CHICAGO | General Developments

[PerryPendleton]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Well this is some horseshit...
http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...red-after-all/

The deal was totally contingent on the renovation of that building.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Originally Posted by jbrady3324

Good news! 500 N Milwaukee is a go.

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...aukee-is-a-go/

The tower should have some great views when finished.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by PerryPendleton

The deal was totally contingent on the renovation of that building.

Apparently not

I assume the building is in far worse shape than anyone really knew and the city let Smithfield off the hook as a result. Holding the residential tower hostage to something that's not going to happen anyway (without a huge tif give) would be pointless.

[marothisu]

I think the Shops at Freemont (Freemont & Weed) was issued a building permit yesterday 2 floors - 6 tenant spaces on the first, 1 on the second with on site parking.

[f_m]

So apropos of the Grand/Milwaukee development, I noticed that some of the other blocks adjacent to that station are zoned M2-3. Presumably that's why there hasn't been much development there.

I'm generally appalled at the presence of M zoning near any CTA stations--why haven't they been rezoned for TOD? I remember reading this city report on "transit-friendly development" near rail stations. They classify stations based on current zoning and development, one of the categories is "manufacturing district". Here's what they say about it:

The station areas in this type have a predominance of employment in the construction, manufacturing, and wholesale sectors. It can include high tech manufacturing or R&D. The employment is low density and characterized by large building footprints with relatively few employees per square foot as compared to major service employment districts. Rail stations are used primarily as bus transfer locations. Urban neighborhoods may be located close to these districts.

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Although these areas may not support the typical TFD densities and intensities, there is residential development potential and selective employment-based projects. Some of these stations are close to large vacant parcels that may be conducive to larger planned developments with a mix of front-office and related manufacturing facilities.

Why aren't they mentioning the possibility of wholesale rezoning for, say, the blocks adjacent to the Western, Kedzie, and Pulaski Orange Line stations, not to mention Grand and Milwaukee? More importantly, why hasn't this already been done?

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by f_m

So apropos of the Grand/Milwaukee development, I noticed that some of the other blocks adjacent to that station are zoned M2-3. Presumably that's why there hasn't been much development there.

I'm generally appalled at the presence of M zoning near any CTA stations--why haven't they been rezoned for TOD? I remember reading this city report on "transit-friendly development" near rail stations. They classify stations based on current zoning and development, one of the categories is "manufacturing district". Here's what they say about it:



Why aren't they mentioning the possibility of wholesale rezoning for, say, the blocks adjacent to the Western, Kedzie, and Pulaski Orange Line stations, not to mention Grand and Milwaukee? More importantly, why hasn't this already been done?

Why are huge swaths of the city zoned RS-3 (single family home zoning) when they consist of almost entirely of 2 and 3 flats? These two questions have the same answer: it's not a matter of good planning, it is a matter of politics. By allowing zoning to remain low wherever possible or even actively downzoning properties, alderman are able to consolidate their power and force all developers to go through them if they want to get projects done. It is essentially legal extortion and just how the system in Chicago works.

Why allow developers to build TOD as of right in your ward when you can force them to come kowtow to you and request a zoning change. Oh, and don't directly say it, but you aren't going to give a zoning change to anyone who hasn't supported your campaign, but just remember not to say that's what you are doing because then it is illegal.

[marothisu]

For anyone wondering - one of the old row homes next to where the business building for Loyola is going up (State & Pearson) was mainly torn down over the last few days. That leaves only one of those row homes still up..

[CCCguy]

^^^

Took this photo yesterday. Sad to see these older buildings diminish around town.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/114832064@N04/12019492725/

Took this yesterday.

[Mr Downtown]

The 2004 zoning reform was supposed to have an important second phase, a remap. But no one would ever answer the $64 question: zoning based on what? Chicago hasn't attempted a comprehensive plan since 1946. I asked this of someone high up in the planning department, who sort of mumbled "well, some of the aldermen have some ideas." At any rate, it never happened.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by CCCguy

^^^

Took this photo yesterday. Sad to see these older buildings diminish around town.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/114832064@N04/12019492725/

Took this yesterday.

Yeah it's sad, though I'd say there's a number of them in other areas recently which weren't anything special. However, some of the ones knocked down, downtown, were great. If they ever tear down that great building on the north side of Rush & Chicago, I'll be PISSED.

I also read this on Chicago Architecture Blog about those buildings

Landmarks commission is not raising a fuss about the demolition of 1416 [should be 14-16] East Pearson, even though it is listed as code orange by the city because there are at least four other Huber-designed buildings in historic districts in other parts of the city, and this one has been altered so much over the years that it doesn’t have much of his distinctiveness still in tact.

[ardecila]

^ Does anyone doubt this would be a downzone the likes of which Chicago has never seen?

[harryc]

Nearly done - benches and bike racks !

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that probably was a very nice block of nicely detailed 19th century buildings back in the day, but time was not kind to that block. decades of deferred maintenance and eventual abandonment probably makes their restoration prohibitively expensive at this point. i don't like seeing 19th century bones destroyed at all, but in this case, the new development is probably the best realistic hope we have.

Definitely agree regarding 19th century buildings. But I honestly really love how shitty that block is. Of course I'm not opposed to this development. But I will miss this shitty block of abandoned buildings.

[Mikemak27]

Alderwoman Deb Mell and Albany Park residents are in a standoff with Walgreens and Centrum Partners over whether the Walgreens will have an urban or suburban design.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140...over-new-store

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mikemak27

Alderwoman Deb Mell and Albany Park residents are in a standoff with Walgreens and Centrum Partners over whether the Walgreens will have an urban or suburban design.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140...over-new-store

Walgreens can go to hell.

What really is upsetting about this article is that the douche bag developer uses the existence of another strip mall nearby as an excuse to build one himself.

This is exactly how the city continues to shoot itself in the foot when it allows strip centers to get built.

I just. don't. understand. why. the. city. doesn't. ban. stripmalls. near transit.

[Ned.B]

It's also kind of offensive that the architects/developers use seven other examples of Walgreens with corner lots (one of them right next to the Sheridan Red Line stop) to justify this design. It shows Walgreens has a knack for dropping suburban design in dense urban areas. So what?

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Walgreens can go to hell.

What really is upsetting about this article is that the douche bag developer uses the existence of another strip mall nearby as an excuse to build one himself.

This is exactly how the city continues to shoot itself in the foot when it allows strip centers to get built.

I just. don't. understand. why. the. city. doesn't. ban. stripmalls. near transit.

[Buckman821]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Walgreens can go to hell.

Yup. Amen. I'm really proud of Deb Mell here, as well as the community group. I just sent her an email today to let her know. (hint... we all should. I really do think an influx of emails makes a difference, although she's already on the right track).

For all the griping about Alderman and community groups on here, its nice to see it working in our favor this one time.

[Mr Downtown]

^Streetsblog Chicago reports on the Lawrence & Kimball Walgreen's.

[ardecila]

Albany Park isn't Wicker Park, but after the community said no to the drive-thru bank proposal at Division/Ashland, we got not only a better building but a model for TOD.

If Walgreens is balking at building a decent design, then Mell should tell Centrum to find a new mix of uses for the site. It's not like Centrum is unfamiliar with large mixed-use projects (Roosevelt Collection et al). If enough neighborhoods start to stand up against this, developers might get the message.

[Mr Downtown]

If the streetsblog report is accurate, Walgreen's has threatened to just walk away, which frankly might be the best outcome. Let that building continue just as it is.

Still, I think it's interesting to consider what this forum's reaction to such aldermanic bullying would be if it threatened even a foot of height on a new skyscraper. Mell has no lawful leverage over the mix of uses or even the site plan.