^^^ Thanks for the scoop Scott! Great first post. Are you a Loyola student? I'm a fairly recent grad and have been missing out on all the scoops in the Loyola emails, etc.

Here is the rendering from the article:

http://www.luc.edu/communityrelation...right_hall.JPG
luc.edu

Here is the rehab of the 4+1 rennovation you mentioned:

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townn...5472.image.jpg
townnews.com - Loyola Phoenix

Additional renderings from your last link:

http://blogs.luc.edu/ilweekly/files/...on-view_41.jpg
luc.edu

http://blogs.luc.edu/ilweekly/files/...ion-view_6.jpg
luc.edu


I'm digging the Neo-Streamline Moderne tack Loyola is taking with these new buildings. FAR more handsome than Regis or Simpson or some of the other ugly purple brick monsters Loyola has built in the past 20 years. Looks like Brosko has outdone himself again.

Yes, I am a current student and I write for the Phoenix so I know about things before they are publicized usually.

If the concern is that a zoning increase would create pressure to demolish existing quality vintage buildings, why not just landmark those quality buildings?

^Defensible landmark criteria (famous architect, remarkable architectural design, association with historic event or person, etc.) pose too high a hurdle for ordinary urban fabric. And, of course, Chicago is trapped in this riptide due to the unresolved Hanna lawsuit, so it can't really landmark any new districts at the moment.

Some cities use a conservation district overlay for such areas.

Sound decision. Even if that particular intersection is slow to develop, you still have adequate proximity Logan Square and a plethora of transit options.

Curious, who is the alderman for that area?

Pardon my ignorance but could you expound a little on this lawsuit?

Edit: Nevermind, found it. Curiously I actually have met this individual once or twice, but was not aware of this.
link for the curious:
http://www.iml.org/files/pages/1142/1-06-3348.pdf

Another concern is the impact this Division & Honore development would have, in terms of greater density and traffic pattern, on LaSalle II Magnet School right across the street to the west.^

There are like 4 different wards in the area. This area is a political clusterfuck of the city. Hopefully the new map has resolved this, here is the current ward lay out:

http://avondaleneighbors.files.wordp...-ward-map1.jpg
courtesy of Avondale Neighbors

The building on the corner possess quite a bit of original detailing and the condition seems okay. The rest of the attached structures look to be in bad shape and entirely unrecognizable from their original construction. But if I had to pick and choose what buildings I consider an unfortunate loss from infill development in just the past few years, these buildings wouldn't be it.

I really don't want to get into the specifics of historic preservation and landmarking. In general I personally like all "old buildings" which isn't a good metric, obviously.

I hate how traffic becomes such a concern for certain residents for a development as small as this. It's virtually impossible to measure on a building by building basis for residential unless it's a highrise. The only residents directly impacted are the neighbors that may see a garage entrance...oh the horror.

Right, don't we have landmark districts --- such as Milwaukee Avenue and East Village in close proximity to the proposed development --- where "contributing buildings" are landmarked despite lacking the traits you cite for individual landmarks?

Residential land use generates a negligible amount of traffic. Irrespective of residential density, any significant traffic potentially resulting from this development would be a result of the retail component. Whether or not its 39 units above the retail base or 52 would be close to a rounding error in a traffic study in an environment like this.

Buckman, this is a different Hanna lawsuit.

The Wicker Park and Ukrainian Village districts are pretty carefully drawn to only include structures with good historic integrity, even if they're not top-notch individual buildings. That's much more problematic on a commercial strip like Division, where a lot of renovation has taken place through the decades.

Most of the EVA's concerns seem legit but there is a 5 story building across the street...and another down the street. 4-5 floors should probably be the max for the corridor but I think the proposed is entirely acceptable provided they make the relatively minor changes asked for by the EVA.

As far as the only transit being the Division bus....what horseshit. Literally a 4-5 minute walk to the Blue Line if you're not moving all that fast.

True, retail traffic would have an impact. The only other real concern is the proposed parking entrance/exit directly across from the school. This block of Honore St. is the morning/afternoon pick-up & drop-off of Pre-K thru 4th grade students. This creates a double parking/gridlock nightmare on a daily basis. So compound any amount of newly created residential traffic, which now doesn't exist, and you have yourself a bigger pain in the ass than there already is.

I LMAO at those who are so flippant and opinionated about neighborhoods they don't live in or know little about.

You really don't need to live or know a lot about a particular neighborhood to make a casual assessment for a project like this.

It's not that large of a building. It's a given that street level program of this building will be retail.....which is replacing commercial use. It will likely have less of an impact as of what's there....truck docks for crying out loud!! You are replacing a lumber yard with a less intensive commercial use!

As for the residential component, we've pointed out it will have very little impact.

I read the residents' concerns and I believe a few points are valid. I'm happy they want no surface parking...about time more people stand up for this. The only point I disagreed on was the 4 vs 5 stories and concerns that this will create traffic problems.

Sorry if you felt my post was opinionated. I didn't realize commenting on development in someone else's neighborhood was disrespectful. I'll keep this in mind for all future gold coast / River North development.

Well it is another Antunovich building, so that's probably why.

Yeah, I noticed that. Says something about Antunovich...

In other cities, typically it's National Register districts that are drawn to only include buildings with good integrity. Local districts are typically broader to create a buffer, so that when noncontributing buildings are replaced, the infill is compatible and the district has cohesion. Chicago has not typically taken that approach. Integrity is an important consideration too, so a fairly typical collection of buildings that retains integrity can be significant as a good example of that form of development. But what might be a landmark-quality collection of commercial buildings in a suburb might not be sufficient in the city (which raises some interesting questions about annexed former suburbs).

That being said, I agree that this stretch of Division doesn't have enough going for it, and it would be a good conservation district, if we did that here.

No, it's a Berkelhamer building. Same guys that are doing SoNo II, and who (while working for Booth Hansen) did SoNo I.

Berkelhamer is based out of California, though, so they need Antunovich to be architect-of-record. Antunovich also served this role for SoNo II, and that building turned out pretty nicely.