HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4601  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2008, 3:57 AM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Wow, that's pretty good density for that part of town. Is there a non-bus transit connection anywhere near there?
From the center of where the shopping center will be, it's about 4/5 of a mile to the Hegewisch stop on the South Shore line. Kind of a long walk, but I'd guess there would be a fair number of kiss-and-riders from the development heading downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4602  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2008, 4:25 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,443
The Red Line extension, if built, will allow CTA planners to re-configure the bus routes on the Far South Side. You can bet that there will be a route down 134th to service this sizable development.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4603  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2008, 4:28 AM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,483
^ And further, even if many drive to the Park n Ride lot to commute downtown, it's still a lot less vehicle-miles than driving all the way to work.

Looks like a great development, I'll gladly take the slightly-hokey new urbanism over a trailer park, particularly at this lengthy distance from downtown. If only the rumored massive development near Pullman comes out more like this and not like the gated community the Alderman promises...


Can one of the development gurus comment on if 30K sq ft of retail seems appropriate for the mix of unit density and income strata of residents? Most of these new urbanist type deals end up with waaaay too much retail given the surrounding income/density due to the community meeting extortion process in which everyone says they want more retail and less housing (as if building retail spaces brings viable retail tenants)....hence all the vacant retail spaces in many of the various new downtown TODs near Metra stations, in the West Loop, etc.

But if this one was largely by-the-numbers between the developer and DPD from the get-go, I'll trust their judgment to size it right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4604  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2008, 2:46 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
The Hyde Park Blogger is back...

Sunday, August 17, 2008
Pat Dowell Hates on U of C for Buying Empty Buildings and Vacant Lots


posted by chicago pop

Chicago 3rd Ward Alderman Pat Dowell just had a NIMBY coming-out party.

Or at least it looks like she is trying to get in the Club. And nothing helps score some NIMBY street cred better than hating on the University of Chicago.

But it's not just hating on the U of C that makes you a NIMBY -- if that were the case, we'd have to include hundreds of College students -- it's how you hate on the U of C that makes you a NIMBY.

To really get street cred as a NIMBY, you have to be stuck in the 60s, the way Pat Dowell accused her 3rd Ward Aldermanic predecessor Dorothy Tillman of being "stuck in the 80s" before walloping her in the 2007 city council elections.

You have to believe, like the greatest Hyde Park NIMBYs, that what happened in the period of Urban Renewal, racial turnover, Civil Rights, and inner city decay formed a template that will forever govern the operation of Chicago politics.

You have to think that the grass-roots organizations that were formed then, over 2 generations ago, if not before (whether the Hyde Park Co-Op, the Harper Court Foundation or The Woodlawn Organization), are still relevant and effective, and that the stories these organizations tell about themselves are accurate interpretations of history.

Most importantly, when you get a chance to build something useful on a vacant lot or empty building, you say "No thanks," and make arguments about why you should be able to control and obstruct the buying and selling of private property.

Dowell makes it very clear what she wants in her letter, sent to U of C President Robert Zimmer, Mayor Daley, and, um, the Hyde Park Herald (August 13, 2008).

She doesn't want the University buying land in her ward.

She says as much, referring to her "expressed reservations about the university purchasing land in the Third Ward at this time."

Dowell claims that the University is being high-handed by not bringing her in on its real estate plans, even though she has made it clear that she doesn't want the University in her neighborhood to begin with.

So why is she surprised she's not in the loop?

Even though NIMBY-ism clearly comes in a variety of colors, it still operates according to the same conservative and self-serving logic, in which paranoid speculations are cooked up on the basis of skewed understandings of changes that happened before a lot of us were born.

The 3rd Ward version of NIMBY-ism -- like one of Dorothy Tillman's hats, it can be taken off a hook and worn by anyone -- comes in a standard package that includes ritual incantations about the "history of the university's relationship with its neighboring communities."

We're all supposed to know what this means, we read about "the history" in the papers, University officials work through their guilt by endlessly admitting that there is a "history", when what this history really boils down to is one incident in Woodlawn that happened 50 years ago in utterly different historical circumstances, and with negative unintended consequences that have left that neighborhood worse off than if it hadn't experienced "the history" in the first place.

The story is this: in the early 1960s, the University of Chicago wanted to use federal urban renewal funds, with the support of municipal condemnations, to bulldoze and redevelop Woodlawn the way it had bulldozed parts of Hyde Park, which would have resulted in the displacement of low-income households the way it already had in Hyde Park.

Local folks mobilized to prevent this. It never happened. Local folks were happy, and then their neighborhood went to hell. Somewhere along the line, at the instigation of The Woodlawn Organization and now-convicted felon and former 20th Ward Alderman Arenda Troutman, they tore down the 63rd Street spur of the El, something increasingly regarded as one of the dumbest decisions in the history of mass transit.

Fast forward half a century: urban-renewed Hyde Park is a diverse community on the upswing, with its fabric more or less intact, anchored by the University of Chicago.

After The Woodlawn Organization achieved its goal of blocking University-led renewal of its eponymous neighborhood, however, it was unable to keep the area from descending into the very death spiral that the University had sought to forestall, losing population, businesses, and tax base over the next 30 years, as middle class blacks followed their white predecessors out the door.

That's a victory? Maybe not, but it provides a useful scapegoat.

^ Click link above for the entire post, pictures, and subsequent commentary
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4605  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2008, 4:28 PM
brian_b brian_b is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
From the center of where the shopping center will be, it's about 4/5 of a mile to the Hegewisch stop on the South Shore line. Kind of a long walk, but I'd guess there would be a fair number of kiss-and-riders from the development heading downtown.
There's a CTA bus that runs down Ave O to the Hegewish station, which is about 500 feet from the entrance to this development @ 134th St. So it shouldn't be too bad.

It really looks like a pretty good overall plan for the area. That Hegewish stop always seems to be pretty busy. The park and ride lots are always full too. Only 35 minutes to Millennium Park from that stop.

Edit - I just noticed that the single family homes that are part of this plan run from 2000 - 2400 sq feet. That's excellent - brings us back to homes that are appropriately sized for the average family.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4606  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2008, 9:53 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,627
Like this wasnt his plan all along...

Quote:
Could Tribune Tower go residential?
http://www.suntimes.com/business/roe...eder20.article

...Sources said Zell, who has hired Eastdil Secured LLC to market the tower and a parking lot abutting it, is thinking big. They said Zell wants nothing better than to turn over all of Tribune Tower to a residential developer. Such an owner could use it as a Gothic ornament for new construction on the parking lot....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4607  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2008, 11:54 PM
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
Chicago Shawn Chicago Shawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian_b View Post

Edit - I just noticed that the single family homes that are part of this plan run from 2000 - 2400 sq feet. That's excellent - brings us back to homes that are appropriately sized for the average family.
And they are priced from $229,000, which is friggen cheap for new construction, even by suburban standards. You would have to go way out to the exurbs to find a new construction SF home in a greenfield development cheaper than that for 2,000 sqaure feet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4608  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2008, 3:23 AM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn View Post
And they are priced from $229,000, which is friggen cheap for new construction, even by suburban standards. You would have to go way out to the exurbs to find a new construction SF home in a greenfield development cheaper than that for 2,000 sqaure feet.
So I guess the next comment is: "I hope they're built well and not just crap."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4609  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2008, 3:26 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...96&TM=83739.05

M Development ruffling neighbors on Elm and Division
Felicia Dechter


..."They assured me that they were going to start tearing the building down in May," Spence said.

...Alderman Brendan Reilly, 42nd, wants to meet with M in the next two weeks to officially see what he called "reasonable and appropriate plans" for a two-to-three story retail structure, with possibly a café and some boutique retail. M president Jeffrey Shapack said his company is putting together their proposed plans for Reilly's review.

...Vacant since last year, not all neighbors are thrilled with the upcoming 21-story, 216-room Mondrian Chicago, although "it's better than a whorehouse," one person told me, referring to the Cedar. Shapack said construction begins this fall, and the hotel should open the first quarter of 2010.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4610  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2008, 4:18 AM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
...Alderman Brendan Reilly, 42nd, wants to meet with M in the next two weeks to officially see what he called "reasonable and appropriate plans" for a two-to-three story retail structure, with possibly a café and some boutique retail. M president Jeffrey Shapack said his company is putting together their proposed plans for Reilly's review.
You have got to be FUCKING KIDDING ME.

This site is zoned for an FAR of 7.0 you Alderhack.

And I don't swear willynilly...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4611  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2008, 1:54 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
You have got to be FUCKING KIDDING ME.

This site is zoned for an FAR of 7.0 you Alderhack.

And I don't swear willynilly...
I KNOW. I moved downtown to live in a CITY, not a small town. I grew up in town of 560 people, and our business district had 4-story buildings, for crying out loud. If Chicago aldermen think 2-3 stories is appropriate for central Chicago, then they should be tarred and feathered. Give me a city or I'll leave.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4612  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2008, 2:01 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ You know, perhaps it was the developer who decided to build a 2-3 story retail structure, since hmmm lets see, the residential market is in the TANK, the hotel market ain't far behind, and there sure as hell isn't a market for office space at this site.

I hate Alderstupidity as much as the next guy, but lets not all get carried away here & assume Reilly is evilly plotting behind all of these projects. And believe it or not, it's not the end of the world to have some shorter, boutiquish buildings in a dense urban area. In fact, I kind of like them.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4613  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2008, 2:03 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
I KNOW. I moved downtown to live in a CITY, not a small town. I grew up in town of 560 people, and our business district had 4-story buildings, for crying out loud. If Chicago aldermen think 2-3 stories is appropriate for central Chicago, then they should be tarred and feathered. Give me a city or I'll leave.
^ Oh please with the hyperbole. You already live in a CITY. What part about 120+ skyscrapers completed in under a decade DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND

Having a few boutiquish buildings (which can always be redeveloped toward a higher use in the future) built in this boom is, by far and large, without the faintest hint of a doubt, the absolute least of Chicago's problems right now
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4614  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2008, 2:07 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
And believe it or not, it's not the end of the world to have some shorter, boutiquish buildings in a dense urban area. In fact, I kind of like them.
Such as the ones already there??? That's what drives me crazy. I used to have a friend who lived in that building on the corner, and they had no intention of leaving - it was a perfectly nice place to live. But the landlord started letting it go and I believe stopped renewing leases.

Whatever the cause, if Reilly thinks short buildings are the way to go, he should advocate for preservation instead of dumbing-down. I'm getting really sick of his completely nonsensical position.
__________________
"Every building is a landmark until proven otherwise." - Harry Mohr Weese

"I often say, 'Look, see, enjoy, and love.' It's a long way from looking to loving, but it's worth the effort." - Walter Andrew Netsch Jr.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4615  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2008, 2:28 PM
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
Chicago Shawn Chicago Shawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,815
"I don't go out after 8 p.m. or when it's dark," said Sally Loeser, a member of the Near North Neighbors. "With nothing happening at the site of the Cedar Hotel and nothing happening on the east side of the block between Elm and Division, that whole area looks terribly rundown, dirty and depressing."

You have to be kidding me. This is the type of paranoia that deserves veto power of development? Why the hell do we even spend our tax money on both a planning department and zoning department, when apparently this doesn't even matter; and you know M development will play ball because they have for active developments in the 42nd ward. So, because of political bull shit M couldn't build a 7 FAR building as of right if they want future development in the 42nd ward.

Here is another example of demolishing real history for fake history, and as far as the fucktard NIMBY complaints about out of context development, look at the 5 story building on this block that has been there for the last century. This is a fleecing of our tax money, as a 7 FAR on this prime real estate would bring in far more revenue at a time when the city is in a budget crises. Just renovate the old building instead, at least then we have something with character of the historic Gold Coast, since isn't that what this issue is all about?

I beg all 42nd ward residents on this forum to write letters to the alderman's office now if you are upset with this and/or the Esquire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4616  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2008, 2:31 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Oh please with the hyperbole. You already live in a CITY. What part about 120+ skyscrapers completed in under a decade DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND

Having a few boutiquish buildings (which can always be redeveloped toward a higher use in the future) built in this boom is, by far and large, without the faintest hint of a doubt, the absolute least of Chicago's problems right now
Given that Chicago has over 1000 buildings of 10+ stories, 120 new ones in a decade is actually only about the long-term average for the city. We talk about it being a "boom," but we're bigger than Toronto yet have 1/2 as many skyscrapers. It's not really a boom, then, it's simply been a return to normal growth. Acting as though it's some huge accomplishment to maintain the average is exactly the mindset that allows stagnate complacency to creep back in.

The hemming and hawing and interference by officials is the large part of what killed the central area distributor subway, which would be very useful right about now, because the delays drove the cost up. So now we don't have an essential piece of infrastructure. The same sort of delays can kill private development, too, which is even more crucial to the city.

I may have been a bit overboard, but the idea that 120 skyscrapers in a decade should be considered a lot is just, well, silly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4617  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2008, 3:11 PM
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
Chicago Shawn Chicago Shawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
I KNOW. I moved downtown to live in a CITY, not a small town. I grew up in town of 560 people, and our business district had 4-story buildings, for crying out loud. If Chicago aldermen think 2-3 stories is appropriate for central Chicago, then they should be tarred and feathered. Give me a city or I'll leave.
I know am I am tired of it. NYC is the same story, as is any city in the US seeing a rebirth, a growing population of suburban transplants who don't understand what city living is. I swear if McCain win the presidency and Chicago loses the Olympics, I then will be looking for work overseas will go someplace that embraces urbanity rather than just tolerates it.


TUP, the vast, vast majority of our building boom was approved under Naturas and Heithcock. I don't see signs pointing forward for this type of a boom to continue in the future, regardless of whether market conditions or hot or in the toilet. Its the same story in almost every location of the city, while our city has become a much better place to live we continue to fall short of truly being the best we can be, we continue to tear down our history for crap, we continue to undermine our transit system, we continue to have a Burnham mantra and embrace the revolutionary achievements, while our citizenry continues to bitch about how much money will be spent on our El-cheapo Olympic bid, and our village idoit NIMBYs continue to elect other village idiots to serve as their pandering politicians, so that our dismal course can continue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4618  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2008, 3:14 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,483
^ I don't think you're going overboard, emathias. This is completely uncalled for. It is utterly incomprehensible that a "2 to 3 story building" could be considered remotely appropriate for that site, especially as honte points out considering there are already some attractive and serviceable 4 story buildings with a lot of character there. They could be a justifiable loss for an increase in use intensity, but for this? Utterly ridiculous. We're talking about basically the destruction of naturally affordable rental units; reducing population density, affordability, and diversity in the neighborhood. And for...what exactly? So "DeeDee Spence" can feel validated about her neighborhood activism?

I live in the 42nd ward because I want to live in the heart of it all, in one of the premier dense urban neighborhoods of the country if not the world. I am happy to give ground on whether or not zoning changes should be approved to build higher/denser than the allowable zoning, as this is a truly debatable point - but to limit development to less than half the density allowed by right under the zoning? It's indefensible. Any property owner, NIMBY or not, should be aware of the underlying zoning of their area and expect that to generally guide development, not just hope to use their political clout to control some alderhack and other people's private property to conform to their ill-supportable whims.

Last edited by VivaLFuego; Aug 21, 2008 at 3:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4619  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2008, 5:22 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Oh please with the hyperbole. You already live in a CITY. What part about 120+ skyscrapers completed in under a decade DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND

Having a few boutiquish buildings (which can always be redeveloped toward a higher use in the future) built in this boom is, by far and large, without the faintest hint of a doubt, the absolute least of Chicago's problems right now
emathias's criticism is right on. This isn't just about one parcel of land or about living in the densest neighborhood possible. It's these kinds of developments that eventually do lead to much more serious problems. Artificially imposed political restrictions on development such as these drive the cost of living in the city through the roof through a shortage of supply, which in turn pushes out the middle class (those that can't afford to pay and those without government assistance), which contributes to auto-centric sprawl 50 miles from the city center. It also leads to lower overall tax revenue and a higher tax burden on each individual. Take a look at what's been happening to cities around the world precisely for thing reason. A city has to be affordable for people just graduating college making 25-40k a year, because its these people that end up staying in the city, raising families in the city, and contributing both economically and politically to its growth. It can't just be a place for high level executives getting set to move to lake forest and section 8 recipients to be sustainable. Unfortunetly, too many American cities are becoming just that. Take a look at SF, NY, or Boston.

Everyone puts a price on living in an urban environment. Most city residents now are certainly willing to pay more to live in Chicago instead of say Schaumburg, but the mark up has its limits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ You know, perhaps it was the developer who decided to build a 2-3 story retail structure, since hmmm lets see, the residential market is in the TANK, the hotel market ain't far behind, and there sure as hell isn't a market for office space at this site.
If that was the case, the developer would've sat on it waiting for better market conditions.

Last edited by Marcu; Aug 22, 2008 at 4:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4620  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2008, 2:14 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Wow, I guess I've been educated.

But to be honest, I really think you all are overreacting.

Look at the 3 story building being demo'd. It was built perhaps 110 or 120 years ago?

The late 19th/early 20th centuries were the peak of American urbanity, yet pretty small buildings like this were still being built all over the place, despite the fact that the technology to build highrises already existed. Smaller units and lack of parking aside, these little 2-4 story structures are only going to hold so much density.

So just because a tall building is not being built in every single site where it is allowed is no reason to panic. NO reason. I think we all need to just chill out and remember that great cities are built layer after layer, generation after generation. It's not all going to happen at once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias
Given that Chicago has over 1000 buildings of 10+ stories, 120 new ones in a decade is actually only about the long-term average for the city. We talk about it being a "boom," but we're bigger than Toronto yet have 1/2 as many skyscrapers. It's not really a boom, then, it's simply been a return to normal growth. Acting as though it's some huge accomplishment to maintain the average is exactly the mindset that allows stagnate complacency to creep back in.

The hemming and hawing and interference by officials is the large part of what killed the central area distributor subway, which would be very useful right about now, because the delays drove the cost up. So now we don't have an essential piece of infrastructure. The same sort of delays can kill private development, too, which is even more crucial to the city.

I may have been a bit overboard, but the idea that 120 skyscrapers in a decade should be considered a lot is just, well, silly.
^ I guess, except until recently the large bulk of that boom has been office towers. This is the first major highrise boom that consisted almost entirely of residential, and I would assume that most of us see that as a sign of wonderful change for this increasingly 24/7 city
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:40 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.