Too bad it doesn't have hundreds of apartment units as in the original plan. Then there would actually be some people around to use that nice new bike lane in the pictures.

The biggest travesty of this whole scenario is this: I understand the concept of a downtown service district. I agree there is SOME need for such zoning NEAR (not in, like that bullshit downzoning proposed in River North) downtown. But I don't see how adding residential for this project does anything to affect the integrity of the "downtown service district" they have set up here. The building is going to be big box stores built lot line to lot line either way. Apparently big box stores qualify as a "downtown service" use (which is a notion I would also question, but that's a whole different complaint) so what difference does it make if you have residential units built above the desired use for this area?

I don't think it does make a difference. And, if you are going to make the argument that once the residential goes in, it can never be razed to make way for a new downtown service use, I would then point out that these store leases are likely 25-30 years with probable extensions. This building is not going anywhere any time soon. We've already deemed this property suitable for long term big box use, so why can't we further utilize our infrastructure and increase our tax base during that long term lease by adding apartments to this parcel?

^ Let me reiterate my statement:

Provided that mixed use developments are still preferred, this project is a model for single use commercial development in the city.

I actually think this development is a big deal because, in so far as I've seen, most single use commercial development in this city (with some recent exceptions) have been in the form of strip malls. It almost seems as if developers are bimodal, meaning you either get a nice multiunit building built to the lot line, or a strip mall with a parking lot. For each developable parcel you hope that market conditions allow the former, and you cringe when you get the latter.

It's inevitable that we are still going to get a lot of single story commercial in this city, and I would like to see more developments like this proliferate in the city to show other developers (and their lenders) that this can be a successful design. This especially because our 'Strip Mall ordinance' is essentially worthless and has no teeth to it.

Because now all the other land nearby will suddenly be valued by its owners at the price for residential highrises, forcing out the printers and laundries and HVAC service firms and armored car companies that the DS designation was supposed to help.

Some Wicker Park/Bucktown news
 

http://jcys.org/locations/wicker-par...roject-updates

The new Michael R. Lutz Family Center will be located at 2129 West North Avenue, in a brand new building set to open in Autumn 2015. After careful consideration, it was determined that working with a design firm on a new building was more economically and environmentally efficient than rehabilitating the current structure. Demolition of the current structure on North Avenue happened this past December. Continue to track our progress as we build from the ground up!

(sorry for lazy lack of image)

^. What an absolutely shitty development. Can't they build that worthless thing in Skokie?

If those companies really need to be that close to downtown then the price they are willing to pay for their spaces will be high enough to continue renting that close to downtown. It is already quite clear this is not the case as huge portions of that DS district have been converted to much high-value retail uses. You don't think the construction of the Maxwell isn't already going to have the effect of continuing to raise land values of adjacent parcels above what can be afforded by Local Joe's HVAC Repair?

It is already abundantly clear that A. the DS zoning here is really just toothless and allows for a wide array of retail uses and B. as a result the land values in this area are rapidly pushing out the firms you mention. So the question is why are we not ensuring that what is being built that is pushing out the firms you lament losing is as urban as possible and maximizing the tax base?

Exactly what you are complaining about is already happening residential or not so why not allow developers to maximize the use of the area. Or is that Home Depot South of Roosevelt "servicing downtown" in a way that it couldn't had 500 units of residential on top of it? Would the Whole Foods be hampered from selling organic groceries if it were in the base of a 20 floor condo tower. DS zoning suffers from the same Keynesian lunacy as the PMD zoning in that it ignores the economic realities of our changing cities in an attempt to create some "ideal use" as if developers and business owners can't sort things out on their own. However the results of PMD and DS zoning are radically different in that PMD's are much more strict about what you can or cannot build there so they actually are successful at arresting the values of the properties within. DS allows just about any retail use you want (unless it is in the base of a big scary multifamily building) which means it does almost nothing to prevent land values from rising in areas where development pressures exist.

Long story short: DS zoning is toothless garbage that does almost nothing to achieve the goals it was created to achieve regardless of whether there is residential nearby or not.

Wow, agreed. Way to replace a cool building with an awful and unimaginative design. Maybe you should've used some of that money you saved to hire a decent architect. I'd also love to know how it's more environmentally efficient to go the non-rehab route - and while you're at it define environmentally efficient.

(comments directed at JCYS)

That's terrible. It looks like something you'd expect to find in a town of 40,000 in Iowa.

Fair enough to mock the design. I'm with everyone there, but that Skokie comment..

trying to find a way to read that without getting offended. I'm coming up short.

Are you offended that someone is saying that Skokie doesn't have great architecture or the fact that Skokie has a sizable Jewish population and this is somehow making fun of Jews?

Skokie does not have a very sizeable Jewish population anymore and even if they did... substitute the jewish thing for any other ethnic or racial group and I'd guess that group would be offended.

Saying that "they" should go do something in a neighborhood where "they" live sounds very old-fashioned bigot-like to me. Maybe I took it the wrong way?

There are Jews all over the city and chicagoland area. I don't think I need to type that to educate people here.

Technically I'm Jewish, and I didn't find any of that offensive. Then again, I barely find anything offensive in life. I think people are too sensitive to these things but that's another story for another thread on another site.

This morning you said you understood the concept of a downtown service district. Now you seem to be questioning the very idea of zoning. And what the hell does Keynes have to do with any of this?

Retail land values are much closer to light industrial land values than residential. More importantly, retailers don't raise hell about truck deliveries and the like. And politicians have more of an interest in keeping blue-collar jobs in the city than having a residential tower on every parcel no matter how poorly it's served by transit.

Understanding the concept and agreeing with it are two entirely different things and I don't necessarily completely disagree with it. What I am saying is that I understand and can agree with to a degree the INTENTIONS of the DS zoning, but the way DS is set up in REALITY doesn't come close to being effective.

Also, these "blue collar jobs" are not going to leave the city if they have to relocate to Pilsen on the other side of the freeway to find cheaper land. I am not saying I don't think there should be DS here (since I am sure you will accuse me of that again), I am just pointing out that "keeping blue collar jobs in the city" is an absurd argument in this case as it would only mean pushing jobs another half mile out from where they are now.

Again, my beef is this: if you are going to have DS zoning, then do it right, don't half ass it and allow retail. If you are going to have retail, then you may as well have residential as the two go hand in hand. Also, retail values are way higher than typical light industrial values, I don't know where you got the idea that they are "closer" than residential values to light industrial values. In fact, most retail rents are much higher on a PSF basis than residential rents in a similar area. So really all you are doing is objecting to additional density driving up land values, not actual PSF values. I think I am wording this poorly, so here's an example. If you have a four way intersection with a one story residential building, one story light industrial building, one story retail building, and one story office building of equal sizes and quality on each corner, all other things being equal, the retail or office building will typically be the most expensive. The statement that retail land values are closer to industrial land values is only true when you assume that residential land is zoned for more density and more valuable as a result since no one is going to build a 20 story retail building. So really all you are objecting to is additional density, not residential uses.


PS: Who needs transit at this site when they have all the retail the can possibly want within a 3 or 4 block radius and are a 5 min bike ride or 15 minute walk from the Sears Tower?

I don't think mentioning Skokie was going anywhere that the emphasis on cheapness and frugality wasn't already. And so what if it was? No group or identity should be beyond ridicule if they deserve it.

I agree. Not sure why you're quoting me about it - I wasn't the one offended.

^^^ ^^^^

My 2 cents:

The Downtown Service District concept is completely antiquated - that is, if there was a point in time when it ever made sense (I'm quite skeptical). We do not need a 'wasteland district' within 1.5 miles of the central loop....it's crazy to think we do......

But, I sure am going to have to agree with Mr. D on questioning what Keynes has to do with this topic. LVDW, you may want to go back and read him again, because I'm not sure he said what you apparently must think he did (to digress for a second, he's enormously relevant and important to the current macroeconomic picture in many developed countries around the world right now, the US being no exception)....

This. This. This. This. This. This. This. And many more. Fair game, all....

What are you guys even talking about? Who brought up cheapness and frugality?

and what does it mean, "if they deserve it"? I'm new to this board.. perhaps I don't have a good feel for the rhythm, flow and tones here. But I'm not following any of this.

^ I think you (like everyone in this overly sensitive world we now live in) read too much into the location. Really that building belongs out in the suburbs, and it's much lousier than the one it is replacing