CHICAGO | General Developments

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by kemachs

I'm wondering how far Old Town is from Lincoln/Wicker Park-like status.. given that the market in River North is on fire now, and the Gold Coast won't be building up much more because of strong NIMBYism. All of these new apartments on Wells could be a sign of more street/night life to come.

I really like the feel of the neighborhood now, but it's a 24 hr. neighborhood in some ways and sleepy in others. For better or worse, I can see it becoming much more of a destination nabe in the near future, which seems to have a domino effect.

Old Town is an interesting and quaint area with a decent amount of nightlife, but it needs to have a little more diversity in its nightlife if possible to elevate even more. It's definitely not for everyone. I have a coworker who just moved there from California who is non white, and within 3 weeks he wanted to move to another neighborhood because it wasn't diverse enough for him in both people and also nightlife. It is a good sign, however, that this area is having a few recent and nice developments. How much room is there for development though? There are some beautiful buildings in the area and they shouldn't be knocked down.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Hayward

What a welcome sight to see Wells in Oldtown reach full enclosure of that business district. I can walk from Division to north without looking at parking lots. Just imagine how that immediate area around this construction site will look when Atrium Village gets upgraded and possibly a new brown line station.

I know Cabrini Green area still has a lot to be desired but it's these scarred fringes in Gold Coast and Oldtown that have had me more concerned with a handful of surface lots and some unfortunate 1970's highrises.

Interestingly, in all of my Chicago adventures I perhaps have never walked Wells St in Old Town. I have driven through it many times, of course, and have never been a fan of the parking hell on the southern end of it.

I am also excited about how much it has developed recently, and perhaps when this project is done I will enjoy a thorough walk thru.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by kemachs

I'm wondering how far Old Town is from Lincoln/Wicker Park-like status.. given that the market in River North is on fire now, and the Gold Coast won't be building up much more because of strong NIMBYism. All of these new apartments on Wells could be a sign of more street/night life to come.

I really like the feel of the neighborhood now, but it's a 24 hr. neighborhood in some ways and sleepy in others. For better or worse, I can see it becoming much more of a destination nabe in the near future, which seems to have a domino effect.

I'm a little confused by your remark on NIMBYism. Sure there's a couple towers I think should be put up but there's not a whole lot of low quality sites left to build on. It's pretty much towers and old historic brownstones at this point. I'd hate to see any of these late 1800s structures demoed for some generic glass box. Despite what people think, the neighborhood has been relatively receptive to most taller stuff except along state and rush to keep Mariano park in scale between the 5-20 story range. Why kill off some of the better old buildings in exchange for height when there's opportunities to build taller stuff west? When I look out my window, all I see is 40+ story stuff built in the last 15 years. I can't imagine NIMBYs having that much of an effect.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I'm a little confused by your remark on NIMBYism. Sure there's a couple towers I think should be put up but there's not a whole lot of low quality sites left to build on. It's pretty much towers and old historic brownstones at this point. I'd hate to see any of these late 1800s structures demoed for some generic glass box. Despite what people think, the neighborhood has been relatively receptive to most taller stuff except along state and rush to keep Mariano park in scale between the 5-20 story range. Why kill off some of the better old buildings in exchange for height when there's opportunities to build taller stuff west? When I look out my window, all I see is 40+ story stuff built in the last 15 years. I can't imagine NIMBYs having that much of an effect.

Did you ever read the story about 65 E Goethe? That thing was NIMBY'd to death, until we got the 8 story building that sits there today.

[kemachs]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I'm a little confused by your remark on NIMBYism. Sure there's a couple towers I think should be put up but there's not a whole lot of low quality sites left to build on. It's pretty much towers and old historic brownstones at this point. I'd hate to see any of these late 1800s structures demoed for some generic glass box. Despite what people think, the neighborhood has been relatively receptive to most taller stuff except along state and rush to keep Mariano park in scale between the 5-20 story range. Why kill off some of the better old buildings in exchange for height when there's opportunities to build taller stuff west? When I look out my window, all I see is 40+ story stuff built in the last 15 years. I can't imagine NIMBYs having that much of an effect.

Not that I have a particular issue with the case of 65 E Goethe, there just seems to be an older, established, cozy feel to the neighborhood that those residents want to maintain. True there are existing towers with expensive units, but with limited available sites (as you mentioned) left to develop on, I don't see a lot of new apartments coming onto the market and Gen-X'ers moving in. If anything, new residential is likely to be high-end and "Second French Empire" style - not exactly what I was thinking in terms of new nightlife, young professionals, etc. I could be way off though, are many of your neighbors part of the under-30 crowd?

Btw, I 100% agree that the existing brownstones should stay. The juxtaposition of condo towers and elegant townhomes is wonderful and I would hate for the neighborhood to lose its character. I was just saying new apartment towers along the lines of 1225 and The Scott, with their target demographic, are likely to concentrate in the areas to the west of the GC. This due to both the lack of low-quality sites in GC and intense scrutiny over the few sites that can be redeveloped.


Edit: Interesting tidbit from a 2003 Trib article re: 65 East Goethe -

'The saga of 65 E. Goethe could be called "The Incredible Shrinking Building."

In 1996, the prime Gold Coast location was planned for a 32-story condo tower. Most of the units would offer views of Lake Michigan. But after meeting with the neighbors, Fordham voluntarily reduced the project to 26 stories. Later, the city downzoned the building to 18 stories and then to 12.

"A group of influential residents of the area raised a war chest to fight the project. They claimed their views would be obscured, construction would be noisy and the building would change the character of the neighborhood," said Carley.'

Textbook nimbys - granted it was almost 20 years ago and things may have changed. I'm sure some of these exist in Old Town as well, but as of now it hasn't been hindering any new development.

[Rizzo]

I think we're on the same page then. I know there's some proposals that have received an unfair amount of criticism. Its just that I feel things are so built out now that any future opposition will be based on preservation instead of height or appearance.

[r18tdi]

Speaking of Gold Coast NIMBYism, have any of you fine folks followed the drama surrounding Brendan Sodikoff's efforts to reopen the old Maxim's as a high-end supper club? He might as well have proposed a brothel/methadone clinic.

At a community meeting one cranky blue-hair said that reopening Maxim's (a preexisting subterranean art nouveau fine-dining restaurant, mind you) would ruin the "sacred historic nature of neighborhood." Guy literally used the word "sacred" three times! What a bunch of pompous blowhards they are.

I find that the majority of the Gold Coast NIMBYs tend to live in the ugliest, most run-down modernist high-rises built almost exclusively for unpleasant widows. They've even managed to push all Divvy stations out of their 'sacred' geriatric enclave.

[J_M_Tungsten]

^I live in this area, and many of the people are some of the rudest, crankiest, and oddest folks I have seen in the city. They definitely have history, and money, in the neighborhood though. As an outsider looking in, I'd say that most feel they are entitled to protect their views and their neighborhood. I for one encourage any development in the area, mainly because I want to see new buildings from my balcony; ones that aren't all older than me!

[Rizzo]

I'm pretty "sheltered" then where 99% of my building is under 40 , or generally grad students and young professionals who don't really care if an 80 story building pops up next door. Pre-war brick building, but our views are graced by some unfortunate 70's architecture.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I'm pretty "sheltered" then where 99% of my building is under 40 , or generally grad students and young professionals who don't really care if an 80 story building pops up next door. Pre-war brick building, but our views are graced by some unfortunate 70's architecture.

Same here, though I don't think we live in the same building since mine is from the 80s I believe. Most of the people in my building are probably even under 32 years old and even the ones above 40 are fine (minus a few). I'm right near the new 35 story State/Chestnut building under construction. When I first moved in, Walton on the Park was being built too. Across from that is Ten E Delaware and then there's other new buildings around there like Elysian, 50 E Chestnut, etc. I am glad people in my area are younger and welcome new development.

To me there's two sides of the Gold Coast. One is south of Division and one is north of Division. South of Division especially as you get closer to Chicago is more diverse and younger. North of Division seems to be more old money and homogeneous racially and personality wise. I know some people in their late 20s/early 30s north of Division, but a lot of the people are older and more conservative. Luckily south of Division, especially closer to Chicago Ave is a lot younger and more open minded about things.

I remember Reilly tried to block development of the State/Chestnut building and I think residents told him it was completely fine and that it's welcomed.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I remember Reilly tried to block development of the State/Chestnut building and I think residents told him it was completely fine and that it's welcomed.

^ I know it's petty resorting to name-calling here but....wow what a fucking douche bag

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I know it's petty resorting to name-calling here but....wow what a fucking douche bag

No, you've got it all wrong. Clearly Reilly was just trying to stop the "evil developers" from "sneaking one by the public" just as he did with his heroic stand against Orcs, I mean developers, with that 18 story hotel...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I know it's petty resorting to name-calling here but....wow what a fucking douche bag

Well, I don't know about block, but I know he was skeptical of it.

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...ntal-tower.php

the developers still need to win over a reluctant Ald. Brendan Reilly, who has criticized the development as too dense for the area. Stay tuned!

Too dense for the area L-O-L. I agree with the name calling in this case. Douchebag completely and I can't wait to see him not be my alderman anymore. The immediate area has a handful of buildings that are 30+ stories and a few more that are 20-30 right there not to mention it's 1/2 block away from a train stop and more density is needed for that if the development is dense. 35 stories, 367 units. That's 10-11 units per floor average. Pretty sure my building is 8 units per floor and this new building is 50% wider than mine.

Yep, we surely wanted those two shitty 1-2 story buildings to look at forever that housed storage for the Loyola bookstore and the others vacant forever with a parking lot in back. That site was such a fucking waste of space and was a pain to look at. I can't wait until the two buildings are done.

[Mr Downtown]

Actually, if you read the underlying Sun-Times story, he doesn't say that. He says:

“They’re covering a business school with a proposed, 35-story residential building on a very narrow site. A lot of work needs to go into making that a functional site, and I don’t think the initial design gets it done,” Reilly said. “I had asked them not to file that application until we had some time to work with the infrastructure departments and get a better sense of how the traffic would work. They chose to ignore that advice.”

Sounds to me like he's simply calling for a more intelligent site plan, particularly things like driveway and loading dock locations.

[Pilton]

^ And woe to him that ignores the "advice" of the alderman.

No fan of Reilly here. He acts like he's the City Planning Department. But, all he wants is to be re-elected. So, he often panders to NIMBYs.

Nevertheless, some of the language is a little over the top. Way past fair comment, disagreement or criticism.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Actually, if you read the underlying Sun-Times story, he doesn't say that. He says:

“They’re covering a business school with a proposed, 35-story residential building on a very narrow site. A lot of work needs to go into making that a functional site, and I don’t think the initial design gets it done,” Reilly said. “I had asked them not to file that application until we had some time to work with the infrastructure departments and get a better sense of how the traffic would work. They chose to ignore that advice.”

Sounds to me like he's simply calling for a more intelligent site plan, particularly things like driveway and loading dock locations.

It says both to me, and you left out the part before the quote where the ST author says something about Reilly thinking the site is too dense. He says
"with a proposed, 35-story residential building on a very narrow site."

Which to me speaks "too dense." Yes there's other language around it which you got to, but that quote right there has "too dense" written all over it.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Actually, if you read the underlying Sun-Times story, he doesn't say that. He says:

“They’re covering a business school with a proposed, 35-story residential building on a very narrow site. A lot of work needs to go into making that a functional site, and I don’t think the initial design gets it done,” Reilly said. “I had asked them not to file that application until we had some time to work with the infrastructure departments and get a better sense of how the traffic would work. They chose to ignore that advice.”

Sounds to me like he's simply calling for a more intelligent site plan, particularly things like driveway and loading dock locations.

^ And if you read the same story, it says this (using the same blue color and Georgia font as you):

Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd), said he said he had cautioned the university not to introduce the development because it’s too dense for an already congested area

.

[Chi-Sky21]

What does Reilly expect Loyola to do? Not letting them build up that area is a death sentence to their downtown campus. Loyola will never be able to afford to buy any more land there, the only place for them to go is UP. Why didn't he raise a stink when Loyola built a much taller building 1 block east of this? Maybe he should realize what an asset it is to have Loyola's business school and law school right there. I bet there wouldn't be any complaining if it was Northwestern wanting to do this! Granted his criticism is of the building behind the new business school but it does not bode well for future Loyola projects. Like when they may want a new law school across the street.

[kemachs]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

What does Reilly expect Loyola to do? Not letting them build up that area is a death sentence to their downtown campus. Loyola will never be able to afford to buy any more land there, the only place for them to go is UP. Why didn't he raise a stink when Loyola built a much taller building 1 block east of this? Maybe he should realize what an asset it is to have Loyola's business school and law school right there. I bet there wouldn't be any complaining if it was Northwestern wanting to do this!

I doubt he is that forward-thinking about it, to be honest. Perhaps if Loyola had kicked in some more $$ for his campaign there would have been less of an issue..

It's fucking ridiculous that there's no way to curb these aldermen ego trips, apart from not re-electing them. I wish the mayor would be more vocally in support of density so they would get off their high horse of "protecting the community from the invading metropolis." It's bad for business, it's bad for Chicago's image, and it's bad for the growth of the city.

[Mr Downtown]

The "too dense" phrase was introduced by the Sun-Times reporter. It's not a quote. Inexperienced reporters—and these days they're nearly all inexperienced—often have a rather simplistic view of development issues. Everything gets sorted into a two-sided battle, and nuance is the main casualty. Case in point: the articles describing South Loop residents as "opposed to the British School."