CHICAGO | General Developments

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

This little blurb from the City of Chicago's website:



^ I wonder if that is the site on south State St, just south of the University center. If so, I'm a bit disappointed since a $14 million project will likely be relatively small.

Surely the $ figure here is not correct. Could be a typo, could be just not understanding of construction values (we've seen this often, from silly figures showing up in bidclerk, to media articles, to who knows where else (sometimes it's a particular portion of the construction value that gets misreported, from the equity, to the debt, to a specific phase of construction, or something else (pre-construction costs, land value, foundation, core and shell, etc etc etc)...........who knows what the case is with this one.....

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

The existing building is MUCH BETTER than the Antunafish pile of crap that's replacing it...

Yeah, DePaul should be ashamed of itself. Antunovich? Really??

[UrbanLibertine]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

why is this building being demolished?
http://www.urbanremainschicago.com/n...chine-arrives/

or this one?
http://www.urbanremainschicago.com/n...-street-house/

or this one?
http://www.urbanremainschicago.com/n...wrecking-ball/


or this one?
http://www.urbanremainschicago.com/n...r-the-weekend/

or this one?
http://www.urbanremainschicago.com/n...disappearance/

(really, you could just spend a few hours reading every post on that blog and get my point)

Agreed! 1 building doesn't upset me, but every day there are demo permits issued for at least 1 beautiful old building. That adds up, quickly. And before you know it, neighborhoods like Bucktown, Lincoln Park, Lakeview lose a lot of their character and add some pretty hideous buildings in the process.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by bcp

But it's not the job of most developers, so why expect them to? Some do it as a business model but it's rare and the end product is pricey. Developers buy an asset - so can preservationists.

im not saying its their job, but just because you CAN do something dosent mean you should. we all need to take on a greater responsibility to preserve for future generations what prior generations preserved for us. architecture, like all good art, has the ability to speak across time. what do we want to say to the future? that we squandered a rich and unique architectural heritage in pursuit of nothing other than profit? that we were capable of being that short sighted despite similar mistakes already having been made, which we had the opportunity to learn from?

and if developers cant resist the temptation, then we need stronger preservation laws. theres simply no reason to be losing these well maintained, well built homes. say what you will about increased density, but somehow our city served a million additional residents than we have today with this stock quite adequately.

and it goes beyond aesthetics into environmental responsibility as well. its a completely wasteful practice, not only in raw materials (many of which are superior to those used today, and no longer attainable), but also in all the sweat, blood, and education that our forefathers poured into our built environment.

im not against new development in the least, but i am 100% when it includes these sorts of losses.

[harryc]

Using a vibrator to place the sleeve - the frame was carefully placed and welded down by the surveyors first.


Forms for putting the cap on the pilings.




Dec 25

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Wow, that would be amazing. Given this is a bit old, there has been an addition of a Costco and few 3-4 story buildings on Roosevelt in the past few years, but not much else.

So, the demolition of Jacob A Riis School for "more green space" in the original plan will now see the site occupied with housing. Would have been really nice to save the building and turn it into lofts. Why does site planning at CHA always produce terrible results?

That said, the new plan is far better than the original. I'm glad to see more variation in height and unit types and more retail. This will allow the area to actually function like a neighborhood. Too bad CHA already screwed up so much of the property and put purely residential buildings with front yard setbacks along Roosevelt, only further reinforcing the street's role as a suburbanesque autosewer ripping through the entire west side. The actual near west suburbs provide a far more walkable and urban treatment of Roosevelt than the city does.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

S... further reinforcing the street's role as a suburbanesque autosewer .......

Great Phrase -

[wwchi]

If you oppose this proposed hotel and the height increase, please join your neighbors in signing an on line petition at:

https://www.change.org/p/wml-save-th...proposed-hotel

Originally Posted by marothisu

A few more news things we missed from a few days ago:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...s-wells-street





http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...r-panel-review

[k1052]

Originally Posted by wwchi

If you oppose this proposed hotel and the height increase, please join your neighbors in signing an on line petition at:

https://www.change.org/p/wml-save-th...proposed-hotel

I now support this hideous building just to annoy NIMBYs.

[wwchi]

Does anyone know who the developer is that plans to buy this lot and build more condos? Article I read said "undisclosed".

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by wwchi

Does anyone know who the developer is that plans to buy this lot and build more condos? Article I read said "undisclosed".

You do realize that you will get no sympathy on this forum, don't you?

We despise NIMBYs like you. You are evil. You are selfish. You are horrible for the city. We hate everything you stand for. A denser city is a healthier city. We are against excess parking. We are pro-transit and walking. We feel that density improves livability and reduces car dependence. We also think the city needs more tax revenue, and opposing development will only increase everybody else's property taxes.

You will get no sympathy here.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You do realize that you will get no sympathy on this forum, don't you?

We despise NIMBYs like you. You are evil. You are selfish. You are horrible for the city. We hate everything you stand for. A denser city is a healthier city. We are against excess parking. We are pro-transit and walking. We feel that density improves livability and reduces car dependence. We also think the city needs more tax revenue, and opposing development will only increase everybody else's property taxes.

You will get no sympathy here.

So being a zombie who says yes to everything is better? That Wells proposal is terrible. It is possible to be pro development while still being against specific proposals, especially one as bad as the one mentioned here.

[marothisu]

I don't think the Wells Street proposal is great, but I don't oppose it for all the reasons stated. I think they could do a better job with design of the street level portion of it to better preserve the character of the neighborhood. Whether you like it or not though, there's already loads of tourists who go to Old Town for things like Second City alone. And when the show is over, many of them go out in the neighborhood (or perhaps beforehand for dinner). Some people have this thing about not letting tourists in there - but they are already there. If you want to preserve the character of your neighborhood and there's a hotel proposal, then aim for a better hotel. Don't stand for something like a Holiday Inn or Hilton Garden Inn. Get a better boutique hotel where the average hotel guest understands the meaning of character. The hotel is a little big - at least the design. The glass portion doesn't fit in with most of the neighborhood. You could probably scale this thing down to one building section, brick/mason that's something like 8-10 stories high and it would probably work.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by prelude91

So being a zombie who says yes to everything is better? That Wells proposal is terrible. It is possible to be pro development while still being against specific proposals, especially one as bad as the one mentioned here.

These people would just use the same arguments (too tall, too dense, we don't like the use, etc) to kill more attractive developments. I personally don't care for the massing or design of the Wells hotel proposal but does that make me willing to hand a victory to local NIMBYs who think it will "destroy" the character of the neighborhood? Nope.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by k1052

These people would just use the same arguments (too tall, too dense, we don't like the use, etc) to kill more attractive developments. I personally don't care for the massing or design of the Wells hotel proposal but does that make me willing to hand a victory to local NIMBYs who think it will "destroy" the character of the neighborhood? Nope.

Agreed. The architect(s) and developer of this project could still do things to make it fit more in with the character, but people would still oppose it for other reason ("too dense", "we don't want more tourists in our neighborhood", etc).

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You will get no sympathy here.

There are many people who oppose developments in order to achieve a better urban environment. And not everyone has a fetish for density - it isn't something we should assume is a positive. At some point there are diminishing returns to packing more people into a single neighborhood and effectively 'starving' other neighborhoods of development.

[wwchi]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Agreed. The architect(s) and developer of this project could still do things to make it fit more in with the character, but people would still oppose it for other reason ("too dense", "we don't want more tourists in our neighborhood", etc).

If the developer kept the building to its current zoned height and the architect designed something that blended with the neighborhood I doubt you would see much, if any, opposition to a hotel. It is the increase in height and number of rooms that make this undesirable.

I have nothing against tourists - in fact I think this is a great destination for someone visiting Chicago. Wells Street has a nice leisurely vibe where you can shop, drink, dine, etc. THAT is what I would like to see remain. Not a more hectic environment that a larger hotel brings.

An 8 foot hotel that truly was boutique would not likely cause so much opposition.

Just because someone doesn't want that does not make them a NIMBY that you have to keep from getting a "victory". We all win when things are done right.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by prelude91

So being a zombie who says yes to everything is better? That Wells proposal is terrible. It is possible to be pro development while still being against specific proposals, especially one as bad as the one mentioned here.

I don't understand the 'us vs them' at any cost mentality. At one moment people decry 'beige turds' while the next moment they favor absolutely anything that someone else is against. Seriously? Well, maybe this is one of the reasons there are some many lousy developments.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

I don't understand the 'us vs them' at any cost mentality. At one moment people decry 'beige turds' while the next moment they favor absolutely anything that someone else is against. Seriously? Well, maybe this is one of the reasons there are some many lousy developments.

There is a distinct difference between people who push to kill developments for bad reasons and the people who want them, constructively, modified for the right ones. A cursory look at the comments from the people signing that petition puts this effort squarely in the former category.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by wwchi

If the developer kept the building to its current zoned height and the architect designed something that blended with the neighborhood I doubt you would see much, if any, opposition to a hotel. It is the increase in height and number of rooms that make this undesirable.

To be completely honest, I don't think the height at this level has anything to do with it - though I'd agree that maybe it's too tall by a few floors. The design is pretty bad. It's completely possible to make a 15 story building that would blend in with the neighborhood design-wise. Down to 10 stories or whatever, maybe easier to fit in with the area.

As far as the number of rooms - if you have nothing against tourists, then who cares? It's not like they're building a mega 1000 room hotel. Pretend there's 200 rooms in this thing when it's all said and done with - is that going to make a noticeable difference? Doubt it. Wells Street is already a busy area with foot traffic and a ton of people who go there aren't even from the neighborhood. It's not going to make a noticeable difference like a mega hotel would. Stop pretending like Wells Street is some quiet boulevard and that 200 extra people is going to make a massive difference to the area. It's not going to. If you have nothing against tourists being in your neighborhood, then you shouldn't care about the number of hotel rooms unless it's say over 400 rooms.

The only valid concern you frankly have is design and how it fits in with the rest of the neighborhood. While the current design sucks, it's still not as if it doesn't 100% fit in. It's not like the thing is a modern glass box.