CHICAGO | General Developments

[ardecila]

Don't forget that Purple Line trains do not typically stop at Sheridan, so they lose a lot of time on those curves. I don't think the reconstruction will include express platforms, but Cub fans will be able to transfer to Red at Wilson.

I also wouldn't be too worried about the older buildings around Sheridan. CTA has done a lot of really neat selective demolition in the past to wedge expanded facilities into the urban fabric. On several occasions, buildings were acquired, shaved in size, and then re-sold into private hands.

Ultimately CTA will study the land acquisition costs and the residential/business displacements of several alignment options, and choose on that basis. Maybe Loukas feels they are stacking the deck in their favor by building so many units, forcing CTA to run the tracks around their property.

[Justin_Chicago]

I was waiting for you (Arcdelia) to respond as the resident expert of all things CTA related. I am perfectly fine if Loukas stacks the deck in their favor if it means we can rid ourselves of that horrid Walgreens in 5 years.

In other news, I thought this Philly Curbed Article was interesting:

http://philly.curbed.com/archives/20...-raise-33m.php

"Chinatown's Eastern Tower, a community center and residential development can become a reality if developers can raise $33M. Their new plan for getting the funds together is to offer US visas to Chinese investors willing to lend $500K to help finance the project.

The program that allows for this exchange of financing for visas is called EB-5. It allows foreign investors to get visas for themselves and their families in exchange for creating ten jobs for at least two years.

Though raising $33M would require 66 investors to loan $500K each, the Philadelphia Chinatown Community Development Corporation's president says that it's a very realistic goal."

Has any Chicago developer tried this strategy?

[Justin_Chicago]

Children's Memorial Redevelopment OK'd by Plan Commission

Article: http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140...lan-commission

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Justin_Chicago

Children's Memorial Redevelopment OK'd by Plan Commission

Article: http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140...lan-commission

Yeah, I just got back from that meeting. Damn NIMBY crybabies.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Don't forget that Purple Line trains do not typically stop at Sheridan, so they lose a lot of time on those curves. I don't think the reconstruction will include express platforms, but Cub fans will be able to transfer to Red at Wilson.

I also wouldn't be too worried about the older buildings around Sheridan. CTA has done a lot of really neat selective demolition in the past to wedge expanded facilities into the urban fabric. On several occasions, buildings were acquired, shaved in size, and then re-sold into private hands.

Ultimately CTA will study the land acquisition costs and the residential/business displacements of several alignment options, and choose on that basis. Maybe Loukas feels they are stacking the deck in their favor by building so many units, forcing CTA to run the tracks around their property.

Very true, and ultimately I think the CTA saves more buildings than it takes away....making neighborhoods accessible and therefore desirable places to live. So as long as they don't hit that area with a heavy hand like some freeway traffic engineer would, I'm okay with losing a couple good buildings for the improvement of service to northside neighborhoods overall.

[Skyguy_7]

Originally Posted by Justin_Chicago

I was waiting for you (Arcdelia) to respond as the resident expert of all things CTA related. I am perfectly fine if Loukas stacks the deck in their favor if it means we can rid ourselves of that horrid Walgreens in 5 years.

In other news, I thought this Philly Curbed Article was interesting:

http://philly.curbed.com/archives/20...-raise-33m.php

"Chinatown's Eastern Tower, a community center and residential development can become a reality if developers can raise $33M. Their new plan for getting the funds together is to offer US visas to Chinese investors willing to lend $500K to help finance the project.

The program that allows for this exchange of financing for visas is called EB-5. It allows foreign investors to get visas for themselves and their families in exchange for creating ten jobs for at least two years.

Though raising $33M would require 66 investors to loan $500K each, the Philadelphia Chinatown Community Development Corporation's president says that it's a very realistic goal."

Has any Chicago developer tried this strategy?

See post #69 of this NY thread- http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/....php?p=6459713

While there are no visas involved, which is one hell of an incentive to bring in foreign money, the crowdfunding tactic seems to be taking off as of late.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Yeah, I just got back from that meeting. Damn NIMBY crybabies.

Kudos, I can only listen to that nonsense for so long. I am looking forward to that two-bit ambulance-chaser Ed Burnes to finally bring forward the frivolous lawsuit that he's been threatening (and bill the neighborhood for his expensive time).

Looks like that guy will literally talk to anyone who will listen; including the 43rd Ward Republicans: http://chicago.everyblock.com/neighb...-ruin-5999166/

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by thewaterman11

Rahm has given his approval of the proposed skate park on the southwest portion of Grant Park in the form of another $1.5 million in TIF requests. May the oligarchy continue to prosper.

What, this is a skate park for investment bankers only? Does the Latin School get exclusive use for their skateboarding team 5 nights a week?

If TIF zones are allowed to exists at all, what should the money be used for? Public recreational development is off limits?

[harryc]

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago

It was a victim of the recession. If anything, at least the old run down gas/service station at the corner was torn down and we at least get something to use - Walgreens - although I would have MUCH rather have the service station for another 5 years if we could have gotten the 12 story building back.

I'm also torn, as I really love the older building on that spot. Why can't they take down the 1-story row of buildings on the southeast corner instead!!

Also on the Sheridan CTA curve work - it wouldn't shave anywhere near 5 minutes off. At most maybe 20 seconds. The issue is there's a station right there, and trains are either slowing into the curve/station or speeding up away from the station and directly into the curve. Honestly I don't really see how the straightening here is going to result in much, as the trains are already going at a very very slow speed just entering or leaving the station. I don't know why they want to go decimate all that great older architecture to speed things up a few seconds. Between the cemetery, Thorek Hospital's destruction the whole way down Irving and onto Sheridan and the straightening - that strech from Broadway all the way to Clark will basically be void of any life. It's very sad.

If they could build this new proposal on the southeast corner of Dakin, the 12 story building had been built at Irving and Sheridan a few years ago and Thorek hadn't ripped down the entire northeast corner of Irving and Sheridan you would have had a GREAT little urban pocket right there along Sheridan.

Wow - lived for over a decade on Dakin, many years so close to the curve that my friends and I would just stop talking when the trains went by. From 1050 Dakin the 3rd floor vista was wild - just above track level the view down the long straight hall would show the southbound trains coming at you getting closer and closer - just before impact they would veer to the side.

1050 Dakin was pretty cool with old brass wall phones and skinny valet/ice doors next to each kitchentte, gorgeous oak cabinets and woodwork. 1000/12(?) Dakin was also very nice with crazy back porches and nice builtins. 917 Dakin was a dump.

The view from 1004 Dakin (1991)

[Mr Downtown]

It's hard to see how the Grant Park skateboarding facility will promote redevelopment of the surrounding area. Unfortunately, that's true of a lot of other TIF expenditures, too.

[entreprelawyer]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Yeah, I just got back from that meeting. Damn NIMBY crybabies.

Curbed Chicago has a nice post on this one: http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...ainst-alde.php

[sentinel]

^^Well, I was one of those skateboarders and growing up in the near west burbs in the mid 90s we DIDN'T have a skate-park, which led a lot of us constantly having to travel into the City, along the lakefront, in neighborhoods that were (then) barely gentrified and possibly dangerous for energetic, suburban white kids (both male and female), with the constant threat of City police trying to assert their power by threatening to arrest you for loitering when you're doing nothing other than trying to break your nose on a thin, wooden board on wheels.

You're possibly focused too much on short-term ROI for this type of place-making, but even ignoring the potential for something like this to attract upper and even middle-income families (or even adults who still skate, and I know PLENTY), if this proposed skate-park has the ability to attract both suburban and even urban kids/teenagers/hipsters with Peter-Pan complexes and give them a relatively safe environment to just have fun, while potentially opening them up to wanting to eventually move into the City, then it's worth the money.

[SamInTheLoop]

^^ Let's just hope that whatever lawsuit(s) inevitably get filed here, it happens quickly, and the courts reject in short order as well....

^^^ Without a doubt. It's very difficult to defend the city's TIF program in its current form (or what it's been for at least the past 15 years) in the context of the actual legislation that allows TIF...

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^But I don't see that there's any pattern, that there's more development near train stations than in other residential areas.

You really don't see it? It's definitely there (and not quite 'finding waldo'-level difficulty). Spatial stats would undoubtedly reveal a lower avg distance from permit location to transit station than than with a random dispersion (within either entire city or just residential areas)...

Again, an average distance as low (relative to what it would be under 'random') as it should be? No. As strong a pattern as what you would find in other major cities that actually have real Planning, real, effective TOD policy, and that don't leave it all up to aldermanic decisions? No.

Hopefully moving in the right direction though...

[wierdaaron]

I don't have any experience to draw from about the community benefits of skate parks, but I like how it seems aimed at mixed-use applications like movies in the park or other performances. It's got lots of green, while most skate parks I've seen are big, flat cement lots.

[Baronvonellis]

I think the skate park will be awesome! I always love watching the skaters in Venice beach in LA, it's a cool tourist attraction even if you don't skate yourself. It shows off the urban youth culture. Tie it in with Lolla somehow. It would help enliven the south end of grant park. Since, it's currently just a grass field. I would go walk down to that end of the park now to see the skateboarders. It's fun to see them do tricks!

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Tie it in with Lolla somehow. It would help enliven the south end of grant park.

They probably will. I'm pretty sure Lollapalooza actually donated $5 million last year to get this thing done. Would be cool, and since there's a number of people who do Parkour and Free Running in Grant and Millennium Parks when it's nice out, they should build something for them too Okay, I'll admit that I do Parkour/Free Running, though usually on my own time. Tourists actually would stop to watch me.

[thewaterman11]

Originally Posted by sentinel

^^Well, I was one of those skateboarders and growing up in the near west burbs in the mid 90s we DIDN'T have a skate-park, which led a lot of us constantly having to travel into the City, along the lakefront, in neighborhoods that were (then) barely gentrified and possibly dangerous for energetic, suburban white kids (both male and female), with the constant threat of City police trying to assert their power by threatening to arrest you for loitering when you're doing nothing other than trying to break your nose on a thin, wooden board on wheels.

You're possibly focused too much on short-term ROI for this type of place-making, but even ignoring the potential for something like this to attract upper and even middle-income families (or even adults who still skate, and I know PLENTY), if this proposed skate-park has the ability to attract both suburban and even urban kids/teenagers/hipsters with Peter-Pan complexes and give them a relatively safe environment to just have fun, while potentially opening them up to wanting to eventually move into the City, then it's worth the money.

I'm not at all opposed to the idea of building the Grant Park skating facility; it'll put people in a very underused portion of the park. With any hope, maybe that cool design exercise from last year (The Chicago, I think it was called?) could become reality... wishful thinking, I know...
It's just the constant use of the TIF to fund any kind of project (and the seemingly boundless power of the high and mighty Rahm) that kind of frustrates me. It might be the way Chicago operates, but jeez, it would be nice if the city used TIF money in its intended form, not in the way that the City Council has perverted it.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Spot on.

Plenty of TIF-supported projects are worthy in their own right and are 'good' works, it's just that how many really should be funded with TIF money, according to the lawful and - beyond that - the actual intended use of this financing mechanism, as set forth under state legislation???

That is a very real and important question, that absolute should - and I would say must - be addressed....

[SamInTheLoop]

The Sun-Times coverage of this over the last several weeks was some of the absolute worst local coverage I've ever seen of a local 'controversial' development entitlement process. Not by any means that I was expecting the Sun-Times to do a good job, but the quality here was truly appalling. Complete political horse race slant, the all-powerful city over the poor neighbors whose lives will be upended, etc....I read very little to nothing recently about the actual policy issues and respective merits (or potential lack thereof for that matter), or anything remotely trying to put the proposal into any sort of actual perspective - for example - how dense (or 'lacking in density') is the plan, really? All politics, no policy rigour......kinda like Chicago in a nutshell....