CHICAGO | General Developments

[marothisu]

^ so im a bit confused in general. Not saying this is bad - its good to demand more density. In general though how does this work? Let's say a developer has some land and zoning they need is already in place, but go to the neighborhood like this anyway with meetings. Even though they don't have to and could build. In this situation, what power does "the community doesn't support this " really have for something like this? Maybe an alderman can be an asshole and block future developments from them but I'm pretty sure blocking a company just because it's an entity you don't like is still illegal? Okay so people already there won't buy a new $2M condo and not support the non existent commercial space?

[the urban politician]

^ Yes, that’s a good point. I’m glad that they want more density, but my understanding is that zoning rules are such that you can always build less dense than existing zoning, but not more dense than it.

So by what means did a community process become required? That article didn’t really clear that up unless I missed something

[pip]

Yay! Glad to read that article

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Yes, that’s a good point. I’m glad that they want more density, but my understanding is that zoning rules are such that you can always build less dense than existing zoning, but not more dense than it.

So by what means did a community process become required? That article didn’t really clear that up unless I missed something

The site is split between two zoning categories: the Chicago Joe's building is B2-3, the parking lot is B1-1. The B1-1 side does not permit ground floor residential, so the developer requested that it be upzoned to match the other parcel for a unified development across both lots.

The B2-3 zoning the developer wants would allow up to 41 units with a TOD bonus, but he's only proposing to do 8 enormous luxury units (~3300 SF each) including two duplex-down units on the ground floor, hence the need for rezoning.

The developer is probably trying to ride the post-Covid SFH frenzy by providing "home replacement" 4-bed or 5-bed condos, just a few steps away from Coonley School. Ironically this type of development would be perfect for a side street in Northcenter, but can't be built there because it's all locked as RS-3 forever.

Originally Posted by marothisu

^ so im a bit confused in general. Not saying this is bad - its good to demand more density. In general though how does this work? Let's say a developer has some land and zoning they need is already in place, but go to the neighborhood like this anyway with meetings. Even though they don't have to and could build. In this situation, what power does "the community doesn't support this " really have for something like this? Maybe an alderman can be an asshole and block future developments from them but I'm pretty sure blocking a company just because it's an entity you don't like is still illegal? Okay so people already there won't buy a new $2M condo and not support the non existent commercial space?

It's not a spite move like other alders have done. The developer needs an upzoning to do what he wants, but he's not entitled to it - the Alderman won't grant the upzoning since it doesn't fit the community's goals. The developer still has the zoning that the property came with originally, and he is free to build whatever that zoning allows. Of course, the B1-1 side doesn't allow much of anything right now - you could put up a two-story building with commercial at ground floor and only 2 apartments above (likely not profitable to build this). The B2-3 side could go bigger, but that side isn't big enough by itself to allow the colossal units the developer wants to build.

Don't cry for the developer in this case, either he will pivot and make bank building a TOD midrise with smaller units, or he will flip the land for profit to another developer who got the message that Ald. Martin wants a substantial project here. He got egg on his face by trying a strategy that is a slamdunk in other North Side wards - threaten density, offer low-density alternative - but Martin (and apparently the community group) wants the opposite in this case.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

You've probably seen this article: https://newrepublic.com/article/1618...crisis-chicago

I believe that was originally published in the Chicago Reader.

[harryc]

April 23

[west-town-brad]

skinny mini

https://urbanize.city/chicago/post/t...icker-park-lot

[Busy Bee]

^It's not that skinny, or mini for that matter. But good nonetheless. We'll see how that blue stuff turns out.

[Klippenstein]

Quick background-
I just made this account, but I first lurked on this website about 15 years ago. I started regularly reading the forum again recently when I got a job mostly sitting around all day. Thanks to everybody who posts news and photo updates!

Anyway, I wanted to ask for advice. I live in South Chicago, one of the neighborhoods that was chosen as part of Invest South/West to receive a new development. If you’re not aware, the city released 3 proposals for the South Chicago site.

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/..._summaries.pdf

They are all lackluster and one seems to just be a placeholder created by UIC students. I am leaning towards preferring the first one, Steel City Apartments. Though it’s hard to say because they released limited information making it hard to compare. Do you all have thoughts on these proposals, things I should keep in mind when they reveal more details at the next community meeting (I hope) and/or possible issues I should bring up?

Thanks in advanced for any help.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Quick background-
I just made this account, but I first lurked on this website about 15 years ago. I started regularly reading the forum again recently when I got a job mostly sitting around all day. Thanks to everybody who posts news and photo updates!

Anyway, I wanted to ask for advice. I live in South Chicago, one of the neighborhoods that was chosen as part of Invest South/West to receive a new development. If you’re not aware, the city released 3 proposals for the South Chicago site.

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/..._summaries.pdf

They are all lackluster and one seems to just be a placeholder created by UIC students. I am leaning towards preferring the first one, Steel City Apartments. Though it’s hard to say because they released limited information making it hard to compare. Do you all have thoughts on these proposals, things I should keep in mind when they reveal more details at the next community meeting (I hope) and/or possible issues I should bring up?

Thanks in advanced for any help.

I see the second one has Dollop as a partner. I can't afford to regularly buy coffee from there, and I have a hard time imagining that it's the right fit for the community unless they're planning something quite different from their current offerings.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Quick background-
I just made this account, but I first lurked on this website about 15 years ago. I started regularly reading the forum again recently when I got a job mostly sitting around all day. Thanks to everybody who posts news and photo updates!

Anyway, I wanted to ask for advice. I live in South Chicago, one of the neighborhoods that was chosen as part of Invest South/West to receive a new development. If you’re not aware, the city released 3 proposals for the South Chicago site.

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/..._summaries.pdf

They are all lackluster and one seems to just be a placeholder created by UIC students. I am leaning towards preferring the first one, Steel City Apartments. Though it’s hard to say because they released limited information making it hard to compare. Do you all have thoughts on these proposals, things I should keep in mind when they reveal more details at the next community meeting (I hope) and/or possible issues I should bring up?

Thanks in advanced for any help.

I wouldn't say these are lackluster. The fact that buildings like this are even being proposed in South Chicago is remarkable. As you surely know, the area hasn't seen much new construction since the 1960s. And the designs are pretty nice, no fake red brick, fake traditional crap.

They're not highrises, but I wouldn't expect them to be. The Metra/bus service isn't good enough for most people to live without a car, so these buildings likely need parking... but highrises with parking are extremely expensive to build.

I prefer the 2nd one. Nice courtyard space off the street, and they're delivering more units at a lower cost than the first proposal. Of course, the first proposal is from an experienced developer (POAH) and the 2nd is not, so... grain of salt.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I wouldn't say these are lackluster. The fact that buildings like this are even being proposed in South Chicago is remarkable. As you surely know, the area hasn't seen much new construction since the 1960s. And the designs are pretty nice, no fake red brick, fake traditional crap.

They're not highrises, but I wouldn't expect them to be. The Metra/bus service isn't good enough for most people to live without a car, so these buildings likely need parking... but highrises with parking are extremely expensive to build.

I prefer the 2nd one. Nice courtyard space off the street, and they're delivering more units at a lower cost than the first proposal. Of course, the first proposal is from an experienced developer (POAH) and the 2nd is not, so... grain of salt.

Lackluster probably wasn’t the right word. I would be happy with either of these designs honestly. I guess neither of them stood out to me especially compared to some of the proposals I was seeing for other neighborhoods like Bronzeville for example. (https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/..._summaries.pdf)

I hear what you are saying about cost to unit ratio, but I think that might actually come down to the fact that the unit size of that building is substantially smaller. On average less than 1000 square feet. I think that design would be less family friendly. The first design also has a courtyard with a kids area/potential stage and open space at the corner intersection, which makes sense because the block south of this is very active commercially.

Thanks for engaging me with this. It really helped me flesh out my thoughts.

[ardecila]

OK, some of that is likely driven by building size, a midrise will have more visual impact than a lowrise so it feels more splashy. I think for each RFP the city outlined the scale of development they were looking for, based on the surrounding urban fabric so the RFP respondents were just following the rules.

South Chicago is just physically a lot less dense than Bronzeville so the city thought a 3-4 story building would be more appropriate than a 7-8 story building. And possibly in South Chicago they didn't want the new development to overshadow the IC church a few doors down, which is an important landmark.

Bronzeville might have more physical density than South Chicago (larger buildings, more units per acre) but populationwise the density is actually the same between the neighborhoods, because Latinos tend to live in larger households than African-Americans. Both sites are in census tracts with about 23,000 people per square mile. So probably larger units make sense in South Chicago, fair point. Still these costs are out of control, it should not cost $600,000 to build a 3-bedroom apartment when a 5-bedroom house in the suburbs sells for $300,000 and that includes developer profit.

[Ned.B]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Still these costs are out of control, it should not cost $600,000 to build a 3-bedroom apartment when a 5-bedroom house in the suburbs sells for $300,000 and that includes developer profit.

Ardecila, admittedly I mostly know the NW Indiana market, so there may be some suburbs that are an exception to this, but it general no one is building 5 bedroom houses for $300,000 anymore, and they haven't been for some time. Three years ago, you might have been been able to buy an extremely basic mass produced 4 bd 2800 sf house for $350-375, but as I look this morning with rising prices, the production builders that throw up houses in this area have prices starting at $400,000 for a house of that size and as you add upgrades that price quickly gets to $500,000. Another semi-custom builder that we looked into a few years ago currently has houses starting at $600,000 for the same size with a half brick exterior, clad wood windows, upgraded finishes, etc.

Multi-family buildings don't compare for costs once you add in all masonry exteriors and full height aluminum window systems like these projects are showing, elevators, rated stair towers, fire suppression systems if they have them, any sort of steel or metal construction, security systems, city regulations and taxes, etc.

[ardecila]

^ That's true but some of the high prices for tract homes right now reflect temporary labor shortage, elevated Covid demand, higher lumber prices, etc. They are high compared to historical trends.
Obviously a midrise multifamily building will always be more expensive to build.

Another way to look at is per SF though, the "affordable" project is 4x the cost/SF as a "luxury" home in the suburbs.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ That's true but some of the high prices for tract homes right now reflect temporary labor shortage, elevated Covid demand, higher lumber prices, etc. They are high compared to historical trends.
Obviously a midrise multifamily building will always be more expensive to build.

Another way to look at is per SF though, the "affordable" project is 4x the cost/SF as a "luxury" home in the suburbs.

You weren't necessarily that far off to begin with.
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Robbins/37...home/174803813
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Robbins/13.../home/12995233
https://www.redfin.com/IL/LYNWOOD/20...home/162225445

[SIGSEGV]

Restoration Of 35 Historic But Vacant Pullman Row Houses Underway
The homes, which have sat vacant for decades, will be restored and sold as affordable housing.

https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/04...uses-underway/

I assume this is talking about buildings like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7027...7i16384!8i8192

[jc5680]

From over at Urbanize, a habitable billboard. Surely, an improbable long shot, but sign me up for super weird park space ideas.

Several more renderings in the article, they were a tad unwieldy to post here without resizing.

Developer envisions 'habitable billboard' and park atop the Kennedy Expressway

R2 Companies wants to build a striking retail space and landscaped pedestrian connection on a parking lot above Hubbard's Cave

A Chicago developer has set its sights on transforming a parking lot on top of the Kennedy Expressway into a one-of-a-kind "experiential" retail space and a park-like pedestrian connection between the Fulton Market and Fulton River districts.

R2 Companies is hoping to attract a well-known brand or benefactor to create what it calls a "habitable billboard." The plan calls for a low-density building of up to 12,500 square feet and conceals on-site parking beneath a green roof that will step up and connect to the Halsted Street viaduct.

[ardecila]

Wow, we were just talking about this lot a few days ago. I'm glad R2 is thinking outside the box; I assumed the only realistic development possibility was a long-span parking garage.

The structural on this would be interesting, trying to hang this from a bridge over the Kennedy. Of course, the bridge structure was designed to hold a railyard back in the day so I'm sure there's enough capacity.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Restoration Of 35 Historic But Vacant Pullman Row Houses Underway
The homes, which have sat vacant for decades, will be restored and sold as affordable housing.

https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/04...uses-underway/

I assume this is talking about buildings like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7027...7i16384!8i8192