CHICAGO | General Developments

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ it's not ideal, but at least it's not acres of surface parking. All in all if this is what it takes to help kick start this area then it's not a bad development.

but putting a 1 story retail structure right at the point of 6-corners is freaking horrible urban design. the whole damn thing doesn't need to be topped with residential floors, but the context and prominence of the 6-corners intersection demands that a taller structure be placed at the point to better hold the corner and define the the space around it. even just 3 or 4 floors of residential at the very NW corner would do wonders for that scheme.

it's sad that we'll also lose the stunning old banking hall deep within that BofA building. the exterior of the existing building is nothing special, but that old banking hall sure is.

[King of Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but putting a 1 story retail structure right at the point of 6-corners is freaking horrible urban design. the whole damn thing doesn't need to be topped with residential floors, but the context and prominence of the 6-corners intersection demands that a taller structure be placed at the point to better hold the corner and define the the space around it. even just 3 or 4 floors of residential at the very NW corner would do wonders for that scheme.

it's sad that we'll also lose the stunning old banking hall deep within that BofA building. the exterior of the existing building is nothing special, but that old banking hall sure is.

Exactly; why bother tearing all that down, just to replace it with a one-story structure? It really makes no sense to me. You would think that the developer sees more profit potential by going at least four of five stories. Makes no sense.

[King of Chicago]

Speaking of six-cornered intersections, has anyone heard or seen any possible proposals for the parking lot at the corner of Chicago and Milwaukee Avenues? I am speaking about the lot that sits between the Subway restaurant and the Big Shoulders Coffee Shop. Seems to me, that that lot would be a prime spot for a really interesting building! I am not an architect, but I have my own vision for an interesting building that could be built there, that would help to make that an amazing intersection once again.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by King of Chicago

Speaking of six-cornered intersections, has anyone heard or seen any possible proposals for the parking lot at the corner of Chicago and Milwaukee Avenues? I am speaking about the lot that sits between the Subway restaurant and the Big Shoulders Coffee Shop. Seems to me, that that lot would be a prime spot for a really interesting building! I am not an architect, but I have my own vision for an interesting building that could be built there, that would help to make that an amazing intersection once again.

There is something big planned right nearby:
http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2014/...rtment-retail-project-moving-forward.php

Getting rid of the lot you are thinking of would be great though

[marothisu]

In other news, the Bridgeport boat houses designed by Studio Gang received their construction permits on Thursday.

[marothisu]

367 W Locust (Locust & Sedgwick) - a 6 story, 45 unit building from Belgravia group, got its building permit yesterday. This replaces the former St. Dominic church and is right near that NEXT (or Avant) or whatever it's called tower currently going up. This is all on the former site of Cabrini Green.

[King of Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

There is something big planned right nearby:
http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2014/...rtment-retail-project-moving-forward.php

Getting rid of the lot you are thinking of would be great though

Thanks for posting this! Yes I had known about the Gonnella tear-down, but had never seen the renderings! It would also be great to the see the CVS get torn down and replaced with a TOD!! Let's make this intersection AWESOME again!!

[the urban politician]

I drove by the old "Kraft" warehouse on 18th St west of Halsted in Pilsen yesterday. Looks like a zoning change request was posted on the building requesting a change from manufacturing to B-something zoning. The plan is to rehab the property into a combination of about 22 apartments and ground level retail.

Definitely great to see.

[King of Chicago]

Has this ben discussed? I cannot believe that the Alderman would stop this development so that he can protect people's "views"....grrrr...


http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150909/...rth-condo-building-is-dead-alderman-says

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but putting a 1 story retail structure right at the point of 6-corners is freaking horrible urban design. the whole damn thing doesn't need to be topped with residential floors, but the context and prominence of the 6-corners intersection demands that a taller structure be placed at the point to better hold the corner and define the the space around it. even just 3 or 4 floors of residential at the very NW corner would do wonders for that scheme.

it's sad that we'll also lose the stunning old banking hall deep within that BofA building. the exterior of the existing building is nothing special, but that old banking hall sure is.

It's not surprising. As you know, I lived in that ward a decade ago, I know it well. The people who live over there hate everything, the new 4 story senior building behind the shopping center alone caused a major uproar; one person even saying at Plan Commission that it should not be built because "old people have lots of 🞵🞵🞵" claiming it would bring traffic from escorts and the like.

John Arena is a great alderman, and he gets it. He probably would support residential density here. But I assume the developer figured it wasn't worth the fight and going through additional rounds of community meetings if there wasn't a clear financial return with including other uses.

Sadly, I'm just happy its on the lot line for the entire street frontage, I guess I have set the bar that low...

[King of Chicago]

Here is another thing that is aggravating to me:


http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20151016/...square-lot-alderman-pushes-zoning-change

I used to live by here, and always wanted something built in this huge parking lot...I don't mind a garden, but can't they go ahead and allow a TOD to be built here, and just put the garden on the rooftop?? This is ridiculous!!

[Randomguy34]

I was looking through zoning changes on City Clerk and I saw that there have been a lot of rehab projects using the new TOD ordinance so that they would have little to no parking for the project. It seems that the ordinance is not only helping for new TOD construction, but also for small rehabs that saw parking as cost prohibitive.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

I was looking through zoning changes on City Clerk and I saw that there have been a lot of rehab projects using the new TOD ordinance so that they would have little to no parking for the project. It seems that the ordinance is not only helping for new TOD construction, but also for small rehabs that saw parking as cost prohibitive.

Interesting. I will keep that in mind....

[marothisu]

Part of Open House Chicago, I went to the New Regal Theater on 79th. Man, what a great theater. Really nice inside - it was purchased a year or so ago and the rumor was by Jay-Z but not the case. It was purchased by a 30 year old guy who grew up right there who's been rehabbing places in the general area (i.e. woodlawn, south shore) for a few years to revitalize certain areas. Apparently it's set to re-open sometime next year. Really glad after having visited it. This place should be shown off as much as any theater in town. Hope it can come back with a vengeance.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

I was looking through zoning changes on City Clerk and I saw that there have been a lot of rehab projects using the new TOD ordinance so that they would have little to no parking for the project. It seems that the ordinance is not only helping for new TOD construction, but also for small rehabs that saw parking as cost prohibitive.

The parking reductions are available to all transit served B,C,D,M districts. So if parking was the limiting factor, no zoning change would be required. If they are asking for a change, it is probably to avail themselves of a new use, increased floor area or a higher unit count and not reduced parking.

That said, we have seen an uptick in adaptive reuse projects. Particularly on pre-ordinance, lot line, all commercial buildings where new residential uses could not avail themselves of the parking credit for the most recent use.

These are often built in excess of current zoning and require a change to bring them into conformity before a permit can be issued. My own thought is that sort of flexibility should be available from the administrator and not require a map amendment, but for the last five or six years, they've been busting people's chops for the stupidest things on non-conformities.

[Near North Resident]

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/radical-visions-of-chicagos-future-skyline/#slide-x

interesting theoretical never gonna happen type stuff thought I would share

[jbermingham123]

^^^ Ahhh ya beat me to it

From above article:

[ardecila]

Yeah, saw that at the cultural center today. Reminds me of Puerto Madero in Buenos Aires. Other than boxing in Grant Park to be like Central Park, I'm not sure I see the need for anything like that.

We don't need more land in Chicago. There is a bottomless supply of land near transit stations that could be built densely if only the zoning codes allowed it. This proposal is an engineering solution to a political problem, and it would be fantastically costly when you factor in the cost of the infrastructure needed to serve that high density.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yeah, saw that at the cultural center today. Reminds me of Puerto Madero in Buenos Aires. Other than boxing in Grant Park to be like Central Park, I'm not sure I see the need for anything like that.

We don't need more land in Chicago. There is a bottomless supply of land near transit stations that could be built densely if only the zoning codes allowed it. This proposal is an engineering solution to a political problem, and it would be fantastically costly when you factor in the cost of the infrastructure needed to serve that high density.

It wouldn't even solve a political problem - it would create far harder political problems. If you think it's hard to get the City Council to open up density near neighborhood train stations, I can't even imagine the political issues caused by eviscerating the "open, free and clear" lakefront laws. Building out the infrastructure would be expensive, but not necessarily more expensive than building on existing sites since it's all essentially greenfield, but as you noted, we don't need land that badly and the political questions around doing that to the lakefront would be (justifiably) impossible to overcome - imagine the opposition to the Lucas Museum multiplied by 1,000. I think less than half of Chicagoans object to the location of the Lucas Museum, but I think less than 10% would support a plan to add a business district to the east of Grant Park, even if our regional economy were growing at 10%+ per year (which it obviously isn't).

[Baronvonellis]

I'm not sure what they are even trying to accomplish with that? You'd have to build some kind of subway underneath that area to service all the people and jobs and to connect to the rest of the city. On the left side of the map you can even see that giant empty grass lot almost the same size that could be built up as well. There is already so much vacant land around Chicago to last for 100 years. Maybe if the economy started booming like Houston, in 100 years that might be feasible, but we'd all be dead by then so why worry about it now!