st century.

It’s the second attempt at demolition for these three buildings. In 2019, Fox executives withdrew a plan to raze the buildings, according to Block Club Chicago, and said they would rehab the structures instead.

At the time, the city was considering landmarking a swath of Pilsen containing hundreds of buildings in an attempt to slow gentrification. If the owners of these three buildings had pursued demolition, city officials would have been forced to make a quick decision on the landmark district proposal.

By switching their plan to rehab, Sigcho-Lopez said at the time, the owners gave the Pilsen community time to fully mull over the landmarking proposal. The landmark plan died in December 2020, and in March a new package of anti-gentrification ordinances, including the demolition surcharge, was approved.


Now that Fox has switched its plan back to demolition, Sigcho-Lopez said he is disappointed but “not surprised” and reiterated that he believes the $45,000 contribution toward affordable housing “does something that is needed in the community.”

Fox’s plan for the three-building site is not clear. Sigcho-Lopez said nothing has been submitted to him yet, but that the firm’s 2019 plan “was fine for the block, as I remember it.”

The 2019 proposal was for a four-story building with street-level retail and nine apartments on the upper three floors.

Fox may have made the calculation that it could offset the $45,000 by charging higher prices for the units it builds on the site, whether for rent or for sale. In the two years since the firm first proposed demolition, the cost of both types of housing have risen.

Fox bought the three buildings in June 2016 for $950,000, according to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds. They appear to have been vacant since 2019, when the Sun-Times reported a gift shop that had been in the center building for 19 years was closing so the buildings could be demolished.

The other two businesses, a used furniture store and a candy store, had already closed by that time.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/residential-real-estate/pilsen-demolitions-resume-anti-gentrification-fees-attached

[the urban politician]

https://s3-prod.chicagobusiness.com/18th%20st%20demos.jpg?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D05369649964767303700519604543235009874%7CMCORGID%3D138FFF2554E6E7220A4C98C6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1620661821

In case anyone wants to know what's being demo'd

[west-town-brad]

I found this interesting, as is being played out in Pilsen (this trend towards having "spot" fees and "spot" policies in various places in the city troubles me, though):



https://www.chicagobusiness.com/residential-real-estate/pilsen-demolitions-resume-anti-gentrification-fees-attached

curious as to the "benefits to the community" cited by the alderman.

[the urban politician]

^ I first of all don't agree with the whole idea of various demolition fees at various sites of the city.

But this being Chicago and with leaders trying to have as many political "tools" at their disposal as they can, I would say that this is effectively a tax on gentrification in order to create subsidized housing.

It is the Alderman's admission that there is probably nothing he can do to stop gentrification, so we might as well shake um down a tad so I can show my voters that I'm doing something about it.

[Handro]

https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/10/20/plumbers-union-unveils-plans-for-500-space-parking-garage-in-west-loop/

https://lede-admin.blockclubchicago.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2020/10/Screen-Shot-2020-10-19-at-6.29.46-PM.png?resize=1080,720

I see a tower crane permit for phase 1 foundation for 1371 W Randolph, I believe it's for this parking garage for the Plumbers Union. Sucks to see a parking garage, but at least there is ground floor retail instead of a surface lot.

[OrdoSeclorum]

^ I first of all don't agree with the whole idea of various demolition fees at various sites of the city.

But this being Chicago and with leaders trying to have as many political "tools" at their disposal as they can, I would say that this is effectively a tax on gentrification in order to create subsidized housing.

It is the Alderman's admission that there is probably nothing he can do to stop gentrification, so we might as well shake um down a tad so I can show my voters that I'm doing something about it.

I'm not sure what's best.

But I do know that there are sometimes perverse incentives in development that are often created due to other regulations. There are benefits to the community and the city present in some buildings that are unpriced and difficult to generate revenue from by the land owner. I believe that allowing the market to do what it wants is the right move most of the time in real estate. But I'm also certain there occasions where the short-term profit motives of a landowner don't result in the best outcome for anyone. This is called a "multi-polar trap" in game theory and to be resolved optimally external influence is required.

[Chi-Sky21]

^ Ugly, looks like some kind of Medical office building

[pip]

looks like a spruced up parking garage to me

[the urban politician]

^ I know I'll get spanked silly for saying this, but I'm glad that the garage is getting built.

If WL/Fulton market wants to really rival River North and become its own destination apart from the majesty and prestige further east, it MUST have some off street parking. Yes, we all want people to use transit, but realistically speaking you need to have some garages.

I'm guessing that the Plumbers Union will be smart enough to make their garage available for the paying public

[sentinel]

looks like a spruced up parking garage to me

It IS a spruced up parking garage lol

I think it looks fine. For a parking garage.

[Tom In Chicago]

It IS a spruced up parking garage lol

I think it looks fine. For a parking garage.

Agreed. . . doesn't look bad. . . for a parking garage. . .

. . .

[SamInTheLoop]

Agreed. . . doesn't look bad. . . for a parking garage. . .

. . .



A garage that doesn't crush the soul on sight. That's a positive I suppose.

[jpIllInoIs]

re; Plumber Garage, at least its vertical, has some retail and a mixed media facade, as long as its not VE'd. Dont expect the greenery to materialize. The unions use these facilities as member launching points for sporting games and other weekend attractions. The area will need a few more vertical garages if we ever expect the United Center lots to be developed. Not a popular thought on this thread, but reality is suburbanites will drive to these events, Lakefront, Museum & campus exceptions.

[Skyguy_7]

I found this interesting, as is being played out in Pilsen (this trend towards having "spot" fees and "spot" policies in various places in the city troubles me, though):



https://www.chicagobusiness.com/residential-real-estate/pilsen-demolitions-resume-anti-gentrification-fees-attached

Oxford generally defines Gentrification as “the process of making someone or something more refined, polite, or respectable”.

That there’s an “anti-gentrification” regulation is a testament to how far those in power here have fallen within our society.

[sentinel]

Not to get too off-topic, but here's a recently completed parking garage by two old professors of mine that looks pretty cool...and is a relatively easy concept to build and install:

https://www.archpaper.com/2021/03/iwamotoscott-cellular-origami-3rd-street-garage-facade/

Point being, even parking garage exteriors can be well-thought out/interesting-looking, and inexpensively executed.

[Via Chicago]

Oxford generally defines Gentrification as “the process of making someone or something more refined, polite, or respectable”.

That there’s an “anti-gentrification” regulation is a testament to how far those in power here have fallen within our society.

You're being wilfully obtuse in terms of what gentrification means in the well understood context of modern US cities/corresponding class& racial/segregation implications, and I think you know that

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^ Noticeably absent, McKinley, Little Village, Brighton Park, Pilsen. Are those near SW communities represented in another district above? I dont think Bridgeport covers them.

Most encouraging is Auburn Gresham, Ashburn, Wash Hts, Roseland and Chatham.

Little Village isn't going to see many over ask probably because asking prices have gotten absurd there in the last few months. Have seen multiple 3-4 flats sell or go under contract for $650-800k which is just absurd IMO. Teo Scorte, a mid sized developer, has begun liquidating much of his large portfolio of small MF properties and has been blowing up the old comps.

I found this interesting, as is being played out in Pilsen (this trend towards having "spot" fees and "spot" policies in various places in the city troubles me, though):



https://www.chicagobusiness.com/residential-real-estate/pilsen-demolitions-resume-anti-gentrification-fees-attached

Lol, such a success! Replacing 17 units with 9! Byron you should be so proud! Good thing that $45k will buy us 1/10th of an affordable unit at the price that your buddy Carlos just paid to build the Prisonview Arms at Logan Square!

This city is run by literal idiots...

[Klippenstein]

chicago yimby posted this rendering of a new development on irving just west of the irving/damen/lincoln 6 corners.

https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2035-W-Irving-Park-Road.-Rendering-by-SPACE-Architects-Planners-777x506.jpg

full article: https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/05/renderings-revealed-for-mixed-use-development-at-2035-w-irving-park-road-in-north-center.html



say what you will about the retro design, but at least it's replacing this awfulness: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9540618,-87.6799242,3a,75y,234.68h,95.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szxDj_gkryYI7GOIDrOmCGA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


This rendering reminds me of the final version of the “Logan’s Crossing” development. I just saw this post about it today comparing the initial renderings and the finished construction.

https://www.twitter.com/ASchneider2008/status/1391830518950420480

[left of center]

I found this interesting, as is being played out in Pilsen (this trend towards having "spot" fees and "spot" policies in various places in the city troubles me, though):



https://www.chicagobusiness.com/residential-real-estate/pilsen-demolitions-resume-anti-gentrification-fees-attached

The 45k that the developer has to pay for the demo will simply manifest itself in higher condo prices/apartment rents. This, combined with less housing supply since the 15k demo fees will create a drag on new development will simply serve to increase the cost of housing and thus hasten gentrification.

I'm all for not driving out existing residents, but this might not be the best approach. If wealthy buyers want to move to Pilsen, give them a place to go by building very densely in vacant lots/parking lots. This soaks up demand while keeping price/eviction pressure off Pilsen residents.

[Skyguy_7]

Left of Center? Might as well change your name to Right of Center! :cheers:

[pip]

It IS a spruced up parking garage lol

I think it looks fine. For a parking garage.

Haha lol. Oops!

[marothisu]

First of all, if they really wanted to make a greater mark, they'd probably do something like a percentage and charge that, not some flat fee. With that being said, I suspect some of these aldermen and community leaders deal in dollar amounts that they think are large, but really aren't. As if $45,000 is going to deter a developer building 9 condos that are probably on average $400K or $500K+. As others have said, it'll just be absorbed into the cost of a unit, but it won't increase the price of each unit that much. Maybe $15K each increase? Hey maybe that would even make some developers go for something denser in these sites? Who knows.

[harryc]

Not to get too off-topic, but here's a recently completed parking garage by two old professors of mine that looks pretty cool...and is a relatively easy concept to build and install:

https://www.archpaper.com/2021/03/iwamotoscott-cellular-origami-3rd-street-garage-facade/

Point being, even parking garage exteriors can be well-thought out/interesting-looking, and inexpensively executed.

Not sure if it was inexpensive - also not sure how it will age - but the kinetic wall on Gr333n is kick ass.

[marothisu]

New construction building permit was issued for 4600 N Kenmore (Kenmore and Wilson), the surface parking lot next to the future home of Double Door. On the other side of that building was the City Sports which has been demolished for another residential project.

This one permitted for a new 5 story building with 62 units and ground floor retail. Original plans were for an 8 story building. Height cut sucks but good to see another surface lot bite the dust..

[ChiPlanner]

From Alderman Hopkins yesterday evening:

Dear Neighbor,

Lakeshore Sport & Fitness will be presenting a plan to the community on Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 6:00 PM via Zoom for a zoning change request at 1320 W Fullerton Avenue. The proposal includes a zoning change from M1-2 to B3-3 as part of a Planned Development.

The new project would redevelop the property along Fullerton Avenue into a 14-story building featuring residential apartments, rooftop amenities and expanded facilities for Lakeshore Sport & Fitness.

Zoom meeting details will be sent out on the morning of Tuesday, May 25, 2021. https://forms.gle/98e6XCQoFBs8wT5z6

https://mcusercontent.com/936879b99e79c41d6215b423f/images/b9f2da6e-5581-22b0-9021-609457d222ea.png

[the urban politician]

The 45k that the developer has to pay for the demo will simply manifest itself in higher condo prices/apartment rents. This, combined with less housing supply since the 15k demo fees will create a drag on new development will simply serve to increase the cost of housing and thus hasten gentrification.

I'm all for not driving out existing residents, but this might not be the best approach. If wealthy buyers want to move to Pilsen, give them a place to go by building very densely in vacant lots/parking lots. This soaks up demand while keeping price/eviction pressure off Pilsen residents.

:tup:

Common sense prevails over political leanings

I think we all understand basic economics, and come to the conclusion that some of the bone-headed ideas that these Aldermen come up with just.....make no sense when you think about it

[OrdoSeclorum]

The 45k that the developer has to pay for the demo will simply manifest itself in higher condo prices/apartment rents. This, combined with less housing supply since the 15k demo fees will create a drag on new development will simply serve to increase the cost of housing and thus hasten gentrification.

I'm all for not driving out existing residents, but this might not be the best approach. If wealthy buyers want to move to Pilsen, give them a place to go by building very densely in vacant lots/parking lots. This soaks up demand while keeping price/eviction pressure off Pilsen residents.

This data was discussed before, but the official paper just dropped (https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01055/100977/Local-Effects-of-Large-New-Apartment-Buildings-in?fbclid=IwAR2mZSDi2RLyPIVZe1QBudXre5IbXzN0BEtqzIFgpZgBAcSlIL92TIQriBk). In eleven cities over five years, new, large, market-rate apartments constructed in low-income areas *reduced* the rent in nearby existing units.

[ardecila]

a zoning change request at 1320 W Fullerton Avenue. The proposal includes a zoning change from M1-2 to B3-3 as part of a Planned Development.

The new project would redevelop the property along Fullerton Avenue into a 14-story building featuring residential apartments, rooftop amenities and expanded facilities for Lakeshore Sport & Fitness.

This is a fugly ham-handed attempt at traditional design. Looks like it might be precast. Ugh, but what can you expect from Lincoln Park?

No way this gets approved without a big chop.

It seems a little out of place there, too... plenty of places I would encourage density on the North Side but this just seems a bit too far from frequent transit or walkable commercial corridors. But it's probably convenient for DePaul students, I assume that's the target market. And if Lincoln Yards develops as an employment hub, it will be convenient to that.

[ardecila]

Lol, such a success! Replacing 17 units with 9! Byron you should be so proud! Good thing that $45k will buy us 1/10th of an affordable unit at the price that your buddy Carlos just paid to build the Prisonview Arms at Logan Square!

This city is run by literal idiots...

This is bad reporting from Crains. The fee is $5000 per unit demolished, but no less than $15,000. So if there are truly 17 legal units, the fee would be $85000. Or, if the fee amount is correct, that means the existing buildings contain no more than 9 units. It's also possible that the developer is lying about the number of units demolished, but that would hopefully warrant some follow-up from the reporter.

Also, I hate to give Sigcho and Rosa any credit but they both argued for the fee to be much higher. This is the compromise that was able to pass, and it will sunset in April 2022 unless Council extends it.

9 new units is very disappointing, though they can't build any more than that on a triple lot in B3-2 without getting a zoning change past the alderman and doing affordable units. Sigcho basically won't back zoning changes anywhere, unless it's for a nonprofit, and he even puts them through the wringer.

[ChiPlanner]

This is a fugly ham-handed attempt at traditional design. Looks like it might be precast. Ugh, but what can you expect from Lincoln Park?

No way this gets approved without a big chop.

It seems a little out of place there, too... plenty of places I would encourage density on the North Side but this just seems a bit too far from frequent transit or walkable commercial corridors. But it's probably convenient for DePaul students, I assume that's the target market. And if Lincoln Yards develops as an employment hub, it will be convenient to that.

Eh it's just under 0.5 miles from the Fullerton Red Line Station- interesting to see if they actually take advantage of TOD

[marothisu]

Say what you will about that Fullerton building design but it still beats the shit out of what's there currently.

[SamInTheLoop]

Dear.
Lord.

[SamInTheLoop]

:tup:

Common sense prevails over political leanings

I think we all understand basic economics, and come to the conclusion that some of the bone-headed ideas that these Aldermen come up with just.....make no sense when you think about it


Yeah, it's not even a left or right thing.

Measures or market factors that deter supply/increase the cost of it will result in increased prices, ceteris paribus.

It's just acknowledging reality.

There's all sorts of policy details to be considered underneath, however top line, policymakers that want to do something to improve housing affordability should have a guiding principle of ensuring the totality of measures do not deter aggregate supply at the end of the day - and if possible, actually encourage it.

[Barrelfish]

From Alderman Hopkins yesterday evening:



https://mcusercontent.com/936879b99e79c41d6215b423f/images/b9f2da6e-5581-22b0-9021-609457d222ea.png

I used to live around here. This will easily be the tallest building for quite a ways around - the area tops out in the 3-6 story range. In terms of volume, it may be as big or bigger than any DePaul building.

Curious who the market is for the apartments. If it's DePaul students, the location makes a lot of sense obviously. For anyone commuting, the Fullerton stop is walkable, but towards the outer range of what you would want to do in the winter (half a mile / 10+ minutes).

[Jibba]

Say what you will about that Fullerton building design but it still beats the shit out of what's there currently.

I nearly completely disagree. That elevation looks absolutely horrifying.

[marothisu]

I nearly completely disagree. That elevation looks absolutely horrifying.

I'm not saying that the new building is great (at all....), but let's be honest here. You'd rather have a blank wall, self storage looking building thing with a surface lot element and tennis courts at the street level in a fairly urban area over this?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9252731,-87.6614434,3a,90y,343.54h,103.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5rUuFXEZNDQmfnZaiZo4bQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[IrishIllini]

I pray 1320 W Fullerton ends up looking nothing like that. Looks like something you'd see in a suburb trying to "revitalize" its downtown. Giving major "hey fellow kids" vibes.

[ardecila]

^ Arlington Heights would never

[k1052]

If I was trying to sneak a 14 floor residential building in to this part of LP I'd probably design it like this too.

[Jibba]

I'm not saying that the new building is great (at all....), but let's be honest here. You'd rather have a blank wall, self storage looking building thing with a surface lot element and tennis courts at the street level in a fairly urban area over this?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9252731,-87.6614434,3a,90y,343.54h,103.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5rUuFXEZNDQmfnZaiZo4bQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I promise I'm not taking you for a ride, but yes, I'd rather have what's there. The concrete has an interesting construction, to me (it has restoration potential IMO), the tennis courts are a humane element, and the parking is oriented to the depth of the lot, making its presence minimized from the street (and its ingress/egress is constrained in a way to promote less reckless entry and exit than most lots -- it doesn't scream "pull in here NOW!").

Realistically, I'll never experience the full elevation of whatever gets built, but the bad semblance of the base/shaft/capital idiom of the proposal is pitiful. If that's their way of trying to get the building to appear less massive, it's a counter-productive tactic: it will end up looking like a cartoonishly overscaled derivation of the historical stock around it. (Developers seem intent on believing that their building's proportions will be assessed in vacuum.)

[ChiPlanner]

If I was trying to sneak a 14 floor residential building in to this part of LP I'd probably design it like this too.

Note it's in Hopkins weird little slice of the ward so he doesn't actually have to listen to any NIMBYs in Michelle Smith's ward. The perks of the lobster shaped Ward 2.

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15116062/2017/12/2nd-ward-map.png

[Busy Bee]

1320 W Fullerton

Dearlord :facepalm:

[Chi-Sky21]

How can you claim to represent your constituents when THAT is your ward map? What a joke...we really need at least 20 less wards and stop these maps!

[left of center]

Left of Center? Might as well change your name to Right of Center! :cheers:

Haha ouch! My post did come off as quite economically neoliberal, so perhaps I do deserve that :)

I consider myself to be politically liberal, but I do have a Finance degree from UIC and have a fair understanding of market dynamics. I am very much in support of affordable housing, but it needs to be done in a way that promotes it from a market perspective. Fighting the market is costly and typically does not work. If you want prices to drop or stabilize, you can either reduce demand or increase supply. Pilsen is a great neighborhood with an excellent location close to the Loop, plenty of amenities, great housing stock and intact urban fabric. Keeping people out is not a viable option. So the next step is allowing developers to build as densely as possible in order to create enough supply to absorb the demand and put a buff on prices. Landlords will be less willing to sell their properties to developers or evict tenants in order to raise rents if the ROI of doing so isn't worth it.

Anything that makes new development more difficult, such as in this case with demo fees, or curbing new development (such as the parking lots by 18th and Racine that have basically been left to sit idle by former alderman Solis), by definition restricts supply. Restricted supply but unchanged demand will cause a rise in prices, and the way around being unable to develop empty lots or demolish abandoned buildings is to evict existing residents, renovate and lease out to the people who are willing to pay more, which is within the right of the current property owners to do. The best way to protect existing residents is to have the people that would displace them become neighbors instead.

The only other other option is to entirely remove the free market from the process, such as creating government funded housing. Public housing has not worked well in the past, due to high levels of disinvestment and lack of mixed income communities (basically wholesale warehousing of the poor by the CHA), and thus the political appetite for this route is pretty low.

The argument basically boils down to, how do we best have affordable housing in the city? The answer, in my opinion, is to allow as much development as possible to soak up demand and to moderate prices. If we have a glut of housing, housing prices will come down.


:tup:

Common sense prevails over political leanings

I think we all understand basic economics, and come to the conclusion that some of the bone-headed ideas that these Aldermen come up with just.....make no sense when you think about it


Its not even political in my eyes. The United States in general is short on housing, which is why prices for new homes are so high (in addition to the crazy high costs of commodities such as lumber). We have been underbuilding homes since the Great Recession, and hopefully this begins to get corrected over the coming years.


Yeah, it's not even a left or right thing.

Measures or market factors that deter supply/increase the cost of it will result in increased prices, ceteris paribus.

It's just acknowledging reality.

There's all sorts of policy details to be considered underneath, however top line, policymakers that want to do something to improve housing affordability should have a guiding principle of ensuring the totality of measures do not deter aggregate supply at the end of the day - and if possible, actually encourage it.


Exactly. Econ 101.

[left of center]

How can you claim to represent your constituents when THAT is your ward map? What a joke...we really need at least 20 less wards and stop these maps!

LA has 15 alderman (1 per 265,000 people), NYC has 51 (1 per 165,000). Philly has 5 (1 per 300,000). At 50 alderman, Chicago has one alderman per 54,000 people. For Chicago to mimic LA's ratio, 10 alderman would suffice, 15 for New York's ratio, and 9 for Philly. We can easily cut the number of wards in half and still have a higher ratio than those cities.


As for crazy borders, that's nothing. Have you seen the IL 4th Congressional district?

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/VchHAMZYofAgMDL84f07U1VUuJI=/0x0:1820x941/920x613/filters:focal(1086x319:1376x609):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/66485876/us_house_4.7.png
Source: suntimes.com

I grew up in the near western burbs, and currently live in Ukrainian Village, about 12 miles away. I am still in the 4th Congressional district. I never never lived in any other as far as i know :haha:

[Chi-Sky21]

Yeah the congressional districts are really bad, but I understand the reasoning for that. ( a practice that needs to end across the country also) Making crazy districts for alderman makes absolutely no sense to me. Its not like you really need to lock in a voting group or try to screw the other party out of an alderman.

[k1052]

Note it's in Hopkins weird little slice of the ward so he doesn't actually have to listen to any NIMBYs in Michelle Smith's ward. The perks of the lobster shaped Ward 2.

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15116062/2017/12/2nd-ward-map.png

Rham's revenge strikes again.

[ChiMIchael]

Yeah the congressional districts are really bad, but I understand the reasoning for that. ( a practice that needs to end across the country also) Making crazy districts for alderman makes absolutely no sense to me. Its not like you really need to lock in a voting group or try to screw the other party out of an alderman.
I think probiting residential streets and alleys from being borders of wards (and even precincts) in the city would do wonders.

[r18tdi]

Note it's in Hopkins weird little slice of the ward so he doesn't actually have to listen to any NIMBYs in Michelle Smith's ward. The perks of the lobster shaped Ward 2. That won't stop the NIMBYs from trying to NIMBY (https://twitter.com/chi_numtot/status/1392218639844184066?s=20).

[marothisu]

New construction building permit was issued for 4600 N Kenmore (Kenmore and Wilson), the surface parking lot next to the future home of Double Door. On the other side of that building was the City Sports which has been demolished for another residential project.

This one permitted for a new 5 story building with 62 units and ground floor retail. Original plans were for an 8 story building. Height cut sucks but good to see another surface lot bite the dust..

Here's a rendering of the latest design.

Via: https://www.uptownupdate.com/2020/12/new-look-for-4600-n-kenmore-development.html
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6tVzUi98LrM/X9fVsqVHkwI/AAAAAAABZd4/hvgTJaq2BnYPn_ADfMTbjAaYXXs1GgalQCLcBGAsYHQ/s841/4600Kenmore.png

[gandalf612]

This is a fugly ham-handed attempt at traditional design. Looks like it might be precast. Ugh, but what can you expect from Lincoln Park?

No way this gets approved without a big chop.

It seems a little out of place there, too... plenty of places I would encourage density on the North Side but this just seems a bit too far from frequent transit or walkable commercial corridors. But it's probably convenient for DePaul students, I assume that's the target market. And if Lincoln Yards develops as an employment hub, it will be convenient to that.

What? It's a 10min walk from Fullerton Red/Brown/Purple, the Fullerton bus has 20min headways at it's least frequent, It's a 10 min walk from the Ashland bus which runs 24hrs and has express service. Lincoln/Halsted is a 12 minute walk and has tons of retail, as does Lincoln north of Diversey, also a 12 min walk

[the urban politician]

I'm not saying that the new building is great (at all....), but let's be honest here. You'd rather have a blank wall, self storage looking building thing with a surface lot element and tennis courts at the street level in a fairly urban area over this?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9252731,-87.6614434,3a,90y,343.54h,103.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5rUuFXEZNDQmfnZaiZo4bQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Yeah I will take this project in a heartbeat over what’s there.

But my least favorite part of that strip has always been those two strip malls and that giant Atlantic Ocean sized parking lot. For the love of God, why are the worst ones always the LAST to go?