CHICAGO | General Developments

[george]

2/25

Former Big Bowl

[lu9]

^^ Single most egregious example of under-utilization of land (with new construction) in our fair city?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by lu9

^^ Single most egregious example of under-utilization of land (with new construction) in our fair city?

As a nearby resident - yes and no. I would love to see a high rise there, but at the same time, it's completely in scale with many buildings in the general area.

[Ned.B]

It's pretty much a reconstruction of what was there before. They even reused the east and north walls. Since it's retail construction it will probably be torn down for something new in a few decades anyway.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by marothisu

As a nearby resident - yes and no. I would love to see a high rise there, but at the same time, it's completely in scale with many buildings in the general area.

Is this a single story structure or are they adding another floor? I wouldn't mind if they matched the height of building directly north, but 1 story would be a disappointment.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Is this a single story structure or are they adding another floor? I wouldn't mind if they matched the height of building directly north, but 1 story would be a disappointment.

It's single story, but the height is actually 2 stories when you look at it in person and compare versus some buildings around it. Look at one of the pictures and compare against what is next to it. It comes up to the top of the 2nd floor of the buildings next door.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

It's nice to see suburban TOD that isn't cheezeball neotrad garbage. This looks pretty good.

I agree. I wish this was sort of the minimum scale and design standard for any city development within 1/4 mile (or even more) of any rail station.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by marothisu

It's single story, but the height is actually 2 stories when you look at it in person and compare versus some buildings around it. Look at one of the pictures and compare against what is next to it. It comes up to the top of the 2nd floor of the buildings next door.

I see that building everyday; it's out of context. It holds the corner there and should be, at minimum, as tall as the building directly north of it. The South Wall of that building was never meant to be seen, they should have righted the wrong, the stupid Corner Bakery/Big Bowl building made.

[aaron38]

^^^ Those types of buildings are disposable, just a placeholder. Let the existing cycle chew up the parking lots, and this will be a prime site in the '20s. Doubt it lasts a decade.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I see that building everyday; it's out of context. It holds the corner there and should be, at minimum, as tall as the building directly north of it. The South Wall of that building was never meant to be seen, they should have righted the wrong, the stupid Corner Bakery/Big Bowl building made.

I live very close by. I don't think it's out of context in the sense of being a 2 story building next to a bunch of high rises. My point is that a lot of the buildings in the immediate area are 2-4 stories high but there are high rises mixed in as well. The Lou Malnati's and Velvet Taco across the street, and the Vans/Carmine's/Tavern on Rush buildings and Gibson's aren't much taller than it, as well as the buildings on Rush a little further down the street like the Lululemon, Le Colonial, etc. It's wrong to paint the area as mainly high rises - it's very mixed low rise and high rise.

I wish it would have been taller and IMO, I will not be surprised to see it torn down in a decade for something taller as the area continues to grow. It's dumb that it couldn't have been like that right now, but it's NOT out of context with the area.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I live very close by. I don't think it's out of context in the sense of being a 2 story building next to a bunch of high rises. My point is that a lot of the buildings in the immediate area are 2-4 stories high but there are high rises mixed in as well. The Lou Malnati's and Velvet Taco across the street, and the Vans/Carmine's/Tavern on Rush buildings and Gibson's aren't much taller than it, as well as the buildings on Rush a little further down the street like the Lululemon, Le Colonial, etc. It's wrong to paint the area as mainly high rises - it's very mixed low rise and high rise.

I wish it would have been taller and IMO, I will not be surprised to see it torn down in a decade for something taller as the area continues to grow. It's dumb that it couldn't have been like that right now, but it's NOT out of context with the area.

I'm not sure what there is to disagree with; that lot was meant to have a building, at minimum, as tall as the neighboring building, otherwise they wouldn't have used a utility brick for the North/South Walls. I'm not talking about out of context with the neighborhood, I mean with the building directly next to it.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I'm not sure what there is to disagree with; that lot was meant to have a building, at minimum, as tall as the neighboring building, otherwise they wouldn't have used a utility brick for the North/South Walls. I'm not talking about out of context with the neighborhood, I mean with the building directly next to it.

What says it was supposed to have a building as tall as the neighboring one? I'm not trying to disagree that it should be taller but to say it's out of context with the area entirely is false.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by marothisu

What says it was supposed to have a building as tall as the neighboring one? I'm not trying to disagree that it should be taller but to say it's out of context with the area entirely is false.

Are you meaning to quote me? I'm not saying it is out of context with the area.

That new building is holding a corner with an interior building that is currently ~2x it's height; if the building that houses Goddess and Grocer was meant to have a south wall that was on full display, they would have used a different brick. When built, the Goddess and Grocer building's south wall was meant to be covered.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by prelude91

That new building is holding a corner with an interior building that is currently ~2x it's height; if the building that houses Goddess and Grocer was meant to have a south wall that was on full display, they would have used a different brick. When built, the Goddess and Grocer building's south wall was meant to be covered.

My guess is that the corner bakery/big bowl building that was just torn down was not the original there and there was something taller. But just because there's a blank wall doesn't mean a developer can't build something smaller/taller there. It happens all the time.

But at the same time, we can all agree that it SHOULD be taller just given the current state of things. And as others have said, I bet in a decade, that thing will be torn down for a new building. Hopefully. The least we can do now is hope that the new building turns out well and isn't a suburban looking POS.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by marothisu

My guess is that the corner bakery/big bowl building that was just torn down was not the original there and there was something taller

the corner bakery building was not the original building, that is why i said right the wrong of that building.

Originally Posted by marothisu

But just because there's a blank wall doesn't mean a developer can't build something smaller/taller there. It happens all the time.

And?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by prelude91

the corner bakery building was not the original building, that is why i said right the wrong of that building.

And?

The only thing I'm disagreeing with you about is that the building, which is the height of a normal 2 story building, is not in scale with the rest of the area. That is not true as there's many 2-4 or 5 story buildings in the area.

I completely agree that it SHOULD have been taller.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by marothisu

The only thing I'm disagreeing with you about is that the building, which is the height of a normal 2 story building, is not in scale with the rest of the area. That is not true as there's many 2-4 or 5 story buildings in the area.

I completely agree that it SHOULD have been taller.

You're not disagreeing with me on that, I never stated the new building is out of scale with the rest of the area.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by prelude91

You're not disagreeing with me on that, I never stated the new building is out of scale with the rest of the area.

You're right - you were talking about the building to the north of it. Sorry.

Regardless, let's hope the street level activation of this is nice and the building doesn't look like crap. I'm curious to see what kind of tenants it gets. It seems poised for some Oak Street type of boutiques.

[marothisu]

So it looks like Centrum, who was behind 3400 N Lincoln (Paulina brown line TOD) is back at it. There's a permit issued yesterday for an 18 unit building with ground floor offices on the OTHER side (north side) of the stop which is currently a vacant parcel. 6 parking spaces included as well.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by marothisu

So it looks like Centrum, who was behind 3400 N Lincoln (Paulina brown line TOD) is back at it. There's a permit issued yesterday for an 18 unit building with ground floor offices on the OTHER side (north side) of the stop which is currently a vacant parcel. 6 parking spaces included as well.

There was a rendering floating about here for that development. As a resident nearby I'm really happy with all the new density. Actually I felt their existing project wasn't big enough. Should have been 7-10 stories. Anything to bring more foot traffic to the area