CHICAGO | Lincoln Yards

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Natoma

I don't know how you can possibly think Sterling Bay is the villain here. This whole thing was set up by the city, and it's going exactly to plan.

Manufacturing hasn't made sense in this location for decades. The city could have let property owners sell when they wanted to, and have the area develop piecemeal. Instead, they kept the whole area intact and 'undeveloped' by protecting it as a manufacturing zone. And they waited until 2018, when all the surrounding neighborhoods were bursting at the seams, to free it up.

They basically guaranteed that it would a) be developed as one big project by a big developer under a big plan, and b) that it would be huge and dense and transformative.

SB is the villain because they're the one executing the plan. It would have been some other deep pocketed and connected developer if it wasn't them. But yeah, previous city decisions going back many years set the stage for this and we are now just viewing the third act.

[sammyg]

This area didn't need a big transformative development, it should have been developed piecemeal for the last 18 years in an organic way.

What was the last "transformative" megaproject that didn't end up lifeless and walled-off from the rest of the city?

[bnk]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You've gotta imagine that SB doesn't want to build more parking than it has to. Parking is costly dead weight that doesn't generate revenue other than just being an "amenity", sort of like a exercise room or a pool.

Shirley you can't be serious

https://www.bestchicagoproperties.co...parking-space/

And don't call me Leslie.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

And has absolutely no legal meaning. It's not an empty promise—it's not even a promise.

SB is the gambler, having placed a bet on the value of some North Side acreage. It paid off bigly.

As I mentioned before, the infrastructure, parkland and anything else to be funded out of TIF proceeds will be spelled out in an RDA to be approved later. But there can't be an RDA for a TIF district that doesn't yet exist. City Council must first approve the zoning, then the TIF district, then the RDA. All separate votes. Each step in theory offers the chance for public input, and it now seems highly unlikely that this will all be completed before May so we'll likely be dealing with a new mayor and City Council for some of these steps.

Of course, with the latest Solis revelations the new mayor and City Council may feel emboldened to revoke the zoning, assuming it does get approved by the entire Council this month.

[Mr Downtown]

I'm not asking what pot of money will be used to buy the grass seed—though it seems absurd to need a TIF for what any suburban developer does as a matter of course.

There's no land being dedicated for parks! Six thousand new market-rate units in the wealthiest part of the city, and no parkland. And 8000 new jobs in a location with no rapid transit.

Yup, that's some good city planning right there, and the only conceivable objection someone might have is that the developer will make a profit.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I'm not asking what pot of money will be used to buy the grass seed—though it seems absurd to need a TIF for what any suburban developer does as a matter of course.

There's no land being dedicated for parks! Six thousand new market-rate units in the wealthiest part of the city, and no parkland. And 8000 new jobs in a location with no rapid transit.

Yup, that's some good city planning right there, and the only conceivable objection someone might have is that the developer will make a profit.

I'm still confused. I am looking at the Lincoln Yards North PD right now and it includes a very clear open space plan showing the central park (which IIRC is designed by James Corner) and riverwalks on both sides of the river. Additional sections of the document mandate that Sterling Bay open each segment of riverwalk no later than one year after the river-adjacent building is completed. It seems very clear to me that Sterling Bay would have to go back to the well at City Council if they wanted to build anything other than a park in those locations, just as Magellan has needed to go back before City Council every time it wants to change course at Lakeshore East.

Lincoln Yards South is in a separate PD, but the version available online appears to date from last July before the stadium was eliminated. Presumably City Council voted to approve a substitute ordinance for LY South (which has not yet been published online) reflecting the new kiddie sports park and increased development rights on adjacent parcels.


I agree with your transit critique, but it's not something that needs to be solved immediately. Early phases can be addressed through existing infrastructure and there is an infrastructure plan to handle future growth and, crucially, fund the improvements. Lincoln Yards won't go up overnight, it's not like Sterling Bay has a magical box that pops out anchor tenants. For later phases, I will wait to see what happens with the proposed transitway. That will be funded out of the same TIF (actually several TIFs along the North Branch) and planning of the transitway is being conducted by the city, not Sterling Bay. A high-capacity busway probably could transport a big chunk of those 8000 residents to the site, and early plans have indicated that this transitway will largely be ROW-separated and partially grade-separated from congested streets. There's also the possibility that a good chunk of new workers will live within the development and walk to work.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Reviewing, then: Sterling Bay buys a bunch of land at protected manufacturing district prices, then gets whirlwind approval for 6000 residential units, 1.3 million sf of office, and another 100,000 sf of retail—with absolutely no dedication for parkland and no commitment to improve transit access.

Who says we don't have legalized gambling in Chicago?

The city didn't want the property. I was at the meeting in November and the city really didn't want to deal with purchasing or maintaining parkland.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

The city didn't want the property. I was at the meeting in November and the city really didn't want to deal with purchasing or maintaining parkland.

Yeah not surprising, given that there is no need for more parkland in the area as I have mentioned before.

[the urban politician]

When NIMBYs ask for more parkland it’s really just a way to reduce density.

You always look better (and less like an obstructionist NIMBY) when you are for something than when you are against it.

“I’m not against new buildings! I just want there to be more parks!”

We all know that none of these people actually will visit these giant fields more than once a year if at all...

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

When NIMBYs ask for more parkland it’s really just a way to reduce density.

You always look better (and less like an obstructionist NIMBY) when you are for something than when you are against it.

“I’m not against new buildings! I just want there to be more parks!”

We all know that none of these people actually will visit these giant fields more than once a year if at all...

Well, they might get some use by youth sports groups in theory, but the aging boomers holding onto property in Lincoln Park/Ranch Triangle are childless or empty nesters, and they won't allow the housing supply to expand so young couples and young families can move in.

So, the only kids using this park will be driving in from other neighborhoods. Because what this city really needs is more soccer moms with minivans...

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I am looking at the Lincoln Yards North PD right now and it includes a very clear open space plan showing the central park... It seems very clear to me that Sterling Bay would have to go back to the well at City Council if they wanted to build anything other than a park in those locations.

Maybe so; that's why I began a few days ago by asking whether there's any parkland dedication. The only PD I can find is the document on Ald. Hopkins' website, which is many months old. But what's really odd is that there doesn't seem to be a Table of Uses indicating what is and isn't permitted on the various Parcels. Nor can I find any statement requiring actual public dedication of any parkland.

My point is that just coloring a green square on "the plan" doesn't make that area into public parkland.

[ardecila]

^ So you're upset that, while Sterling Bay does have a binding commitment to build parks and to keep them open to the public, they won't be deeded to and operated by the Chicago Park District?

It's really potato-potato for me who operates the park. I can understand why Sterling Bay doesn't want to turn their precious James Corner landscapes over to the cash-strapped Park District to maintain. The kiddie sports complex on the 2FM site is a different story, I'm sure the Park District could maintain it adequately. On the other hand, Sterling Bay could monetize those fields by charging youth and adult sports leagues for their use.

[Mr Downtown]

But where do you find "a binding commitment to build parks and to keep them open to the public?"

I freely admit I'm really apprehensive about quasipublic parks. I've had waaaay too many experiences with security guards deciding on the spot what you're allowed to do in them.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ So you're upset that, while Sterling Bay does have a binding commitment to build parks and to keep them open to the public, they won't be deeded to and operated by the Chicago Park District?

i have an FoiAIt's really potato-potato for me who operates the park. I can understand why Sterling Bay doesn't want to turn their precious James Corner landscapes over to the cash-strapped Park District to maintain. The kiddie sports complex on the 2FM site is a different story, I'm sure the Park District could maintain it adequately. On the other hand, Sterling Bay could monetize those fields by charging youth and adult sports leagues for their use.

The contractually binding portion of a PD are contained in the statements and the bulk and density table. The rest is just eye candy.

The documents available have no commitment to build parks or even a defined level of lot coverage. The only portion guaranteed to be available to the public is the portion of the riverwalk already required by ordinance.

I have an FOIA in for any edits. I'll let you know.

[Hourstrooper]

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/1/31...meeting-moreno


I hope rahm can get this thing thru the door before he leaves bc its a crapshow rn with all these alderman butting in.....

[k1052]

If Cappleman is actually going to wait until the community “buys in” then might as well stick a fork in this (or anything else here) forever. Having not slept through the local response to far more moderate redevelopments like Webster Square or CMH there is about zero probability the community would back anything but townhomes or SFHs.

I’m sure he can wring some more on site affordable housing out of SB but forget about community approval. Hell that might actually work more against it.

[rgarri4]

I added the Lincoln Yards to my 3d model with the current proposed heights and man is this project huge. I didn't realize how much this thing looms on the horizon until I modeled it. I can maybe understand how its controversial but I still really hope it gets built. It's like another skyline!

I wasn't able to get textures for all of the towers but it's all speculative anyways. Sorry if the video is jerky. I'm experimenting with a drone mode in the model for the first time.

• Video Link

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rgarri4

I added the Lincoln Yards to my 3d model with the current proposed heights and man is this project huge. I didn't realize how much this thing looms on the horizon until I modeled it. I can maybe understand how its controversial but I still really hope it gets built. It's like another skyline!

I wasn't able to get textures for all of the towers but it's all speculative anyways. Sorry if the video is jerky. I'm experimenting with a drone mode in the model for the first time.

• Video Link

Niiiice. Yeah that is big and it will add a new little dimension to everything. So, when are you making your model public?

[Busy Bee]

That's a beautiful thing.

[BonoboZill4]

That really does give good perspective for how big it'll be. Straight up looks like if your dropped a mid-sized Sunbelt city down along the North Branch... great post as always rgarri4!