CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 1544

SamInTheLoop · #**30861** Posted **Oct 7, 2015, 2:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

And this surprises you?

Yeah.....sigh......anybody who is the slightest bit surprised by this simply has not been paying attention.......

SamInTheLoop · #**30862** Posted **Oct 7, 2015, 2:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

While it's nauseating, this clearly is a placeholder development. They aren't convinced there is a strong enough market to go for the dense mega development and they surely feel they've got to do something to start getting a return on their investment. I think we ALL knew the vision would be a couple decades away. These throwaway retail structures will be easily redeveloped when serious momentum for something closer to the vision occurs in the future.

Is it better than an empty field? It depends I suppose. It — but I'm not going to loose sleep over it.

Just as a general reminder, in terms of getting a return on the investment here.......I find it likely that McCaffery doesn't own any of this land - at least not yet. It's probably all USX-owned still, no? If anybody knows otherwise, please correct me!

SamInTheLoop · #**30863** Posted **Oct 7, 2015, 3:06 PM**

.....in Lincoln Park.....about 200,000 sq ft.....build-to-suit project, no renderings in article, at least as of yet........tenant is moving this office 1/2 mile north from existing Lincoln Park location.....

Above all reported in Crain's this morning......

SamInTheLoop · #**30864** Posted **Oct 7, 2015, 3:09 PM**

Bond Companies is the new developer of the site at 1001 W. Chicago (Gonnella). Looking to begin construction of this ~360 unit apartment project in the next 5-6 months.....

Near North Resident · #**30865** Posted **Oct 7, 2015, 3:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias

The trouble is they still haven't addressed the transportation questions. To attract sufficient people who earn the kind of money needed to pay for that area, it's pretty much a requirement to have fast, regular transit service to the Loop. I mean, Metra Electric from 87th is 35 minutes, which seems decent until you realize it's going to take you 15 minutes from most of the site to get to the current station and 5-10 minutes on the other end to get to the office, so you're looking at an hour commute with lots of walking or transfers. And then the last train from downtown departs at 7:15pm after which you're looking at at least an hour on transit, again on top of whatever it takes to get to each station. That's just not going to cut it for most people when you're not in a town surrounded by farmland and near an expressway, but in an enclave surrounded by unstable neighborhoods at least a couple miles from the nearest expressway.

I mean, without transit being a solid part of the initial plans, even if not fully implemented, but well-considered, I don't see this becoming even as dense as the surrounding area, let alone as dense as the vision plans.

People that will be working in this 'development' will be the ones taking the south shore train... not shoppers... there's 8 bajillion other places closer to the loop to shop for people that live in the loop. Shoppers will be driving. If you've ever been around the area, everyone drives, its a fact of life here. Traffic ain't even that bad since the population density is so low.

OrdoSeclorum · #**30866** Posted **Oct 7, 2015, 3:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Bond Companies is the new developer of the site at 1001 W. Chicago (Gonnella). Looking to begin construction of this ~360 unit apartment project in the next 5-6 months.....

This might be the project I'm most excited to see get going. That stretch of Milwaukee and Chicago Aves would benefit from some activation. And another 600 residents would be a great start.

VKChaz · #**30867** Posted **Oct 7, 2015, 7:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

I sense panic. Not completely unfounded panic but panic nonetheless. ... I think its definitely unfortunate for the the city and people who care for urban planning

Like others have said, when the demand comes along in however many years, the suburban-style retail can be scrapped.

My two cents: From an urban planning perspective, we may be better off w/o significant housing development on this property right now - 1) so we can instead focus investments into rehab and fill-in housing in existing neighborhoods (including where there is a catalyst like the Presidential Library) instead of developing what is effectively an entirely new area and 2) I don't know that we ever gained a good understanding of what effect dropping all the planned housing into the area would have on other neighborhoods - e.g., would it reduce demand and cannibalize those neighborhoods

J_M_Tungsten · #**30868** Posted **Oct 7, 2015, 11:03 PM**

Today
Restoration Hardware is open (or really close to it) in the restored Three Arts Buildings. I think it turned out pretty nice. The lighting is good and the signage is pretty tasteful, IMO.

The Corner Bakery, Big Bowl, and Da Lobsta are just about gone.

BrinChi · #**30869** Posted **Oct 8, 2015, 1:48 AM**

Not sure if this was ever posted. Third sub-phase of the redevelopment of the Rockwell Gardens Chicago Housing Authority public housing:
development.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/tif/T_095_CityGardensAptsCDC.pdf

is this a good or bad thing? is there any evidence that this model of mixed income housing is working?

oshkeoto · #**30870** Posted **Oct 8, 2015, 5:03 AM**

^ I mean, what do you mean by "working"? It's creating affordable homes and is in many parts of the city the only construction, and vacant-lot-filling, that's happening at all. That's basically enough for me to be on net in favor.

lu9 · #**30871** Posted **Oct 8, 2015, 1:40 PM**

Permit issued yesterday for Congress Theater (2135 N Milwaukee)- repair/reset loose terra cotta and tuckpointing. Est. cost $525,000.

image: wbez.org

spyguy · #**30872** Posted **Oct 8, 2015, 4:53 PM**

101 North Avenue

Looks mildly better from the initial design I remember

SamInTheLoop · #**30873** Posted **Oct 8, 2015, 5:09 PM**

^ Yeah, I saw on Crain's they just launched sales of the units....33 in total.

Agree that this is improved from the earlier version, however, of course it was almost impossible to get any worse. The wrought iron and the base are beyond silly and archaic.....

Rizzo · #**30874** Posted **Oct 8, 2015, 5:43 PM**

The rounded masonry corners at least are a pleasant surprise. I don't like those rounded balaconies though. Cantilevered masonry monoliths look so foreign on classical designs

the urban politician · #**30875** Posted **Oct 8, 2015, 5:44 PM**

^ Yep, but it's nice to get some density at that corner

Ned.B · #**30876** Posted **Oct 8, 2015, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayward

The rounded masonry corners at least are a pleasant surprise. I don't like those rounded balaconies though. Cantilevered masonry monoliths look so foreign on classical designs

It's not completely without precedence. Check out this trio of three flats on Melrose in Lakeview: 439 W Melrose

Actually, if I had to guess, this project is trying to Riff of the Vintage condo building at State and Astor.

XIII · #**30877** Posted **Oct 8, 2015, 6:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

101 North Avenue

Looks mildly better from the initial design I remember

They should just rebuild the Plaza Hotel there

Jibba · #**30878** Posted **Oct 8, 2015, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ned.B

It's not completely without precedence. Check out this trio of three flats on Melrose in Lakeview: 439 W Melrose

Actually, if I had to guess, this project is trying to Riff of the Vintage condo building at State and Astor.

I think they're OK. That the moulding on them isn't contiguous with the courses looks awkward, though. There also shouldn't be courses every two stories. The parapet is going to end up too indelicate-looking, most likely. But the rounded masonry around the elevations and the way the windows are disposed is pleasantly modern and reasonably well-proportioned. If they were to trim away the un-needed BS, we'd have a decent building here.

emathias · #**30879** Posted **Oct 8, 2015, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

People that will be working in this 'development' will be the ones taking the south shore train... not shoppers... there's 8 bajillion other places closer to the loop to shop for people that live in the loop. Shoppers will be driving. If you've ever been around the area, everyone drives, its a fact of life here. Traffic ain't even that bad since the population density is so low.

I guess I wasn't clear, I was referring to the needs of the larger, overall development, not the current retail portion. For there to be the dense development for the entire site to be successful, good transit to the rest of the city, or at least to the Loop will be essential for success. If transit isn't there, density won't happen.

Via Chicago · #**30880** Posted **Oct 8, 2015, 9:05 PM**

Trib Tower is up for sale

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-tribune-tower-redevelopment-1009-biz-20151008-story.html

edit: nm, see this was covered in the highrise thread