CHICAGO | General Developments

[Via Chicago]

i mean im not too bent out of shape about there being parking, its a hospital.

im concerned about how much more alienating this feels

https://i.postimg.cc/x1T7Q9hD/Capture.png

compared with the prior compact courtyard design. in the old version there were interesting materials (almost looks like Coreten?) at the base, plenty of windows towards the base, etc.

that oppressive 4 story blank wall on one side and a vehicle turnaround on the other is a little concerning if the aim is activating that corridor

anyway, hoping your right that this shouldnt be taken too literally

[pilsenarch]

^well, in that rendering you just posted, on the right, at the bottom of the '4-story blank' wall is the pool which they indicate in a section has a glass wall looking north into the amphitheater... above the pool is an athletic facility/indoor track clad in glass and what might appear to be corten (!) and above that is an outpatient facility currently depicted as all glass... meanwhile, directly below us is the daycare building bordering the western edge of the amphitheater and off to the left of the amphitheater is a playground... to the east is not a vehicular turn around but is instead one of two primary vehicular entries into the massive garage (aligning with one of the neighborhood streets) and the extension of the proposed greenway paseo... lots of potential not to be sterile...
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/46/piR6xf.jpg
from the presentation to the city...

[ardecila]

I'm not hung up on the materials, it looks like some slick glass facades and corten are still in the plan - the pictures Via posted are really just massing models.

the massing though is not my favorite. I honestly preferred the older 2012 scheme with a bigger, taller parking garage pushed to one edge of the site. That allowed space for a genuine park, at grade where it should be. The current scheme really confuses the ground plane, with soccer fields up on the 4th floor, staircase and terraces all over the place, etc. It's more expensive to build that way, creates challenges for those with disabilities and it's less imageable so people will constantly be confused. Why are they replicating Lakeshore East in Little Village? It's fine for downtown but land isn't that scarce here. Not to mention that their land area has tripled while the program seemingly hasn't grown except with bloat (e.g. extra 1-story retail boxes).

Also, the weird pinwheel plan of buildings on the site doesn't define the outdoor space very well. The whole thing just feels way more complex than it needs to be, and then they just keep throwing more stuff in to satisfy DPD's checklists. It reminds me of certain sprawling shopping malls like Houston Galleria or ParkCentral in Phoenix. Compare this to Michael Reese, which is also health/wellness focused. There they are building a street grid and plugging buildings into it, with an eye toward "defining" certain streets as vibrant pedestrian corridors. Much better approach IMO.

[Via Chicago]

right. it regards to the soccer field, it almost feels like theyre almost going for that weird rooftop park in Roosevelt Collection, which is not something anyone should feel compelled to copy IMO. i understand its an easy way to double up uses, but its removing both activity and greenery from street level, which is where its really needed at that intersection.

[SIGSEGV]

right. it regards to the soccer field, it almost feels like theyre almost going for that weird rooftop park in Roosevelt Collection, which is not something anyone should feel compelled to copy IMO. i understand its an easy way to double up uses, but its removing both activity and greenery from street level, which is where its really needed at that intersection.

I like that park! Unfortunately, if you bring a fancy looking camera up there, the security guards come up to you and tell you you need a permit for pictures...

[west-town-brad]

danny's tavern is for sale.... many nights were wasted here by many :cheers:

https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1951-W-Dickens-Ave-60614/home/13355428

[marothisu]

danny's tavern is for sale.... many nights were wasted here by many :cheers:

https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1951-W-Dickens-Ave-60614/home/13355428

RIP - that was one of my favorite places for deep cuts (music) being played at times. Since I'm moving back - I need new suggestions of places that place an eclectic mix of "whatever the hell we want"..

[pilsenarch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yCz2JdXWus

if you are at all seriously interested in this project, this presentation is worth the time

[Via Chicago]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yCz2JdXWus

if you are at all seriously interested in this project, this presentation is worth the time

just want to say i watched this in its entirety last night, and it was excellent. this is such a great forum and its almost hard to believe this isnt something that was done before, but i really hope this ultimately leads to a higher quality of design in the city. or at least gets developers on some of these projects to reconsider some of their own preconceptions. i think most of the criticisms leveled during the conversation were valid and well thought out, and did a better job of articulating some of the thoughts i had but couldnt really place

i also have to be honest but it does seem like kind of a weird place to put affordable housing. there was a lot of debate in the conversation about where best to put that element (Kedzie is too noisy/busy, the western edge is too isolated, etc). I dont really know what the right call is. 31st is a harsh strip and even putting it there im not sure would necessarily solve the problems identified, but i do think integrating it into some sort of mixed use building along that strip would probably make the most sense. the walled off nature of the northern end is also a concern, given thats the way most people might approach this project on foot. the suburban mall nature of the southern half is still a big concern IMO and is at odds with what theyre trying to achieve on the northern half of the site.

i think the harshest but most thought out criticisms came from Brian Lee at the 1:04 mark. he really picked this thing apart. if youre looking for a cliff notes id skip to that section.

i think all the ideas theyre putting forward in this design are great, its really a question of how do you integrate all of these intended uses and thats of course the million dollar question. it dosent look easy.

[west-town-brad]

seems that including a 'business incubator/accelerator' is the 'trees growing on highrises' of the community development world

meaning I see it on every proposal but never in real life

[BrinChi]

Yeah the Committee on Design review was really interesting. The exercise definitely made me appreciate the potential of the current plan before dwelling on the needed improvements. Sounds like the developers are still in the massing phase, which is why the renderings are so plain, but I'll be eager to see how this conversation impacts the next design iteration. I thought all the comments from the committee members were really good, which is encouraging.

[marothisu]

Apparently the building at the corner of 23rd and Indiana, across from McCormick, is dangerous and hazardous. Going to be demolished - kind of sucks. Now I wonder what will happen to this site. Hopefully not a surface parking lot or parking garage..

https://www.google.com/maps/place/132+E+23rd+St,+Chicago,+IL+60616/@41.8512055,-87.6221482,3a,75y,296.15h,88.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOWtDyXq2HbU3lA-RNJXreQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x880e2c7ebc02bc95:0x3d41bd6da7512a6c!8m2!3d41.851468!4d-87.6227258

[harryc]

Apparently the building at the corner of 23rd and Indiana, across from McCormick, is dangerous and hazardous. Going to be demolished - kind of sucks. Now I wonder what will happen to this site. Hopefully not a surface parking lot or parking garage..

https://www.google.com/maps/place/132+E+23rd+St,+Chicago,+IL+60616/@41.8512055,-87.6221482,3a,75y,296.15h,88.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOWtDyXq2HbU3lA-RNJXreQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x880e2c7ebc02bc95:0x3d41bd6da7512a6c!8m2!3d41.851468!4d-87.6227258

Never saw that coming .....

2014
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51442043579_b23580a817_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mnKVkR)

2017
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51441539588_1c338ff0f8_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mnHkwm)

Repairs were started - at one point.
2015
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51442275420_855e63cc5a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mnM7g7)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51440561732_cdb92ac894_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mnCjQL)

[skysoar]

Looks like a good site for the Casino. Very close to the Convention center, and hotels and sporting events. Also somewhat distanced from the Nimby crowd.

[LouisVanDerWright]

The city has the right to fine you up to $10,000 a day for code violations. This is a case where they should do so and either make the owners pay a huge fine or take the property back from them. It's been in buildings could for over ten years so they should be able to issue a $40 million fine to close out this case. When the owner intentionally neglects their property like this, they should lose the land as a consequence. Especially when the land is across the street from McCormick Place and would be of use to the municipality.

Looks like a good site for the Casino. Very close to the Convention center, and hotels and sporting events. Also somewhat distanced from the Nimby crowd.

There's a zero percent chance of this, you need a lot more than a half block site for a casino floor...

[the urban politician]

The city has the right to fine you up to $10,000 a day for code violations. This is a case where they should do so and either make the owners pay a huge fine or take the property back from them. It's been in buildings could for over ten years so they should be able to issue a $40 million fine to close out this case. When the owner intentionally neglects their property like this, they should lose the land as a consequence. Especially when the land is across the street from McCormick Place and would be of use to the municipality.


^ Damn, when did you turn into Fidel Castro?

The above scheme seems like a cute way to throw away an owner's property rights and simply bypass eminent domain altogether. Just heap on a pile of overly ridiculous and impossible to justify fines, then when the fines don't get paid ($40 million for 1 little building? :rolleyes::koko: okay, dude.....) the city takes the property for "free" under the excuse that they were owed $40 million anyway.

None of that seems legit or legal to me.

Look, the city keeps taking the same approach of villainizing property owners and it's no wonder they keep getting the same results. Keep slapping on fines, eventually the owner will just say "fuck it" and tear the building down. This approach is punitive and, heck, maybe some people working for the city actually enjoy it. But it doesn't seem to be working.

A better approach is to consult with private property owners and developers to find an approach that is less punitive and more carrot-and-stick with owners of vacant but worthwhile properties. We don't know the circumstance of the owner? Do they even have the funds to rehab the building? Are they an out of towner, or perhaps somebody who inherited the building from a parent who passed away?

Knowing what can be done to "encourage" an owner to do something useful with a property would be a better approach than simply slapping on fines, sending threatening letters, and otherwise treating the owners like they are delinquent white collar criminals.

[skysoar]

The city has the right to fine you up to $10,000 a day for code violations. This is a case where they should do so and either make the owners pay a huge fine or take the property back from them. It's been in buildings could for over ten years so they should be able to issue a $40 million fine to close out this case. When the owner intentionally neglects their property like this, they should lose the land as a consequence. Especially when the land is across the street from McCormick Place and would be of use to the municipality.



There's a zero percent chance of this, you need a lot more than a half block site for a casino floor...Of course, I was speaking of this property being a part of larger parcels that would also have to be acquired nearby. Generally speaking it may be difficult to find a single undeveloped parcel Downtown to build a Casino on, unless its the 78, or one of the Mega developments proposed, or some existing building.

[Mr Downtown]

^Um, the Rambler Building is gone already. Caught me by surprise when I walked past this morning, because it was part of the Motor Row landmark district. Apparently it was torn down Sept. 8 as being an imminent danger to the public, and the vacant land now has a half-million-dollar demolition lien on it. I presume it also has the five-year prohibition on new building that's in place to punish owners for demolishing landmarks.

[marothisu]

Some zoning apps for next week are already out. One of them is for the strip mall-ish/surface parking lot thing at the NE corner of Addison and Ravenswood. Kind of sucks though because Cafe Orchid is there, which is a pretty decent Turkish restaurant. Not sure what will happen to them.

Anyway, the proposal is to get rid of that thing and construct a 5 story, 70 foot tall 52 unit building with 7000 sq ft ground floor commercial/retail. Only 9 parking spaces. This is close to the Addison Brown Line stop and has a component of affordable housing.


Developer is Stocking Urban. I believe this blue house will also be demolished as part of this..

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9469221,-87.6731091,3a,75y,318.76h,93.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stOQITfskuOruW62nOTgp_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

--

Also there's a zoning application up to convert a vacant 5 story warehouse at 26th & Federal to 34 residential units with 35 parking spaces

https://www.google.com/maps/place/100+W+26th+St,+Chicago,+IL+60616/@41.845557,-87.6290628,3a,75y,317.59h,98.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_MKDq0Q6nwGYYDb0EGLSoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x880e2c6ff50da40f:0x135a1b3d525dc8b8!8m2!3d41.8455512!4d-87.6291798

[Steely Dan]

One of them is for the strip mall-ish/surface parking lot thing at the NE corner of Addison and Ravenswood. Kind of sucks though because Cafe Orchid is there, which is a pretty decent Turkish restaurant.


While I certainly don't endorse the loss of quality ethnic restaurants, the concept of "the greater good" must be employed whenever we're talking about the potential elimination of a stupid fucking city-killing strip mall.

No goddamn strip mall is worth saving for the sake of a restaurant, regardless of how delicious it might be.

Kill them. Kill them ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!

[left of center]

^ Damn, when did you turn into Fidel Castro?

The above scheme seems like a cute way to throw away an owner's property rights and simply bypass eminent domain altogether. Just heap on a pile of overly ridiculous and impossible to justify fines, then when the fines don't get paid ($40 million for 1 little building? :rolleyes::koko: okay, dude.....) the city takes the property for "free" under the excuse that they were owed $40 million anyway.



Property rights is not an excuse to be a slumlord. Either redevelop the site, or sell it. Don't let it rot away for years/decades while it remains an eyesore for the whole community.

If a neighbor of yours let their house rot away in partial ruins, I am sure you would be raising a stink at city hall about it. I know I would.



Kill them. Kill them ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!

May the demise of all strip malls within city limits be swift and unrelenting.

[Klippenstein]

[...]
Also there's a zoning application up to convert a vacant 5 story warehouse at 26th & Federal to 34 residential units with 35 parking spaces

https://www.google.com/maps/place/100+W+26th+St,+Chicago,+IL+60616/@41.845557,-87.6290628,3a,75y,317.59h,98.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_MKDq0Q6nwGYYDb0EGLSoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x880e2c6ff50da40f:0x135a1b3d525dc8b8!8m2!3d41.8455512!4d-87.6291798

This is a tangent, but this building got me looking at the secluded little part of Chinatown/Armor Square surrounded by the highways and the Union Pacific Railroad (Marshaling?) Yard to the West. That yard is huge and on the map it looks completely underutilized. Are the looks just deceiving? If not, does anybody know why that is? Is there any chance this space could be converted to a better use? Chinatown and Armor Square could certainly use the space for housing though since it spans over the Stevenson it's probably too valuable and/or costly to change. It just seems like such a sore thumb right there if it's not being used to its full potential.

[the urban politician]

Property rights is not an excuse to be a slumlord. Either redevelop the site, or sell it. Don't let it rot away for years/decades while it remains an eyesore for the whole community.

If a neighbor of yours let their house rot away in partial ruins, I am sure you would be raising a stink at city hall about it. I know I would.


Leaving a building vacant is not a crime.

You and I may not like it, but one cannot punish a person for doing that. The city can come up with ways to harass an owner and goad them into redeveloping their property, but that has its limits too.

I of course would bitch if my neighbor’s house was vacant and collecting weeds. Maybe the owner died and his kids don’t have the money to fix up the property? You can’t penalize someone for not having money. Maybe they want to sell but aren’t getting their price?

I’ll tell you what I view as illegal, though: municipalities racking up unjustifiable fines as a “back door” to seizing property without having to pay for it via eminent domain.

[emathias]

Why not put this near 19th and Western? Then it would have 'L' access and BNSF access, and actually near an intact neighborhood people might want to live in and walk to work from.

[the urban politician]

While I certainly don't endorse the loss of quality ethnic restaurants, the concept of "the greater good" must be employed whenever we're talking about the potential elimination of a stupid fucking city-killing strip mall.

No goddamn strip mall is worth saving for the sake of a restaurant, regardless of how delicious it might be.

Kill them. Kill them ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Totally agree. The world gets a tad bit better when strip malls are replaced with proper urban buildings. Those restaurants will find a new home, there is plenty of vacant retail space everywhere

[marothisu]

Totally agree. The world gets a tad bit better when strip malls are replaced with proper urban buildings. Those restaurants will find a new home, there is plenty of vacant retail space everywhere

I agree - was being ironic. I hope they re-open in another location in the city.

[Randomguy34]

Google Streetview has started updating some downtown streets. Some standouts are One Chicago, continued growth of the Wells St corridor, and development on the western end of Fulton Market

[pilsenarch]

You can’t penalize someone for not having money.

Of course you can. For example, if they don't have the money to pay for the property taxes, they will and should be 'penalized' by having their property sold right from under them.

If you don't have the money to maintain any property, a home, a vacant lot, a condo, or an irreplaceable part of a historic district, then of course that property owner needs to be 'penalized' for not having the money to maintain it.

It is all about protecting the health and welfare of the larger community.

[the urban politician]

Of course you can. For example, if they don't have the money to pay for the property taxes, they will and should be 'penalized' by having there property sold right from under them.
.

But what if the owner is paying his property taxes?

I feel like there lacks any nuance in this discussion. Of course the City should have some “penalties” for slumlords, but it has to come with some limitations.

$10,000/day for Code violations is BS. You know it, I know it, and so does the City, because they simply can’t enforce such a heinously illegal dollar value. A loose board on your deck is a code violation. That’s not worth $10,000/day. The city uses this kind of stuff to harass and intimidate owners, but it’s more bark than bite.

[the urban politician]

If you don't have the money to maintain any property, a home, a vacant lot, a condo, or an irreplaceable part of a historic district, then of course that property owner needs to be 'penalized' for not having the money to maintain it.

It is all about protecting the health and welfare of the larger community.

And herein lies my point.

This system of penalizing people who don’t have money doesn’t seem to be working. Look at all of vacant land in less wealthy parts of Chicago that once contained buildings.

All that’s going to happen from all of this harassment, court dates, fines, etc is that the owner is going to demolish as long as it’s not a landmarked property.

Let’s face it, the current punitive system of isn’t doing much to encourage preservation in areas that aren’t wealthy or rapidly gentrifying.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Leaving a building vacant is not a crime.

You and I may not like it, but one cannot punish a person for doing that. The city can come up with ways to harass an owner and goad them into redeveloping their property, but that has its limits too.

I of course would bitch if my neighbor’s house was vacant and collecting weeds. Maybe the owner died and his kids don’t have the money to fix up the property? You can’t penalize someone for not having money. Maybe they want to sell but aren’t getting their price?



An unmaintained lot or building's value is un unearned increment made possible by the nearby community and the enterprise of its people. Intentionally removing value from your neighbor's property so that yours increases in an economic problem that classic free marketers like Friedman and Hayek agreed requires regulation. Letting markets and enterprise do what it wants is almost always the right answer in matters of investment and development. Not every time.

Obviously a great way to make money is to build a rat poison factory next to a reservoir, have an "accident" and then watch the profits of your coffin business soar. We all agree that regulation is required in that extreme example; intentionally letting a property rot until someone pays you to stop spreading blight in the community is a greyer area, but on a continuum in a way most folks don't need to have sketched out for them unless intentionally not understanding something is emotionally satisfying for them.

[the urban politician]

^ Yeah, since “intentionally letting buildings rot” is exactly what I advocated for in my posts above that you never bothered to read…. :rolleyes:

Internet debating: an exercise in futility because nobody reads each other’s arguments

[rivernorthlurker]

Wasn't sure where to put this as Willis thread is locked.

Here are some really nice photos (15-20) of the finished Willis rehab including the roof

I'm hoping there will be some outdoor seating on some of those roof patios on the Jackson side.

https://claycorp.com/project/willis-tower-transformation-project-2/

[left of center]

Leaving a building vacant is not a crime.

You and I may not like it, but one cannot punish a person for doing that. The city can come up with ways to harass an owner and goad them into redeveloping their property, but that has its limits too.

I of course would bitch if my neighbor’s house was vacant and collecting weeds. Maybe the owner died and his kids don’t have the money to fix up the property? You can’t penalize someone for not having money. Maybe they want to sell but aren’t getting their price?

I’ll tell you what I view as illegal, though: municipalities racking up unjustifiable fines as a “back door” to seizing property without having to pay for it via eminent domain.


In your scenario, its justified for the kids to let their parent's former home sit for 10 years until it is uninhabitable and needs to be torn down because they "aren't getting their price"?

Here's the deal, if you own a commercial property in the central area and let it rot for years without doing any basic maintenance to keep the elements out and keep the building in a state where it is not deemed hazardous to the public safety, that is just outright negligence. This property owner, who perhaps was in way over his head and had no funds to develop the building, should have simply sold it. Giving the city the ability to prod someone in this direction is a net benefit overall to the city and its population. This was a contributing building in a landmark district that we have now lost to all future generations because of either one landowner's greed or ineptness.

A municipality would have no need to "seize a property with unjustifiable fines" if the property was in good standing with the city, in good structural shape and a contributor to the tax rolls instead of being another forgotten parcel in a slumlord's portfolio.

[pilsenarch]

well, the bottom-line with the destruction of this handsome contributing building to the Motor Row Historic District is that both the owner and the city fucked up....

obviously enforcement needs to be increased and certainly "the owner has no money" is not an acceptable excuse... those owners should have their property seized...

an interesting side note, I rented a loft in the building just to the west... 3000 sf loft that I lived at in the early 90's that looked over the roof of this building... at the time, City Chevrolet was using the building for auto repair...

[LouisVanDerWright]

^ Damn, when did you turn into Fidel Castro?

The above scheme seems like a cute way to throw away an owner's property rights and simply bypass eminent domain altogether. Just heap on a pile of overly ridiculous and impossible to justify fines, then when the fines don't get paid ($40 million for 1 little building? :rolleyes::koko: okay, dude.....) the city takes the property for "free" under the excuse that they were owed $40 million anyway.

None of that seems legit or legal to me.

Look, the city keeps taking the same approach of villainizing property owners and it's no wonder they keep getting the same results. Keep slapping on fines, eventually the owner will just say "fuck it" and tear the building down. This approach is punitive and, heck, maybe some people working for the city actually enjoy it. But it doesn't seem to be working.

A better approach is to consult with private property owners and developers to find an approach that is less punitive and more carrot-and-stick with owners of vacant but worthwhile properties. We don't know the circumstance of the owner? Do they even have the funds to rehab the building? Are they an out of towner, or perhaps somebody who inherited the building from a parent who passed away?

Knowing what can be done to "encourage" an owner to do something useful with a property would be a better approach than simply slapping on fines, sending threatening letters, and otherwise treating the owners like they are delinquent white collar criminals.


Lol you know nothing of the circumstances surrounding the demise of the Rambler Building. This isn't the estate of some poor family in Englewood, this is highly valueable, landmarked, property directly adjacent to one of the largest convention centers on earth.

There was value in the building and the owners intentionally destroyed it in a bid to get even more value by demolishing landmark that was in their way.

I actually know the owner of this property and the Cadillac Building across the street which would also have suffered the same fate if it weren't a concrete bunker brick shithouse impermeable to these assholes neglect.

The owner of these properties is an Indian General Contractor from Arlington Heights who is worth a shit ton of money. This same person was the GC for the construction of that huge, ornate, Hindu Temple in Lemont. He's not some pauper being abused by the state, he's a wealthy landowner with extreme expertise in the building trades. He had the money, time, and resources to fix the roof with his own damn crews. He intentionally did not do so because he is aggressively attempting to destroy the building so he can extract greater value from the land than he was entitled to by using the existing building under the current landmark laws.


The city can and should take the property from him. It's not his right to destroy landmarks out of greed. It's also not his right to leave a building in extremely dangerous condition putting everyone in the areas lives at risk. Need I remind you of the lady killed walking with her child a few blocks from here when a piece of that church caved her head in? I guess that's "property rights" to you? Destroying a landmark and raining bricks down upon innocent pedestrians is your right because you need to squeeze more money out of the property you are landbanking?


What an absurd pile of nonsense TUP. Your position is wrong, so wrong that you should feel like a total buffoon for taking it.


I've actually met this guy, I tried to buy the property off him 3 or 4 years ago and he wouldn't sell it. He's the worst kind of landlord, the person that gives all of us a bad name because he's a criminally negligent piece of shit hell bent on grinding out another dime at everyone else's expense. I'm a libertarian, but government has a reason for existing. The biggest reason is to have a court system, to have law and order. This asshole is breaking the law in as many ways as he can come up with and should be run through the ringer.


Luckily the city slapped his ass with a demo lien, so I suspect there's also a big fat fine in the offing as well. Funny you keep claiming I've suddenly become some kind of Marxist for taking these positions considering you know I acquired my first big property by forcing a bank to give it to me or face the same blowback from the city. These laws exist for a reason, usually they force idiots like the owner of the Rambler Building to take profits before the building is lost. Unfortunately this guy is such a piece of shit that he wouldn't see the writing on the wall and dump it off to someone who would take care of it. He absolutely should not be rewarded for that and the city needs to crush him to make sure other landlords don't try the same shenanigans.

[the urban politician]

^ Damn LVDW, I am talking in general terms. You appear to have a history and perhaps an issue with this particular owner, but your axe to grind on this case should not set any precedent on how property owners are treated in this city. Every story is different.

I’ve bought property from slumlords who were rats and from good people who inherited from dead parents and just couldn’t commit resources for a rehab. It’s obtuse and stupid of the city to treat everybody as one and the same. This guy was obviously an asshole, but the point I’m making is that the city treats everyone like that.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^ Damn LVDW, I am talking in general terms. You appear to have a history and perhaps an issue with this particular owner, but your axe to grind on this case should not set any precedent on how property owners are treated in this city. Every story is different.

I’ve bought property from slumlords who were rats and from good people who inherited from dead parents and just couldn’t commit resources for a rehab. It’s obtuse and stupid of the city to treat everybody as one and the same. This guy was obviously an asshole, but the point I’m making is that the city treats everyone like that.

You responded to me saying the city should throw the book at this particular owner. You criticized my position on this particular property and then went on a rant about how I apparently support the government crushing poor people under the heal of their boot which wasn't even remotely topical. I'm responding to that nonsense, the government should have this power and the City typically uses this power very judiciously. I've never once had the city refuse to drop their case and fines against a property because I come in and rectify the situation. They aren't using this to raise revenue, they use it to come in and force action in situations where the owner is being a deadbeat.

[the urban politician]

^ I’ve been in that boat a few times too and mostly don’t disagree, but $40 million fine (your words) is not even on the same planet of being reasonable. Even for a delinquent, douchy landlord. Hell, just use eminent domain and seize the property or force a demo.

[ardecila]

This is a tangent, but this building got me looking at the secluded little part of Chinatown/Armor Square surrounded by the highways and the Union Pacific Railroad (Marshaling?) Yard to the West. That yard is huge and on the map it looks completely underutilized. Are the looks just deceiving? If not, does anybody know why that is? Is there any chance this space could be converted to a better use? Chinatown and Armor Square could certainly use the space for housing though since it spans over the Stevenson it's probably too valuable and/or costly to change. It just seems like such a sore thumb right there if it's not being used to its full potential.

Long story short, UP closed this yard (https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/02-union-pacific-to-streamline-chicago-area-intermodal-terminals-close-global-3/) (Canal St Yard) as part of cost-cutting moves. Due to space limitations, it was not very efficient compared to the truly enormous yards out in the exurbs. However, with freight volumes straining the current yard infrastructure, it's possible UP will reactivate it, or at least retain ownership for the future.

IMO it may be needed in the future as a yard for passenger trains, as Amtrak service in the Midwest grows. It has a straight shot into Union Station, and while it may be tight for mile-long freight trains it's the perfect size for 800' passenger trains. Seems foolish to open it up to residential development and never get that land back.

[Klippenstein]

Long story short, UP closed this yard (https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/02-union-pacific-to-streamline-chicago-area-intermodal-terminals-close-global-3/) (Canal St Yard) as part of cost-cutting moves. Due to space limitations, it was not very efficient compared to the truly enormous yards out in the exurbs. However, with freight volumes straining the current yard infrastructure, it's possible UP will reactivate it, or at least retain ownership for the future.

IMO it may be needed in the future as a yard for passenger trains, as Amtrak service in the Midwest grows. It has a straight shot into Union Station, and while it may be tight for mile-long freight trains it's the perfect size for 800' passenger trains. Seems foolish to open it up to residential development and never get that land back.

Seems like too prime of a location to sit empty. I also hate what it does to the neighborhood, but I hope you're right and there is enough Amtrak service to require its future use!

[ardecila]

Seems like too prime of a location to sit empty. I also hate what it does to the neighborhood, but I hope you're right and there is enough Amtrak service to require its future use!

Well, it could either be a yard expansion for Amtrak or a relocation of their existing yard that opens up that other site for development (large riverfront parcel, close to downtown, etc).

Putting my architect hat on - even if the Canal St yard were opened up to private development, the cost to remove the embankment and truck out all that soil would be astronomical. No developer would take that on, at least not to build mid-density "neighborhood" housing. It would probably just end up being housing on top of the embankment, with few connections to the street below. I live in a building like that and while it works fine for a one-off midrise, it's not great for a whole complex.

A better use for the Canal St yard might be an elevated park, but the "Chinese wall" effect would remain. I think we're pretty much stuck with that forever.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^ I’ve been in that boat a few times too and mostly don’t disagree, but $40 million fine (your words) is not even on the same planet of being reasonable. Even for a delinquent, douchy landlord. Hell, just use eminent domain and seize the property or force a demo.

Nope, eminent domain means they need to compensate the negligent owners. These fines and building court are an entirely separate governmental process that falls under police powers. They have the right to step in and demo, fine, or secure property that is not being cared for just as they would impound an abandoned vehicle or one used in a crime.

The giant fine allows the city to wrest control of the site from the owners. Ultimately the city gets a big fat lien on the property and forecloses it. Why would you use eminent domain and then have to get into a legal battle with the deadbeat about how much money you should reward their bad behavior with...

[the urban politician]

^ Yes, I realize that that’s what the city is trying to accomplish. We’ve gone full circle to the beginning. But my issue is….hell, some day I’ll have this discussion with you by phone. This forum is really not the best venue for this.

[Steely Dan]

renderings revealed for the Gordon Tech replacement development in Irving Park, courtesy of Chicago Yimby.

the proposed apartment building is kinda ugly, but at least it holds the corner, and with retail space.

https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/3601-N-California-Avenue-01-777x497.png
source: https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/09/plans-revealed-for-mixed-use-development-at-3601-n-california-avenue-in-irving-park.html




i'm less fond of the townhome village on the northern portion. i sorta understand the appeal on a certain level, but these kinds of townhouse enclaves oriented around "stralleys"* are just not my cup of tea.

we looked at a townhouse in one of them when we were house-hunting several years ago, and i was just like "nope, can't do it. i need to live on a real street".


https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/3601-N-California-Avenue-04-1024x655.png
source: https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/09/plans-revealed-for-mixed-use-development-at-3601-n-california-avenue-in-irving-park.html



(*) "stralley" being a vehicular thoroughfare that is like a bad combo of a both a street and an alley.

[west-town-brad]

renderings revealed for the Gordon Tech replacement development in Irving Park, courtesy of Chicago Yimby.

the proposed apartment building is kinda ugly, but at least it holds the corner.


i'm less fond of the townhome village on the northern portion. i understand the appeal on a certain level, but these kinds of townhouse enclaves oriented around "stralleys"* are just not my cup of tea.

we looked at a townhouse in one of them when we were house-hunting several years ago, and i was just like "nope, can't do it. i need to live on a real street".


https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/3601-N-California-Avenue-04-1024x655.png
source: https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/09/plans-revealed-for-mixed-use-development-at-3601-n-california-avenue-in-irving-park.html



(*) "stralley" being a vehicular thoroughfare that is like a bad combo of a both a street and an alley.

same - these TH things always come out to be so car orientated

but is the waveland park down the middle going to be open to the public? if so that's pretty nice however these developments tend to be gated and/or the only access is by car

[Steely Dan]

but is the waveland park down the middle going to be open to the public? if so that's pretty nice however these developments tend to be gated and/or the only access is by car

the rendering, of course, shows it being very open and public, but we'll see how it plays out in practice.

these kinds of townhouse developments are designed to encourage "compound mentality".

https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/3601-N-California-Avenue-02-1024x655.png
source: https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/09/plans-revealed-for-mixed-use-development-at-3601-n-california-avenue-in-irving-park.html

[marothisu]

^ This thing has some fierce neighborhood opposition for whatever reason. So we'll see what happens.



By the way, the planned 5 class A story office building at Randolph and Carpenter in West Loop was issued a permit yesterday. It will have ground floor retail

Via https://l3capital.com/portfolio/1020-w-randolph-street/
https://l3capital.com/wp-content/uploads/bfi_thumb/1020-w-randolph-final-2-scaled-p4p5xsm6dfz42rcxj6s422grm93y67mqsl96vdw0bw.jpg

[VKChaz]

same - these TH things always come out to be so car orientated

but is the waveland park down the middle going to be open to the public? if so that's pretty nice however these developments tend to be gated and/or the only access is by car

From the yimby article


The development’s placement along the river has made it so that is considered a planned development and thus will have to ensure public access, green spaces, and environmental care which will be met through the planned central parkway.

Not especially appealing. But if I am seeing correctly, it does appear some units open to California (i.e., not a walled fortress).

[the urban politician]

^ The units that face California are fine. Everything else is like a gated community. Chicago has been seeing project like this for years, I've never been a huge fan but they do tend to cram a decent amount of townhome density into rather tight spaces.

[ardecila]

I've never had a problem with townhouse developments especially on a site like this. Near downtown or near an L stop, it's a waste of scarce land but on a big redevelopment site far from the L it's great. They use land a lot more efficiently than traditional Chicago SFH development too, less space is wasted on backyards/sideyards and freestanding garages.

You can think about it another way, every new townhouse that gets built is a 2-flat that isn't deconverted. And providing options like this helps keep families in the city instead of fleeing to the burbs - which is a good thing so long as it doesn't lead to the displacement of smaller/less wealthy households!

[Steely Dan]

^ It's not the existence of townhouses that I take issue with, it's the way that many townhouse complexes are designed, with those weird "stralley" things, that turns me off.

If other people think they're a good option, more power to 'em, but as I said, definitely not my cup of tea.

[ardecila]

Most of that is due to the city's townhouse ordinance which is very specific. I agree the ordinance could use some updating.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Most of that is due to the city's townhouse ordinance which is very specific. I agree the ordinance could use some updating.

Yeah, Chicago has traditionally led the way in planning and building systems of public space. Everything from Burnham to the Jeffersonian grid to the conversion of that grid to not just organized blocks, but consistent systems of alleys to push building services off street.

To that point, even the lowly alley is still truly accessible to all for loading, a pedestrian shortcut, a place to BBQ and "King of the Hill", a way to escape that construction traffic...

But then you have this stuff, where there's a pseudo public realm instead. Accessible to all the residents, but locked away from the general public. A gated community, really no better than the ironically named "Albany Park Townhomes" that face the SW side of Douglass Park. It's totally contrary to the egalitarianism inherent in the beaucratic consistency of the grid. Any variation from the grid that isn't totally necessary should be illegal. Maybe a development like this gets special consideration being adjacent to the river, but that should only make public access to the area that much more of a priority.

[Steely Dan]

we looked at a townhouse in the complex below when we were house shopping several years ago. it's up at irving and the river, very close to the old gordon tech site.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9536217,-87.6969703,3a,90y,117.36h,86.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_riNe_HsLdsu2iWVE4X0qQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

when we drove in there with our realtor i was just like "WTF is this? is it a street? is it an alley?" it's kinda both, while not succeeding at being either. textbook "stralley".

needless to say, as nice and big as the townhouse we looked at was, the weird compound it was within was a total deal-killer for us.

[west-town-brad]

we looked at a townhouse in the complex below when we were house shopping several years ago. it's up at irving and the river, very close to the old gordon tech site.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9536217,-87.6969703,3a,90y,117.36h,86.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_riNe_HsLdsu2iWVE4X0qQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

when we drove in there with our realtor i was just like "WTF is this? is it a street? is it an alley?" it's kinda both, while not succeeding at being either. textbook "stralley".

needless to say, as nice and big as the townhouse we looked at was, the weird compound it was within was a total deal-killer for us.

uber pickups would def. be a challenge there

[west-town-brad]

is it an alley or is it a street?

YES:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.89391,-87.6612778,3a,75y,272.39h,91.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBsevf09oqIeB4OEESKnFQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[the urban politician]

we looked at a townhouse in the complex below when we were house shopping several years ago. it's up at irving and the river, very close to the old gordon tech site.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9536217,-87.6969703,3a,90y,117.36h,86.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_riNe_HsLdsu2iWVE4X0qQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

when we drove in there with our realtor i was just like "WTF is this? is it a street? is it an alley?" it's kinda both, while not succeeding at being either. textbook "stralley".

needless to say, as nice and big as the townhouse we looked at was, the weird compound it was within was a total deal-killer for us.

^ The problem with this particular development (and I suspect these are illegal now) is that even the street-facing townhomes have their main entrance facing the rear alley.

Most townhome developments built for the past several years have their street-fronting homes with main entrances facing the public sidewalk (as they should!). That's what matters most to me and the public realm.

If there are townhomes behind that with entrances facing private motor courts, I don't really care too much. But the street should always be faced with active uses.

[ardecila]

There are better and worse examples. I like Hartland Park, much clearer hierarchy of "streets" and "alleys" - although some of the streets are private so they can be narrower and use better materials like brick pavers. If you build a public street CDOT will enforce their one-size-fits-all template which is overly wide, basic AF and also very expensive to build.

Hartland Park:
https://goo.gl/maps/aLNGMB5NPkUL9EUr6

There's also a nice diversity of building types in that little area, from attached townhomes to condo buildings and some mansion-style SFH.

Kinzie Park also has a nice hierarchy of streets and alleys, although it is literally a gated community. Also the river-facing townhomes put their garage on a "street" so their front door can be on the river. But overall better than most.
https://goo.gl/maps/dnadd4X7cQTRdnNM7

Pappageorge Haymes' Willow Court also excellent. It doesn't have the same clear hierarchy but the "alley" is treated with high-quality materials and feels more like a Dutch woonerf than a typical ugly-assphalt service drive:
https://goo.gl/maps/cPoyjAHs3LqUgdu9A

[Steely Dan]

There are better and worse examples. I like Hartland Park, much clearer hierarchy of "streets" and "alleys" - although some of the streets are private so they can be narrower and use better materials like brick pavers. If you build a public street CDOT will enforce their one-size-fits-all template which is overly wide, basic AF and also very expensive to build.

Hartland Park:
https://goo.gl/maps/aLNGMB5NPkUL9EUr6

There's also a nice diversity of building types in that little area, from attached townhomes to condo buildings and some mansion-style SFH.

Kinzie Park also has a nice hierarchy of streets and alleys, although it is literally a gated community. Also the river-facing townhomes put their garage on a "street" so their front door can be on the river. But overall better than most.
https://goo.gl/maps/dnadd4X7cQTRdnNM7

Pappageorge Haymes' Willow Court also excellent. It doesn't have the same clear hierarchy but the "alley" is treated with high-quality materials and feels more like a Dutch woonerf than a typical ugly-assphalt service drive:
https://goo.gl/maps/cPoyjAHs3LqUgdu9A


yeah, i apprecaite that there's a broad spectrum of the quality of these kinds of townhouse complexes, but i guess at a fundamental level i'm just not a "complex" guy, cuz i wouldn't really want to live in any of them.

i want to live on an actual street that's fully 100% public in every possible way. these complexes (even the better ones) always feel to inward-focused to me (that's probably by design).

different strokes for different folks.

[Randomguy34]

First of two permits issued for Park Boulevard Phase 3B. There will be two buildings, 40 units each for the vacant lots at 37th St & Dearborn St. Glad CHA hasn't forgotten about redeveloping Stateway Gardens.

https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Park-Bouelvard-Phase-3B.-Rendering-by-Johnson-and-Lee-Architects-1024x616.jpg
https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/06/cdc-approves-6-million-tif-for-park-boulevard-phase-3b-at-3603-s-federal-street-in-bronzeville.html

[Vlajos]

First of two permits issued for Park Boulevard Phase 3B. There will be two buildings, 40 units each for the vacant lots at 37th St & Dearborn St. Glad CHA hasn't forgotten about redeveloping Stateway Gardens.

https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Park-Bouelvard-Phase-3B.-Rendering-by-Johnson-and-Lee-Architects-1024x616.jpg
https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/06/cdc-approves-6-million-tif-for-park-boulevard-phase-3b-at-3603-s-federal-street-in-bronzeville.html

I doubt CHA has ever forgotten about these redevelopments, the issue is a lack of low income housing tax credits, soft financing dollars and high cost to build. When rent is restricted to affordable levels, subsidy is needed. Contractors and materials don't care who is living there, they still need to be paid.

[Vlajos]

First of two permits issued for Park Boulevard Phase 3B. There will be two buildings, 40 units each for the vacant lots at 37th St & Dearborn St. Glad CHA hasn't forgotten about redeveloping Stateway Gardens.

https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Park-Bouelvard-Phase-3B.-Rendering-by-Johnson-and-Lee-Architects-1024x616.jpg
https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/06/cdc-approves-6-million-tif-for-park-boulevard-phase-3b-at-3603-s-federal-street-in-bronzeville.html

I doubt CHA has ever forgotten about these redevelopments, the issue is a lack of Low income housing tax credits, soft financing dollars and high cost to build. Contractors and suppliers generally don't cut costs because of a targeted tenant type.

[Busy Bee]

Tangential question: Do you think Robert Taylor and Stateway would have been demolished today? I have my doubts. It seems like a more sensible solution would have been to reno the towers and tenant screen for 65+ and stable families and then build out the blocks with 5-6 floor midrise to the streetwall sort of like we have seen so far, but maybe a bit more dense and cohesive. I know most will either disagree or shrug, but I think laying waste to the Dan Ryan wall was misguided, and if anything 1990s HUD-think. They were impressive regardless of how substandard they had been allowed to become and I miss seeing them and I probably always will.

[sentinel]

Tangential question: Do you think Robert Taylor and Stateway would have been demolished today? I have my doubts. It seems like a more sensible solution would have been to reno the towers and tenant screen for 65+ and stable families and then build out the blocks with 5-6 floor midrise to the streetwall sort of like we have seen so far, but maybe a bit more dense and cohesive. I know most will either disagree or shrug, but I think laying waste to the Dan Ryan wall was misguided, and if anything 1990s HUD-think. They were impressive regardless of how substandard they had been allowed to become and I miss seeing them and I probably always will.

I think it's more a matter of cost than anything, if RTH and Stateway were still around today. Meaning, easier and more cost effective to tear something down and start from scratch than to renovate..

[ardecila]

I dunno, the design of those towers pre-supposed a level of maintenance that CHA simply couldn't afford given the broader pressure for austerity. There's a reason they switched to building walk-ups - far fewer elevators to maintain, fewer indoor common spaces/stairwells, etc. That kind of thing is baked into the building even after a gut rehab, so I don't know if Stateway or Robert Taylor could have ever been realistically salvaged.

There's also the psychological baggage that those buildings carried after so many years of neglect (by CHA) and violence (by criminals). I don't know if the buildings could successfully shed that baggage after a full rehab.

There are a few CHA tower-in-a-park developments that have managed to survive successfully. Archer Courts, Dearborn Homes, Loomis Courts, various single-tower complexes, etc. I live right by Loomis Courts; the community there is generally a good neighbor and maintenance is forthcoming from CHA. But if they had 10x or 20x that number of highrises, I dunno if they could keep up given the budgets available.

[Mr Downtown]

Townhouse complexes with the private "stralleys" are really the only practical way to get any density into these developments in our era. Buyers want their garages underneath, not a short walk away, and aren't looking (or able) to also purchase an accessory dwelling unit or yard. So now you're putting townhouses over garages—which need vehicular access—on 1400 sq ft parcels. No one can afford to put a "real" public street in between every two rows of those. The 66-foot-wide streets would be only 100 feet apart!

The classic way we dealt with this problem in Chicago was families going a little further out and buying a 25-by-125 lot, but building first a small house in back (or later moving it there) and a few years later building a two-flat or larger house in front. Achieving that kind of hidden density, though, assumes a number of social and societal factors that are no longer present. Some 19th century cities, like Washington and Philadelphia, and even early Salt Lake City and San Francisco, dealt with the issue by cutting narrow streets through the blocks that were too big, but the coming of the auto and the 18-wheeler-sized fire truck has made that tough for cities to approve nowadays.

[ChiPlanner]

Tangential question: Do you think Robert Taylor and Stateway would have been demolished today? I have my doubts. It seems like a more sensible solution would have been to reno the towers and tenant screen for 65+ and stable families and then build out the blocks with 5-6 floor midrise to the streetwall sort of like we have seen so far, but maybe a bit more dense and cohesive. I know most will either disagree or shrug, but I think laying waste to the Dan Ryan wall was misguided, and if anything 1990s HUD-think. They were impressive regardless of how substandard they had been allowed to become and I miss seeing them and I probably always will.

Read "High-Risers" by Ben Austen- it's about Cabrini-Green but really gets to the heart of the issues in public housing and ultimately the demolition decision.

[SolarWind]

September 13, 2021

https://imgur.com/9695Ts0.jpg

https://imgur.com/e7fI4sk.jpg

Adler Planetarium finally getting new roof
https://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment-and-culture/2021/7/1/22559630/adler-planetarium-new-roof-copper-dome-tiles-september-2021 (https://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment-and-culture/2021/7/1/22559630/adler-planetarium-new-roof-copper-dome-tiles-september-2021)

[SolarWind]

September 13, 2021

https://imgur.com/SRBIePK.jpg

[SolarWind]

September 14, 2021

https://imgur.com/ENO6Whl.jpg

[SolarWind]

September 14, 2021

https://imgur.com/J9S6y1p.jpg

[SolarWind]

September 14, 2021

https://imgur.com/t438bxt.jpg

[SolarWind]

September 14, 2021

https://imgur.com/dM9Yj36.jpg

https://imgur.com/QDl0xns.jpg

[Chi-Sky21]

Great round of updates Solar!

[west-town-brad]

someone already owns this domain name

http://www.jeanbaptistepointdusablelakeshoredrive.com/

[Randomguy34]

Twitter is hyped that the first new coach house was just permitted for 2131 W Haddon Ave

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_kurnIWQAI60zk?format=png&name=small
https://mobile.twitter.com/ChiBuildings/status/1439233363408310275

Alley streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.901754,-87.6809352,3a,75y,329.34h,84.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seh5fWo9uPrIET_P5oLOXAw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[Via Chicago]

very cool. thats a very charming workers cottage too.

[nomarandlee]

An interesting conversation today about the architecture review panels at City Hall set up the city. What do you guys think? Good/bad idea?


https://www.chicagobusiness.com/crains-daily-gist/chicago-developers-need-style-points-build?fbclid=IwAR2wt2VyTTDXgnmR4NAIuiVqXuF2736Ea_5OJpsL4T_-g485XIXzeC1Te2M


Crain's Daily Gist
September 21, 2021 05:30 AM UPDATED 5 HOURS AGO
You need style points to build in Chicago: Crain's Daily Gist podcast
Commercial real estate reporter Danny Ecker talks with host Amy Guth about a new City Hall panel aiming to uphold Chicago's reputation for innovative architecture.

[ardecila]

I said this on Twitter but I'm fine with DPD trying to raise the bar for design in Chicago. My two critiques are:

A) The city should lead by example and take a page from NYC's Design Excellence Program. Where does Chicago DPD get off attacking developers when they slap this kind of suburban basic-ass firehouse (https://pbcchicago.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ec115_002web.jpg) on the South Side? Jeanne Gang is on the panel, she should know better - her firm designed a fantastic firehouse (https://www.architectmagazine.com/project-gallery/fdny-rescue-company-2_o) in NYC, not in a gentrified neighborhood but in heavily-Black and low-income Brownsville.

2) I'm concerned the panel is stacked with many of the same top developers and architects who will be bringing projects for consideration. I'm sure they will recuse themselves but still seems like a possibility of conflict of interest.

[west-town-brad]

I said this on Twitter but I'm fine with DPD trying to raise the bar for design in Chicago. My two critiques are:

A) The city should lead by example and take a page from NYC's Design Excellence Program. Where does Chicago DPD get off attacking developers when they slap this kind of suburban basic-ass firehouse (https://pbcchicago.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ec115_002web.jpg) on the South Side? Jeanne Gang is on the panel, she should know better - her firm designed a fantastic firehouse (https://www.architectmagazine.com/project-gallery/fdny-rescue-company-2_o) in NYC, not in a gentrified neighborhood but in heavily-Black and low-income Brownsville.

2) I'm concerned the panel is stacked with many of the same top developers and architects who will be bringing projects for consideration. I'm sure they will recuse themselves but still seems like a possibility of conflict of interest.

I watched the video of the first panel meeting - not much “attacking” going on. Was that firehouse project reviewed by the panel? They only review planned developments and it’s only advisory.

[Via Chicago]

Yeah that's an odd criticism and seems to be conflating different things. I agree Chicago can up it's game in municipal architecture, altho i think it's come a long way, esp the new libraries and CHA designs as of late. In fairness I'm not a fan of the police/fire template they've been using either and it's well long overdue for a refresh and a more forward looking design language. All this stuff still feels very 90s Daley era for whatever reason, and it's not cost because this SS firehouse is the same price/sq footage as the NY example. But...at the end of the day gang wasn't hired to do Chicago's so I'm not really seeing how that's her fault

So yes, city has a responsibility to lead by example but this is still a worthwhile convo to have with developers early in the design phase. It remains to be seen what if any impact it has on final designs. But most of what I heard watching the St Anthony proposal meeting didn't have to do with Architecture with a capital A, so much as it had to do with how things were situated on the site, whether there's other ways of approaching problems, how land use might impact user engagement, etc.

[LouisVanDerWright]

They should be required to build all firehouses in Tigermanesque PoMo style like the one at Pulaski and Diversey...

Speaking of Pulaski and Diversey, I just got the Crate and Barrel Kids catalogue (somehow they figured out we have a child now despite us making exactly zero purchases from them since having our kid) and it looks like the CB design team has been spending a lot of time staring at that firehouse across the street from their new HQ. The entire lineup of furniture is all geometric shapes and pastel colors. Very much early stage Tigerman style PoMo...

[Randomguy34]

Anyone have access to this article?

Low-Key Developer Eyes Major Project Where Three of Chicago’s Wealthiest Neighborhoods Converge
https://www.costar.com/article/407594455/low-key-developer-eyes-major-project-where-three-of-chicago%E2%80%99s-wealthiest-neighborhoods-converge

[BVictor1]

Anyone have access to this article?

Low-Key Developer Eyes Major Project Where Three of Chicago’s Wealthiest Neighborhoods Converge
https://www.costar.com/article/407594455/low-key-developer-eyes-major-project-where-three-of-chicago%E2%80%99s-wealthiest-neighborhoods-converge

Hmmm.... That's interesting. Buying land and air rights from Moody Bible. I can already see the NIMBY's from the south and west railing against it. Same developers of 37 S. Sangamon in the WL that was approved earlier this year.

[CaptainJilliams]

Hmmm.... That's interesting. Buying land and air rights from Moody Bible. I can already see the NIMBY's from the south and west railing against it. Same developers of 37 S. Sangamon in the WL that was approved earlier this year.

Man, if people really come out and protest the demolition and redevelopment of a gas station...but I guess nothing surprises me with NIMBYs anymore.

[glowrock]

They should be required to build all firehouses in Tigermanesque PoMo style like the one at Pulaski and Diversey...

Speaking of Pulaski and Diversey, I just got the Crate and Barrel Kids catalogue (somehow they figured out we have a child now despite us making exactly zero purchases from them since having our kid) and it looks like the CB design team has been spending a lot of time staring at that firehouse across the street from their new HQ. The entire lineup of furniture is all geometric shapes and pastel colors. Very much early stage Tigerman style PoMo...

I don't even care so much about the architecture of the firehouse, but I really wish they'd shovel the sidewalk during the winter snows and perhaps not block the sidewalk with equipment half of the day. ;)

Yes, I work next door to it.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ Don't even get me started about snow removal in this city. I literally called the alderman on his personal cell to chew out the 7-11 just north of there on Pulaski last spring after I just about broke my ankle trying to push my baby in his stroller through the 3' of snow they let compact into a solid 8" sheet of ice.

[marothisu]

New construction permit was issued for 43rd and Calumet in Bronzeville for a vacant lot, for caissons. This is for a new development of 10 stories with 99 units (50 affordable and 49 market rate) with ground floor commercial space.

This is right next to the Green line stop. Great win for Bronzeville.

[the urban politician]

^ Ever a rendering for this project?

[the urban politician]

Can anybody get past the goddamn paywall for this article:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-editorial-downtown-chicago-neighborhoods-development-20210922-sseyu7kulza4ja2472rmyqlvyu-story.html

Chicago Tribune editorial with the title suggesting that the Guinness Brewery planned for Fulton Market somehow signals the decline of Mag Mile.....? :shrug:

[Handro]

Can anybody get past the goddamn paywall for this article:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-editorial-downtown-chicago-neighborhoods-development-20210922-sseyu7kulza4ja2472rmyqlvyu-story.html

Chicago Tribune editorial with the title suggesting that the Guinness Brewery planned for Fulton Market somehow signals the decline of Mag Mile.....? :shrug:

The gist:

..The Guinness Chicago Taproom will be located at 375 N. Morgan St. in the West Loop. That decision doubtless was influenced by the amount of available space, but it’s still a major loss for the ailing Magnificent Mile, which has plenty of available space, and a reminder that the old battle for resources in Chicago between downtown and the neighborhoods is not only tired but increasingly inaccurate.

...Mayor Lori Lightfoot was elected mostly on a platform of helping the neighborhoods, causing business owners and other stakeholders in the Loop to fret that insufficient attention was being paid both to closures in the central business district and the rising sea of crime threatening to swamp the Loop.
...

If this continues, affluent suburbanites and other visitors to the city won’t be strolling Boul Mich, they’ll be headed to max out their credit cards in the Magnificent Fulton Market District, breakfasting at Beatrix, lunching at the Girl and the Goat, making some deals at Soho House Chicago, shopping for mattresses at Casper, drinking at the Aviary, eating dinner at Nobu then heading up to their rooms or back to the suburbs without ever crossing the expressway into the rest of the city. Remember Spiaggia and Macy’s at Water Tower have closed. All of the momentum has moved west. And jobs are following.
...

And all those politicians whining about how downtown gets everything? They should look around and see the troubles, and remember how many of their constituents go there to work.

Very boomer article.

[marothisu]

^ Ever a rendering for this project?

Via YIMBY Chicago
https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/43Green-at-4308-S-Calumet-Avenue.-Rendering-by-Landon-Bone-Baker-Architects-1024x583.jpg

[marothisu]

The gist:



Very boomer article.

Honestly it's not that much different from what happened in Manhattan years ago with the emergence of SoHo. It went from being an artist kind of area also with printing and some manufacturing to a rich area with tons of boutiques and trendy eateries sprinkled in. Some boutique office situation going on too or next door. Just wait for more and more fashion brands and boutiques to open in thr FM area in the coming years.

I don't think it's a bad thing at all. While there's many upscale things in Soho it feels far less stuffy than areas on 5th Ave and the Upper East Side. Michigan Ave is a parallel to that. Not a bad thing at all for this to happen. Michigan Ave just has to pivot and get with the times. No not a Target store, but other things :)

[the urban politician]

The gist:



Very boomer article.

Yeah, and pointless, if that's the gist of it.

Why would increasing investment and interest in Fulton Market have to occur at the expense of River North/Streeterville?

Mag Mile has hit a rough patch, yes, but that's quite some hyperbole.

I'm rooting for Fulton Market and West Loop because it represents another new district of downtown opening up for visitors and for interesting destinations. It just makes the central area more multifaceted and layered.

Gone are the days where you came downtown and either went to your job in the Loop or visited Mag Mile to shop, then went home.

And that's a good thing.

[the urban politician]

Via YIMBY Chicago
https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/43Green-at-4308-S-Calumet-Avenue.-Rendering-by-Landon-Bone-Baker-Architects-1024x583.jpg

We need a lot more of these on the south side

[Barrelfish]

Anyone have access to this article?

Low-Key Developer Eyes Major Project Where Three of Chicago’s Wealthiest Neighborhoods Converge
https://www.costar.com/article/407594455/low-key-developer-eyes-major-project-where-three-of-chicago%E2%80%99s-wealthiest-neighborhoods-converge

Super curious about this one, if anyone can access the article. I'm guessing it covers the Shell on the NE corner of North and Lasalle + the Moody parking lot on the NW corner? Both are prime redevelopment lots. As is the semi-vacant low-rise on the SE corner, but I don't think that's Moody-owned.

There's also the BP just north of Moody, but it is such a narrow lot on such a complicated intersection that I doubt it's feasible to redevelop.

[moorhosj1]

Why would increasing investment and interest in Fulton Market have to occur at the expense of River North/Streeterville?

Mag Mile has hit a rough patch, yes, but that's quite some hyperbole.

I'm rooting for Fulton Market and West Loop because it represents another new district of downtown opening up for visitors and for interesting destinations. It just makes the central area more multifaceted and layered.

Gone are the days where you came downtown and either went to your job in the Loop or visited Mag Mile to shop, then went home.

And that's a good thing.

100% agreed. Even weirder that they equate the Mag Mile to The Loop. The Mag Mile is as much The Loop as Fulton Market is The Loop.

[urbanpln]

Yeah, and pointless, if that's the gist of it.

Why would increasing investment and interest in Fulton Market have to occur at the expense of River North/Streeterville?

Mag Mile has hit a rough patch, yes, but that's quite some hyperbole.

I'm rooting for Fulton Market and West Loop because it represents another new district of downtown opening up for visitors and for interesting destinations. It just makes the central area more multifaceted and layered.

Gone are the days where you came downtown and either went to your job in the Loop or visited Mag Mile to shop, then went home.

And that's a good thing.

Good summary! Also very true imo.

[marothisu]

We need a lot more of these on the south side

At least 1000 more with this density. Think about all the density lost on the south and west sides. It's maddening. This is good news at least. I'm glad the city is prioritizing creating some dense developments upcoming in various areas.