CHICAGO | General Developments

[King of Chicago]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I am skeptical. East Garfield Park would probably be the first largely black neighborhood in Chicago history to gentrify*. The Census tracts west of Damen are all 70% black or higher.

The neighborhood has a lot of things working against it... It doesn't have a lot of commercial space; the old shopping district along Madison was largely wiped out, as were a lot of corner store buildings. That means it's not really walkable. It's somewhat isolated from other trendy areas too. There's an industrial corridor separating it from Ukrainian Village, the United Center parking crater separating it from West Loop, and the Eisenhower separating it from Tri-Taylor.

I hope I'm wrong... EGP has some of the most beautiful residential architecture in the city, much of it built by the long-lost West Side Jewish community.

* = South Loop did gentrify heavily and once was a majority Black area, but it was never really a "neighborhood" at all before gentrification took hold, as the residential population was so tiny.

Personally, I think that the parking crater around United Center is going to fill in and become a full-blown walkable neighborhood, with retail/services etc. I would LOVE to see the BRT line run all the way to Damen and beyond, and also have a BRT lane *on* Damen running all the way up to Lincoln Square and beyond! The thought of BRT lanes all over this city make me DROOL

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by King of Chicago

Personally, I think that the parking crater around United Center is going to fill in and become a full-blown walkable neighborhood, with retail/services etc. I would LOVE to see the BRT line run all the way to Damen and beyond, and also have a BRT lane *on* Damen running all the way up to Lincoln Square and beyond! The thought of BRT lanes all over this city make me DROOL

I've heard about the UC parking lots there's something working against us there - though I can't really divulge any other information

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I've heard about the UC parking lots there's something working against us there - though I can't really divulge any other information

Most of those lots are under the original PD agreement which requires 4100 spaces.
If the CTA would put a frickin station at Paulina and Madison, they might be able to get a reduction under the TOD ord, but the required parking is in excess of normal mins for this use (1/10 capacity), so how the math would pan out for the reductions is anybody's guess.

The best you could hope for in the near future is the consumption of the handful of private lots nearby.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

Most of those lots are under the original PD agreement which requires 4100 spaces.

Could not garages replace some of the lot spaces?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

Could not garages replace some of the lot spaces?

Then what? Developers don't just build stuff only for the common good. There has to be money to be made. They aren't going to build anything unless they can actually make money.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Then what? Developers don't just build stuff only for the common good. There has to be money to be made. They aren't going to build anything unless they can actually make money.

Well, quite obviously, it would be part of a comprehensive plan for development of the site.
Regardless, it was just a question regarding meeting space requirements.

[the urban politician]

^ Exactly, it would only happen as a result of rising land values and higher development rights in lots adjacent to the new garages and.......

GASP! Here comes the evil part......

Higher rents!


Source

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

Could not garages replace some of the lot spaces?

Yes, but they are also limited by a low FAR for the net site area. (.6)

I don't know how much the existing development uses, but a relief letter from Patsy earlier this year said they have enough left over for their 5 story addition.

If more is left over, they could technically, double deck their parking, create a new subarea sized to leave their current developments in compliance with with that FAR under the reduced net site area. Spin off the subarea, get it cut out of the original PD and rezoned.

Understand though, PDs are not just a handshake agreement. They are binding contracts intended to run the life of the development.

On a project like the UC, the city might have sweetened the deal with City property, bonds, eminent domain and street vacation. These debts don't go away just because someone thinks they can make more money doing some thing else.

The only place I've been able to find where the city allowed a major dissection of a PD is at 63rd and Halsted. and in that case every subsequent development was negotiated under the terms of the original PD and then cut out. Even after most of the original development was demolished.

[ardecila]

Ok, but assuming the ownership wanted to establish a large mixed-use development on the parking lots, wouldn't politics trump procedure? The ownership has a lot of clout and resources, so I'm sure they could reach a mutually acceptable plan with the alderman. After that, any objections from Planning are just speedbumps, right?

A development would bring far more tax revenue to the city than the ocean of parking lots. I can't imagine fans complaining about parking in a handful of large garages instead of the current surface lots.

Proper planning doctrine these days generally calls for urban stadiums to be integrated into neighborhoods. Hell, even DETROIT understands this and they are planning an entertainment district around the new Red Wings arena.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by bcp

Yes...if Chicago process is so grey at times...why does the PD sounds so iron clad?

Most cities moving toward more flexibility than "zoning is law" to support good design, context driven planning, and recognizing areas of change.

We just can't put suburb the suburbs...(see clyborne).

While I generally agree that suburban style developments should be discouraged and/or limited to the suburbs, there's definitely a real need for larger retailers in the City. I'm not an expert on American shoppers, but my theory is as more purchases are completed online, stores will begin to act as "show rooms" for shoppers. Much like people already do now, you'll walk into a store, find a brand you like, compare its price online, and if cheaper (as it typically is), make the purchase online.

As for all the New City bashing, this is the United States. People have cars. I agree there should be FAR LESS parking required for new developments, but I think that's something we'll need to phase out over time. I'm not sure on the ratio of parking stalls to retail/residential square feet, but I'm assuming it's significantly lower than you'd see out in the burbs.

[King of Chicago]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Ok, but assuming the ownership wanted to establish a large mixed-use development on the parking lots, wouldn't politics trump procedure? The ownership has a lot of clout and resources, so I'm sure they could reach a mutually acceptable plan with the alderman. After that, any objections from Planning are just speedbumps, right?

A development would bring far more tax revenue to the city than the ocean of parking lots. I can't imagine fans complaining about parking in a handful of large garages instead of the current surface lots.

Proper planning doctrine these days generally calls for urban stadiums to be integrated into neighborhoods. Hell, even DETROIT understands this and they are planning an entertainment district around the new Red Wings arena.

What I am thinking, is that if there is money to be made (a LOT of money), then the powers-that-be can alter agreements to accommodate the new market situation. If they see a financial advantage to building on existing parking lots, then they can alter the agreement.

Of course, if people refuse to drive to the UC, then the parking is no longer profitable, and there will be more and more of an incentive to build them out.

[ithakas]

Source: http://www.hparchitecture.com/projects/commercial/retail/620-west-diversey/

New?

I like that this proposal replaces part of the existing footprint of an older high rise to the east. Seems like there is a lot of opportunity to do this in town, with much of the 70s/80s high rise stock. Ie:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8964958,...5BJgkglgNQIwg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

[ChickeNES]

Originally Posted by ithakas

Source: http://www.hparchitecture.com/projects/commercial/retail/620-west-diversey/

New?

I like that this proposal replaces part of the existing footprint of an older high rise to the east. Seems like there is a lot of opportunity to do this in town, with much of the 70s/80s high rise stock. Ie:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8964958,...5BJgkglgNQIwg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

That's pretty great IMO, much better than what is there now. Looks like the height is constrained by not wanting to block any additional windows (Only the top 4 floors of that side of the existing building have windows).

[Arm&Kedzie]

Re - UC parking lots. Two large lots will be eaten up (one currently already in site-prep) for the UC extension that will house the offices for the teams and a second lot for the Blackhawks Practice Facility. I think these two developments alone will already make a large impact. It is only a matter of time before the remaining lots are built into structures and that prime real estate is opened for development. I would wager during the next cycle.

[marothisu]

FYI - my source mentioned something else not mentioned for why they won't be built on anytime soon. Hope the source is wrong though! Can't say anything else - just hope they're wrong

[Jibba]

edit

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by ChickeNES

That's pretty great IMO, much better than what is there now. Looks like the height is constrained by not wanting to block any additional windows (Only the top 4 floors of that side of the existing building have windows).

That's been on the books for a while now. From what I understand, the impetus for the construction was the securing of Walgreen's for the ground floor (which is now null as of their relocation to the old Borders space across the street). I believe they are awaiting a ground-floor lessee to get the project going, but I really don't know at this point. No demo or building permits have been issued yet.

[Ned.B]

Originally Posted by ChickeNES

That's pretty great IMO, much better than what is there now. Looks like the height is constrained by not wanting to block any additional windows (Only the top 4 floors of that side of the existing building have windows).

It's also part of PD 306 with the tower next door. They were granted a relief back in 2009 to add more units. This may be as many as they could get.

It's not a new proposal. some version of design has been around for 6 years. But it does look a little different from the elevations presented in the PD package:

https://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/gisimages/zoning_pds/PD306.pdf

[the urban politician]

The Diversey project is an old proposal. I have no clue why it hasn't stated construction yet. They were waiting for Walgreens to move out, which they did long ago.

[UrbanLibertine]

Originally Posted by Arm&Kedzie

Re - UC parking lots. Two large lots will be eaten up (one currently already in site-prep) for the UC extension that will house the offices for the teams and a second lot for the Blackhawks Practice Facility. I think these two developments alone will already make a large impact. It is only a matter of time before the remaining lots are built into structures and that prime real estate is opened for development. I would wager during the next cycle.

The Blackhawks Practice Facility is not going on an existing parking lot.