CHICAGO | General Developments

[Buckman821]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Ahh, I got it. I don't know, while there are some old buildings being demo'd it adds a good amount of vertical density to the block, in addition to some office space. I don't understand why the first 2 levels look so crummy, but all in all I don't think it's too bad

Agreed. The design of the new building is truly pathetic, but even so, this version is way way better than the last.

Kudos to Kemachs on the walgreens comparison, there is no reason the same effect cannot be achieved at the Albany Park location. When I have a little more time after Christmas I'll write the Alderman, I think others should as well.

[markh9]

Renovations on the Milwaukee Ave storefronts





Previously....

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Reilly's recent newsletter proudly boasts of the ordinance he introduced to downzone the Village Theater/Elly's site at Clark & North from B3-5 to B3-3. I can't tell if that already passed, or if it will be on the next meeting agenda - can any one confirm?

Originally Posted by Loopy

Is it legal to downzone a property while it is under-contract to a developer?

Downzoning can sometimes be considered a 'taking' requiring just compensation, but my understanding is that such compensation is generally only due when an owner/developer can demonstrate that major costs and contractual obligations have been incurred on the assumption of the former zoning. Maybe one of the zoning/lawyerly gurus on the forum can clarify.

That said, can any one confirm whether Reilly's down zoning already took effect, or if it is on agenda for an upcoming meeting?

[the urban politician]

Has anyone beet to Eataly?

I was there last weekend and we enjoyed it. Definitely want to go again.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

New plan drops the additional story from the Eagle building on Broadway, but the new building design is even more of a turd now. http://james46.org/wp-content/upload...0/BROADWAY.pdf

I wouldn't worry about it just yet. This is not even a building design, it's just a conceptual rendering where existing building photos were cut and pasted over a really rough sketchup model.

The "rendering" you see does not indicate the final arrangement/size of windows, color of brick, or anything else beyond the rough massing of the building.

What I see is a sensitive strategy that puts parking underground, leaves the Eagle building alone, and gives a nice scale to Broadway.

[BWChicago]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I wouldn't worry about it just yet. This is not even a building design, it's just a conceptual rendering where existing building photos were cut and pasted over a really rough sketchup model.

The "rendering" you see does not indicate the final arrangement/size of windows, color of brick, or anything else beyond the rough massing of the building.

What I see is a sensitive strategy that puts parking underground, leaves the Eagle building alone, and gives a nice scale to Broadway.

Notably, the base treatment suggested here mimicks the eagle building where the previous rendering did not. That's what I found troubling.

[supertallchaser]

i need......new supertall

[BWChicago]

Originally Posted by supertallchaser

i need......new supertall

Well, you're in the <12 floors thread, so this isn't the place to fill your needs.

[marothisu]

I just realized Domus Group, the ones behind that nice 6 story 23 unit building from MK near the Chicago Brown Line stop, has been pretty busy in Ukrainian Village. They were trying to build about 41 total new units around Erie/Ohio & Damen. A few were withdrawn and others not.

1952 and 1956 for both Erie and Ohio = 3 story, 6 units each (24 total units). 17 other units next to these look like were withdrawn.

[the urban politician]

I was just reading about Chinese immigration to the US, and read that in 1983, many areas of Brooklyn were in horrible shape with large amounts of storefront vacancies. But around that time a large amount of Chinese immigration began. A major chunk of that immigration headed for New York, and now New York has not only the largest Chinese population in the nation, but has several "Chinatowns" which have revitalized whole areas in the outer boroughs.

Now I realize Chicago can never see New York's numbers, but even if our city got a proportion of such numbers (East Asians are relatively underrepresented among Chicago's migrants) that could do wonders for many of our declining areas on the south and west sides. I especially think Chicago is well positioned for this because our main Chinatown is already on the south side, so that could be the "starting point" if you will for further inroads into south side neighborhoods.

Our most recent 2 mayors have made trips to China encouraging investment in Chicago, but I kind of wonder if a more concerted effort could be made to actually market the region to migrants? The way I see it, immigration is probably the only thing that will really wake up these desperate areas of the south and west sides, and I think we are pretty much maxed out with how much we will benefit from Mexican/South American immigration.

Anybody have any knowledge or insight about this? If this should be launched into its own thread that's okay by me as well.

[ardecila]

It's already happening to some extent although not to the scale of Brooklyn. Chinatown has already expanded south to take over Armour Square (between the Dan Ryan and the NS railroad viaduct down to 4300S). Bridgeport was once the home of elderly Irish and Italian ethnics, but now those groups are just vestigial and the Chinese are growing fast southward.

It's not inconceivable that one day 63rd/Halsted in Englewood might become a Flushing-like Chinese hub if trends continue. I doubt Chinese will jump the Dan Ryan into Bronzeville or Washington Park, but those areas may eventually gentrify instead.

As others have pointed out on this forum, both Daley and Emanuel spent huge amounts of time and effort building ties with China, and we arguably have the strongest Chinese community between the coasts. If more paths open up for legal immigration, we may see a Brooklyn-like surge.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I was just reading about Chinese immigration to the US, and read that in 1983, many areas of Brooklyn were in horrible shape with large amounts of storefront vacancies. But around that time a large amount of Chinese immigration began. A major chunk of that immigration headed for New York, and now New York has not only the largest Chinese population in the nation, but has several "Chinatowns" which have revitalized whole areas in the outer boroughs.

Now I realize Chicago can never see New York's numbers, but even if our city got a proportion of such numbers (East Asians are relatively underrepresented among Chicago's migrants) that could do wonders for many of our declining areas on the south and west sides. I especially think Chicago is well positioned for this because our main Chinatown is already on the south side, so that could be the "starting point" if you will for further inroads into south side neighborhoods.

Our most recent 2 mayors have made trips to China encouraging investment in Chicago, but I kind of wonder if a more concerted effort could be made to actually market the region to migrants? The way I see it, immigration is probably the only thing that will really wake up these desperate areas of the south and west sides, and I think we are pretty much maxed out with how much we will benefit from Mexican/South American immigration.

Anybody have any knowledge or insight about this? If this should be launched into its own thread that's okay by me as well.

Chicago being in the middle of the Country is less likely to draw any huge number of Asian immigrants. There is a critical mass things happening with this type of migration as well. Meaning as more Asians migrate to the East and West Coasts that's where they are likely to continue to migrate being that their families are likely to be there as well. Either way I don't think any city should hang their hopes on migrants, and I don't think they would boost declining areas.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It's already happening to some extent although not to the scale of Brooklyn. Chinatown has already expanded south to take over Armour Square (between the Dan Ryan and the NS railroad viaduct down to 4300S). Bridgeport was once the home of elderly Irish and Italian ethnics, but now those groups are just vestigial and the Chinese are growing fast southward.

It's not inconceivable that one day 63rd/Halsted in Englewood might become a Flushing-like Chinese hub if trends continue. I doubt Chinese will jump the Dan Ryan into Bronzeville or Washington Park, but those areas may eventually gentrify instead.

As others have pointed out on this forum, both Daley and Emanuel spent huge amounts of time and effort building ties with China, and we arguably have the strongest Chinese community between the coasts. If more paths open up for legal immigration, we may see a Brooklyn-like surge.

Been happening - my old boss had problems with her English, not because she emigrated at 3 with parents that still to this day speak Cantonese, but because she learned English in Bridgeport.

[marothisu]

Well, the Asian population in Chicago is the fastest growing out of any group. Last census, the population increased by almost 20%. I don't know about immigration in this, but at least areas in Near North Side are becoming a lot more Asian. Some areas in Streeterville/Lakeshore East are basically around or over 20%. In the last year or so, I've noticed a lot more around including ones moving into my building. It's also true, Bridgeport is now 35% Asian and near Chinatown in Bridgeport is more like 65% Asian now. Even parts of McKinley Park are around 35% Asian now.



Part of the other problem is also companies and sponsorship. My last girlfriend was from SE Asia and came here on some special type of VISA. Once that expired, nobody wanted to hire her because "sponsorship costs money." When she offered to pay for it herself (her family is wealthy), many said "well, we don't know what to do because we've never done it, so no." Then there's many others who go to schools in surrounding areas who come to Chicago while in college and party/shop all the time and love the city. They want to live here, which they can on another special type of VISA for 12-18 months. After that, I imagine many in town get turned away because of the above whereas it seems NYC and LA are more eager to do it.

It sucks because my now ex girlfriend's dad was actually thinking of starting a business in Chicago just because his daughter was there, and another one of her friends' parents were going to start a restaurant (yes we know about the $500K investment and green card thing). When both of them couldn't get sponsored after their VISAs expired, that was off the table. I can't imagine how many others there are like this. I have a friend here now originally from SE Asia and a wealthy family whose parents are thinking about buying a house here just because their son is here. I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to start a business too.

If you are an international undergrad student too, chances are your parents have money. Tuition is way higher for international students even versus out of state. The local government should be doing more to encourage companies to sponsor the good ones because it can impact our economy in many positive ways - I know first hand.

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The way I see it, immigration is probably the only thing that will really wake up these desperate areas of the south and west sides, and I think we are pretty much maxed out with how much we will benefit from Mexican/South American immigration.

Anybody have any knowledge or insight about this? If this should be launched into its own thread that's okay by me as well.

BINGO! IMO it is the fastest way to revitalize these areas but, there are some major local structural problems. I have touched on this so many times and have discussed this with many community leaders. I know you are sick of me saying this but here are the major problems as I see it (one who works on the inside).

1.) Most political leaders will run away from this approach or will not address it. On the ward level it is a threat because the elected official will feel threaten by the newcomers. They fear losing their job and power in the long run. Political opponents will use this to their advantage by rallying existing residents around the fear of being displaced and rendered powerless. This attitude is more prevalent in neighborhoods that house the poor (it's real in the racially charged world of Chicago). However silly that may sound to you it is the truth. It's really human nature. White ethic enclaves in Chicago used terror tactics to prevent change. African Americans use political impediments. Politicians thrive on manipulating human nature. It works on the national and local stage.

2.) Newcomers usually move to communities that have a solid, older and fairly affordable housing stock. Most of the neighborhoods that you are speaking of have tons of vacant lots and plenty of deteriorated buildings. The housing stock has been greatly diminished. One would think with all the vacant land, there are opportunities to build lots of new apartments. That's where fact number one comes into play. No local politician, in those affected communities, is going to support new housing construction for newcomers. It will be seen as political suicide. Also, many of the few homeowners will bitch about too much rental housing being built. It's been my experience that politicians are cowards for not addressing this issue and residents (homeowners) are not living in reality. Most would rather see the community with an abundance of vacant lots rather than build apartments, especially affordable units.

3.) Crime and it's connection to Blacks. Need I say more. As a black man I find this offensive but, perception is reality. I don't believe education is a bigger problem than this fact.

There are many other issues that would also get in the way but I can't cover them all. Although the mayor knows immigration is important to the healthy of the city he will not aggressively promote the neighborhoods that would benefit from it the most because, it's a fight that he does not need.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by marothisu

It's also true, Bridgeport is now 35% Asian and near Chinatown in Bridgeport is more like 65% Asian now. Even parts of McKinley Park are around 35% Asian now.

Southward expansion is made difficult by the weird white-Irish enclave of Canaryville, which somehow managed to remain white and working-class through decades of white flight and racial tension that virtually eliminated all other such neighborhoods. To the west are some pretty strongly Latino neighborhoods, to the north is gentrified, and to the east is IIT and Bronzeville. The Asian community actually seems pretty boxed in, although it does look like Asians are winning ground to the east in Prairie Shores, Lake Meadows, and The Gap (anecdotally, a Chinese friend of mine visited Chicago and stayed with a cousin in Prairie Shores).

A visual aid:

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ Jesus, look how badly segregated the cook county jail up in Little Village is on this map. Our society is truly disgusting at times. We all tend to think that Chicago's neighborhoods tend to be pretty segregated, but look how Englewood gently fades into Marquette Park and then compare that to how sharply and purely black the jail is. And we wonder why African Americans are so systematically impoverished... We put them all in jail so how can we expect them to build stable lives for themselves.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

Chicago being in the middle of the Country is less likely to draw any huge number of Asian immigrants.

^ But this is not true. The story has been completely opposite for Indian/Pakistanis, of which the Chicago region has the 2nd or 3rd largest population (depending on how you define the San Francisco metropolitan area) in the US

Chicago also has one of the highest populations of Arabs (below NY, LA, and interestingly Detroit which is also in the middle of the country) in the US. In fact, if you add up Chicago and Detroit's number of Arab Americans, it is greater than NYC's. So more Arabs (which is kind of in Asia) have migrated to Chicago/Detroit than to America's premier immigrant hub, NYC.

So I see no reason why Asians cannot make their way to Chicago in very large numbers.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by urbanpln

BINGO! IMO it is the fastest way to revitalize these areas but, there are some major local structural problems. I have touched on this so many times and have discussed this with many community leaders. I know you are sick of me saying this but here are the major problems as I see it (one who works on the inside).

1.) Most political leaders will run away from this approach or will not address it. On the ward level it is a threat because the elected official will feel threaten by the newcomers. They fear losing their job and power in the long run. Political opponents will use this to their advantage by rallying existing residents around the fear of being displaced and rendered powerless. This attitude is more prevalent in neighborhoods that house the poor (it's real in the racially charged world of Chicago). However silly that may sound to you it is the truth. It's really human nature. White ethic enclaves in Chicago used terror tactics to prevent change. African Americans use political impediments. Politicians thrive on manipulating human nature. It works on the national and local stage.

2.) Newcomers usually move to communities that have a solid, older and fairly affordable housing stock. Most of the neighborhoods that you are speaking of have tons of vacant lots and plenty of deteriorated buildings. The housing stock has been greatly diminished. One would think with all the vacant land, there are opportunities to build lots of new apartments. That's where fact number one comes into play. No local politician, in those affected communities, is going to support new housing construction for newcomers. It will be seen as political suicide. Also, many of the few homeowners will bitch about too much rental housing being built. It's been my experience that politicians are cowards for not addressing this issue and residents (homeowners) are not living in reality. Most would rather see the community with an abundance of vacant lots rather than build apartments, especially affordable units.

3.) Crime and it's connection to Blacks. Need I say more. As a black man I find this offensive but, perception is reality. I don't believe education is a bigger problem than this fact.

There are many other issues that would also get in the way but I can't cover them all. Although the mayor knows immigration is important to the healthy of the city he will not aggressively promote the neighborhoods that would benefit from it the most because, it's a fight that he does not need.

^ Good points, but as Ardecila has pointed out some of these barriers can still be broken, as evidenced by the increasing Asian presence in Bronzeville which is a historically black area and which still suffers from crime.

[UPChicago]

Maybe I'm off base but what matters in revitalization is the income and education level of the area's new residents. If Asians move in and build up the South and West sides but their income isn't much more than Latinos or African Americans or they aren't creating high paying jobs, whats the real point or benefit? Would courting Asian migrants expand the tax based enough to be beneficial to the City or would it only boost population? I would rather see the City try to court the educated youth of the Midwest than a particular minority group. Plus the South Side east of the Dan Ryan and near the lake will naturally gentrify and develop on its own.