CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 1647

msu2001la · #**32921** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 2:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

Yep, and now today further up the road on Western & Le Moyne, a parking lot (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9087...8i6656!6m1!1e1) will be replaced by an 18 unit + ground floor business building that was issued a permit yesterday. I wonder if that means the fenced off area too.

Next,they need to replace that stupid Pizza Hut on Western & North with something real.

After that, bulldoze every strip mall development along Clybourn Ave. The fact that there is a 30 space surface parking lot in front of retail at the corner of North and Clybourn, directly across from the CTA station, is mind boggling.

Via Chicago · #**32922** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 2:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

FYI, I talked to someone in the know and it sounds like there is an interesting plan in the works for St. Adalberts. At this point "nobody is talking about demolition". That's not to say the battle is won, but it's always hopeful to hear that all sides, including the Archdiocese, see the value in preserving this structure.

is this the music school that was interested in St Bontiface?

i really feel like we need better coordination between the city, landmarks, and the church on how to handle all this property thats going to be flooding the market over the coming years. otherwise we're just going to be running from one crisis to the next. i understand we will lose some, but these buildings comprise some of the most important architecture that exists in chicago and it should be mitigated as much as possible. like at a minimum, sharing a list of all the churches ahead of time, evaluating which have re-use potential, getting potential new tenants lined up ahead of time ,etc.

maru2501 · #**32923** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 2:46 PM**

I wish holy name would allow its giant parking lots to become parkland. Maybe put underground parking there that they could draw $$ from

marothisu · #**32924** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 2:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maru2501

I wish holy name would allow its giant parking lots to become parkland. Maybe put underground parking there that they could draw $$ from

They should become buildings - with a pocket park. At least, as a nearby resident, that's what I'd hope for. At least they keep up their parking lot and it doesn't look like crap as far as parking lots go, but there's no excuse to have those parking lots there. Plus, if they sold to a developer, they could make it contingent based on providing their parishioners some parking. One of the parking lots owned by a church elsewhere in River North just did that within the last year and sold to a developer.

maru2501 · #**32925** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 2:55 PM**

the big lot is starting to be totally surrounded by buildings thanks to construction in 700 and 800 blocks west of there. Starting to look weird

(and by holy name I meant shorthand for archdiocese, obviously)

prelude91 · #**32926** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 5:15 PM**

According to Crain's, the building below and the neighboring building will be demo'd for a new 6 story apartment tower. Hate to see this building go, especially with so many surface lots in the area, but I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles in this town...

ithakas · #**32927** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by prelude91

According to Crain's, the building below and the neighboring building will be demo'd for a new 6 story apartment tower. Hate to see this building go, especially with so many surface lots in the area, but I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles in this town...

Yeah, I was happy to see the announcement and figured it was the 1-story LPQ or the 1-story Walgreens at North/Wells. Of course it was the nice vintage building...

the urban politician · #**32928** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 5:22 PM**

^ It's a loss, but an increase in density that's kind of nice to see

harryc · #**32929** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It's a loss, but an increase in density that's kind of nice to see

Would it be legal to keep the bay windows - they do stick out over the sidewalk - otherwise this would be a prime candidate for a facade-ectomy.

spyguy · #**32930** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 5:29 PM**

And a pretty bland replacement too. Crain's also mentions that JAB wants to demolish 3452 N Southport and 3426 N Southport. And the very next article is about how Jenel wants to demolish several buildings along Wells.

ithakas · #**32931** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

And a pretty bland replacement too. Crain's also mentions that JAB wants to demolish 3452 N Southport and 3426 N Southport. And the very next article is about how Jenel wants to demolish several buildings along Wells.

Time for an Old Town landmark district? Do these north side developers fail to understand what attracts people to certain neighborhoods in the first place?

There's so much open space surrounding Old Town – that sea of parking south down Wells, at least a half-dozen lots on North Avenue ripe for redevelopment (including a strip mall right next to the Sedgwick stop), etc. I get that it's often easier to buy from an independent owner of a small vintage building than to deal with an operator of Walgreens, but I think the city needs to step in and make preserving vintage building stock in downtown-adjacent neighborhoods a priority stat (to their credit, they did get the Fulton District passed right in the nick of time).

prelude91 · #**32932** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 5:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

And a pretty bland replacement too. Crain's also mentions that JAB wants to demolish 3452 N Southport and 3426 N Southport. And the very next article is about how Jenel wants to demolish several buildings along Wells.

3426 Southport will be the same building as 3428, which might be one of the ugliest buildings i've seen, seriously, it's terrible.

I actually put an offer on 3452, it is a great grey stone in tremendous condition; though it's tough to outbid a developer. Will hate to see that building go as well. Hooray for "progress"

Via Chicago · #**32933** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 6:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It's a loss, but an increase in density that's kind of nice to see

f*ck the flippant density at all costs mindset. its a garbage lazy, half assed approach to development when these are the buildings we're losing.

i dont want to live in some glass boxed condo hellscape. what makes chicago a special place to live is the vintage architecture and its rapidly losing it.

this building in particular is also a great companion to the Old Town Ale House building across the corner. that street has already lost so much charm and is surrounded by bland souless crap of the highest order. so lets just accelerate that trend?

theres parking lots galore in this area. build the POS condos there

a measly 3 extra floors is worth throwing this in the trash?

ithakas · #**32934** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 6:10 PM**

We should be preserving the vintage commercial corridors that everyone seems to favor for entertainment, dining and shopping, and encouraging denser and more granular development in the adjacent areas, so that there's a greater localized population to feed into each commercial corridor anchoring a neighborhood.

Part of the reason the western River North development is exciting, beyond the chipping away of schlock, is that that half of the neighborhood still has a considerable amount of vintage building stock to build between. When new construction is built denser and between vintage building stock, we get a much nicer neighborhood than we would otherwise. The perspective someone posted of 720 N LaSalle looking east down Superior is a particularly great example of the nice urban neighborhoods we should be encouraging – compare this with eastern River North, where dense beige blocks surround you.

To some degree, taking the vintage building stock off the table for redevelopment also hastens the pace at which developers will begin to take on the more granular redevelopment opportunities, as seen in this combo-block parking garage and one-story Chase: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8966...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Rizzo · #**32935** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 6:16 PM**

In a perfect world, I'd like an assessment of all major corridors containing vintage buildings of distinguishing architectural character, or vintage architectural contiguity. In return, to keep development moving, up-zoning along those same corridors so that the crap buildings can be knocked down and replaced with tall buildings.

When it comes to pissed off NIMBYs I'd rather have them oppose demolition of distinguished vintage building stock than say a 6-story building on a parking lot.....

In a perfect world....

marothisu · #**32936** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 6:18 PM**

This is for 1548 N Weiland Ave which I think is something like 6 stories and 60 units. There's more than just this building being torn down. Also a few buildings to the south on Weiland will be torn down it looks like.

Really wish some of the vacant lots nearby, like the one at North & North Park Ave over a few blocks could go instead of these actual good buildings.

Jibba · #**32937** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by prelude91

3426 Southport will be the same building as 3428, which might be one of the ugliest buildings i've seen, seriously, it's terrible.

I actually put an offer on 3452, it is a great grey stone in tremendous condition; though it's tough to outbid a developer. Will hate to see that building go as well. Hooray for "progress"

Ugh, that really stings. What's worse is that nothing on that portion of Southport is ever replaced by anything of greater value--the surrounding citizens prohibit it. They want their nice simulacrum of urbanity to push the stroller down on Sundays and to do all of their functional living and shopping at those monstrous strip centers on Ashland.

These will be great developments for all of the uncultured ignoramuses in that part of town that can't live without their over-scaled open floor plans and need clean white boxes to buy their boring shit in.

Via Chicago · #**32938** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ithakas

(to their credit, they did get the Fulton District passed right in the nick of time).

and yet there are still people here against that idea...

Mr Downtown · #**32939** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 6:31 PM**

I'm hearing that redevelopment of Pritzker Park for a new Park District headquarters may be dead. Not sure what forces are at play, but I guess the Park District will temporarily stay at 541 N. Fairbanks.

the urban politician · #**32940** Posted **Apr 21, 2016, 6:32 PM**

Old Town needs to be denser. North Avenue needs to be fronted by larger buildings given how wide it is.

I agree that strip malls and lots should be the first things to go (and a lot of those are being developed too), but I can't help but feel that Old Town needs to go a bit more vertical.