CHICAGO | Lincoln Yards

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

sure but zoning can influence what gets developed where. this plot should not be zoned the way it is given the existing transit realities.

Right. I'm just saying it's more complicated. I don't know why people think vacant land equates to "nobody owns it" or even that the land owners aren't greedy too. Or that they want to even sell in the first place.

Someone with a lot of money might not even care about this anyway. If you are investing $1B in a huge new development and need to attract some tenants who can and will pay the leases equating to 10,000 total office jobs, then location is going to matter depending on which companies you are trying to attract. This could mean buying buildings, re-zoning, tearing them down, doing all the tests necessary, etc. If you are spending $1B, then even if all that costs an extra $50M, in the end it might be better for getting what you want out of your development.

I do wish that these things would pop up along the Green Line somewhere but let's think about it beyond those things and in the mind of a developer trying to attract 10,000 new office jobs and 10,000 probably "luxury" (market rate or higher) residences.

[Baronvonellis]

Lots of stuff is being built along the Green line ie West loop
It's hard to see any of these mega projects being built until the west loop fills in more, and the Post Office fills up. Or the vacant land at Harrison and Wells that is just getting built on now. The post office is in the best location for office space, right next to union station and it's still empty. That thing is enormous! I've yet to hear about who is going into it.

[gebs]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

The post office is in the best location for office space, right next to union station and it's still empty. That thing is enormous! I've yet to hear about who is going into it.

Walgreen's and Ferrara Candy I believe.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Right. I'm just saying it's more complicated. I don't know why people think vacant land equates to "nobody owns it" or even that the land owners aren't greedy too. Or that they want to even sell in the first place.

Someone with a lot of money might not even care about this anyway. If you are investing $1B in a huge new development and need to attract some tenants who can and will pay the leases equating to 10,000 total office jobs, then location is going to matter depending on which companies you are trying to attract. This could mean buying buildings, re-zoning, tearing them down, doing all the tests necessary, etc. If you are spending $1B, then even if all that costs an extra $50M, in the end it might be better for getting what you want out of your development.

I do wish that these things would pop up along the Green Line somewhere but let's think about it beyond those things and in the mind of a developer trying to attract 10,000 new office jobs and 10,000 probably "luxury" (market rate or higher) residences.

I realize someone owns it - many times it's the city. And if it is owned privately, it changes hands at $5,000 per lot give or take. A far cry from 190 Million for the large lots around Lincoln Yards.

Every developer willing to "invest" 1 billion is going to have their hand out for a free subway station. My point is the city should be doing more through zoning and other means to push developent in areas that are cost-effective when considering public outlays.

[Baronvonellis]

Originally Posted by gebs

Walgreen's and Ferrara Candy I believe.

OK, I forgot about Walgreens. But that's still only 7% of the whole 2.8 Million square feet! With Ferrara about 10% of the building would be leased. They would still need to land 9 more companies the size of Walgreens or 20-25 companies the size of Ferrara!

[Barrelfish]

Does anyone have any insight into why SB is so enamored of this soccer stadium? They want to build a 20000 seat stadium (same size as Toyota Park, where the Fire play). But it's for the USL, a league that has literally one quarter the average attendance of teams in the MLS. There was a USL game last year with an attendance of fifty (50). Is there a lot of pent up demand for Soldier field that I don't know about?

Two of the biggest concerns about this proposal are open space and transit access. Seems like SB could solve both at once by dumping the stadium and using the space for a nice big waterfront park.

Am I missing something here?

[Via Chicago]

my assumption is it was always intended as some splashy marketing thing for Amazon. "look, a true mixed use district! itll have your name in center field! you can have your keynote meetings there!"

outside of that...i dont get it either. the Sox cant even draw 20k consistently.

i detest the whole Live Nation partnership too (and I still dont understand the need nor the demand for SIX venues, all owned by one entity in the same neighborhood), i hope that bites the dust too. we have such a rich network of independent venues here that any city in the world would be proud of, who book cutting edge artists across literally all genres in spaces which speak to the musical lineage of this city directly. and all we do is ignore them as a marketing asset, squash them out of existence, and replace them with soulless Disneyfied corporate owned facsimiles.

[sentinel]

***MOD EDIT***

Please stay on topic

[Barrelfish]

Unsurprisingly, the independent music venues are not fans of the Live Nation deal:

https://blockclubchicago.org/2018/11...-lincoln-yards

I hadn't realized Live Nation has exclusive rights arrangements:

The Lincoln Yards plan includes several new performance venues that would be exclusively operated by Live Nation/Ticketmaster — concert behemoths that require bands to sign “radius clauses” that prohibit them from playing any other venue within several miles.

For years, bands that play at Live Nation-owned Lollapooloza performed at neighborhood-based venues before and after the massive music fest in Grant Park. But if Lincoln Yards becomes home to venues owned by the country’s largest promoter, all the neighborhood clubs will quickly be out of luck, venue owners argue.

[BonoboZill4]

I'd just rather this whole megadevelopment not be built if it meant we got the 78 and Tribune sites going. The more I learn about it, the less I like it

[Randomguy34]

Here are the slides of today's presentation: http://www.lincolnyards.com/sites/de..._FINAL_web.pdf

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Here are the slides of today's presentation: http://www.lincolnyards.com/sites/de..._FINAL_web.pdf

I always love reading these, thanks!

[BVictor1]

The meeting was your predictable shit-show of NIMBY hackery.

Bitching and moaning about the density and height "forgetting" the neighborhood has a lot less people (30,000) historically speaking.

The neighborhood seemingly think they own the land and they have demands..... People, it's private property, and the park district don't have the funds for purchase or ownership. The neighbors can start a go-fund-me account, or be pleased with the 20 acres of open and green space they'll get as a part of this 55 acre project. Yes, SB owns more lands, but we're talking 55 now, with 5,000 proposed residential units, which is 1/2 The 78.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

The meeting was your predictable shit-show of NIMBY hackery.

Bitching and moaning about the density and height "forgetting" the neighborhood has a lot less people (30,000) historically speaking.

The neighborhood seemingly think they own the land and they have demands..... People, it's private property, and the park district don't have the funds for purchase or ownership. The neighbors can start a go-fund-me account, or be pleased with the 20 acres of open and green space they'll get as a part of this 55 acre project. Yes, SB owns more lands, but we're talking 55 now, with 5,000 proposed residential units, which is 1/2 The 78.

Bullshit.
In the entire meeting only two people mentioned height or density.
One was Alan Mellis who simply mentioned that they lowered some heights but kept the density the same. The other was some nitwit who spoke in support, admonishing the crowd for complaining about height and density.
There were a lot of people advocating for the north branch park, others wanting clarification on the privately owned publicly accessible space, concerns about traffic and schools, a large contingent opposed to Live Nation and the soccer stadium, and an even larger contingent who wondered why all the benefits that SB said they were going to build all seem to be paid for by the proposed TIF.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

an even larger contingent who wondered why all the benefits that SB said they were going to build all seem to be paid for by the proposed TIF.

I don't see the problem here. The new roads and bridges are needed to handle current traffic problems, even if the entire Lincoln Yards site magically becomes a nature preserve tomorrow. (maybe the transitway could be deleted)

However, the development of Lincoln Yards will create higher taxable value and thus provides a new revenue stream the city can tap to fund that infrastructure, which they cannot do right now.

The thinking here seems to be that Sterling Bay should pay for the cost of "their own" infrastructure. But they're not building a private resort on an island, or a suburban dead-end cul-de-sac. They're building a neighborhood that will be integrated with the city around it in all directions. Lincoln Parkers, Bucktowners, and even a lowly Pilsener like me will drive on those roads, bike the 606 trail extension, and play with our dogs in that park. If an elementary school is built, many Lincoln Parkers and Bucktowners will likely be zoned into it. So, why should the city not be funding these improvements, the same way it has always funded streets and parks? TIF is just a means to that end.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't see the problem here. The new roads and bridges are needed to handle current traffic problems, even if the entire Lincoln Yards site magically becomes a nature preserve tomorrow. (maybe the transitway could be deleted)

However, the development of Lincoln Yards will create higher taxable value and thus provides a new revenue stream the city can tap to fund that infrastructure, which they cannot do right now.

The thinking here seems to be that Sterling Bay should pay for the cost of "their own" infrastructure. But they're not building a private resort on an island, or a suburban dead-end cul-de-sac. They're building a neighborhood that will be integrated with the city around it in all directions. Lincoln Parkers, Bucktowners, and even a lowly Pilsener like me will drive on those roads, bike the 606 trail extension, and play with our dogs in that park. If an elementary school is built, many Lincoln Parkers and Bucktowners will likely be zoned into it. So, why should the city not be funding these improvements, the same way it has always funded streets and parks? TIF is just a means to that end.

Actually, they should pay. The road and bridge from Cortland across the river, represents new infrastructure and its cost should be borne by the city, but realigning Throop and extending Dominick in place of Southport are realignments to suit their development and the cost of relocating them and the utilities in that right of way should be borne by them.
As far as higher taxes, the old TIF's base value was set for improved land and the new one based on vacant, it will actually means net decline in tax revenues for the next 23 years.

[ardecila]

^ What do you mean, old TIF and new TIF? As I understand it, the land around Lincoln Yards has not previously been in a TIF. There are two existing TIF districts along the river south of North Ave... Emanuel just got greenlighted by Springfield to extend the life of those TIFs, but my understanding is that those TIFs will be used for projects unrelated to Lincoln Yards, like new bridges at Division and Chicago, new pedestrian bridges at Blackhawk and Ogden, and various streetscaping/intersection projects, as well as streets and parks for River District.

Plus, as we've discussed before, the city determines the tax levy before working backwards to calculate the tax bills for landowners. By freezing the gross tax receipts of a TIF district and sending the increase toward special projects, the city is essentially raising taxes on everyone else in the city by some modest amount. Which, you know, is what they're supposed to do in order to fund things like roads, bridges, parks, and schools.

As far as connecting Throop with Southport... I agree with you that would be better, but the current plan doesn't seem unworkable. A legitimate goal of public street planning is to avoid creating too many awkward parcels that are tricky to develop, which a straight-arrow Southport would do to the Finkl site, where all the existing streets are aligned with the river on an angle. Likely the intersections will be structured such that Southport flows through to the new Armitage bridge, so you'd only need to make one left turn to go from Southport/Armitage to extended Throop/Dominick. In general terms, it seems like they are attempting to spread traffic out over several bridges and multiple major intersections, so no one spot gets overwhelmed. Basically what planners did to greater downtown back in the 50s and 60s with all the one-way streets, which today allows the downtown street grid to carry tremendous volumes of traffic without breaking down.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

People, it's private property,

And the owners of said private property can use it under the existing zoning.

But, investors overpay for private property with the hopes of changing the zoning and thus making a crap ton of money. Which is fine. But that does not make the neighbors idots for wanting to have a say in the process.

[LouisVanDerWright]

New Armitage bridge? Please tell me they aren't going to trash the Cortland bridge like Division and Chicago...

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't see the problem here. The new roads and bridges are needed to handle current traffic problems, even if the entire Lincoln Yards site magically becomes a nature preserve tomorrow. (maybe the transitway could be deleted)

However, the development of Lincoln Yards will create higher taxable value and thus provides a new revenue stream the city can tap to fund that infrastructure, which they cannot do right now.

The thinking here seems to be that Sterling Bay should pay for the cost of "their own" infrastructure. But they're not building a private resort on an island, or a suburban dead-end cul-de-sac. They're building a neighborhood that will be integrated with the city around it in all directions. Lincoln Parkers, Bucktowners, and even a lowly Pilsener like me will drive on those roads, bike the 606 trail extension, and play with our dogs in that park. If an elementary school is built, many Lincoln Parkers and Bucktowners will likely be zoned into it. So, why should the city not be funding these improvements, the same way it has always funded streets and parks? TIF is just a means to that end.

I agree, the city should be the one funding and building public infrastructure, this is a choice we made as a country many decades ago. The downside of pushing it off on developers is that they will then build infrastructure on a pseudo private basis and you end up with gated communities and "public riverwalks" that are locked 20 hours a day or security guards coming outside and telling you that you aren't allowed to use a camera in public. Whatever SB builds here, the streets and parks need to be fully and completely public from day 1.

[Barrelfish]

One positive: I like the philosophy behind the design of the parks, especially including elements from the industrial heritage.