CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 2469

west-town-brad · #**49361** Posted **Oct 6, 2021, 2:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I will bring my kids there. It's inevitable

same!

OrdoSeclorum · #**49362** Posted **Oct 6, 2021, 2:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

article: https://www.wallpaper.com/architectu...rm-chicago-usa

listing: https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/28...home/147713319

I'm curious for those in the know, what really drives market rate affordability here other than the cost of land? Do the building methods and materials employed on this house really drive the cost down that much? I would assume no basement construction saves a good deal...

I'm not "in the know" but it looks like you can buy a lot near there for $45,000. If the pre-fab home cost $300,000 the simple gross profit would be about $55,000. Certainly worth your time if one could do few of those per year. Having looked into building pre-fabbed vacation homes that look a lot like that, I'm a little surprised if you could build that for $300,000, but maybe in Chicago shipping or local manufacture or something like that shaves off $60,000.

Randomguy34 · #**49363** Posted **Oct 6, 2021, 9:30 PM**

On the Committee on Design's agenda is an all-affordable, 196 unit development at the western end of the 606. They got LITHC funding last year, and have now almost tripled the unit count from the original proposal. The presentation shows renderings for the 1st and 2nd buildings, with the 3rd building being planned at a future date. The design looks excellent, would really love to see more midrises like this across the city.

Presentation: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...tro_square.pdf

sentinel · #**49364** Posted **Oct 6, 2021, 10:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

On the Committee on Design's agenda is an all-affordable, 196 unit development at the western end of the 606. They got LITHC funding last year, and have now almost tripled the unit count from the original proposal. The presentation shows renderings for the 1st and 2nd buildings, with the 3rd building being planned at a future date. The design looks excellent, would really love to see more midrises like this across the city.

Presentation: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...tro_square.pdf

Looks really nice. I feel like developers and their design teams are really stepping it up (or at least trying to) ever since the Committee on Design has been implemented.

left of center · #**49365** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 12:08 AM**

Does the Committee on Design have any teeth when it comes to ugly developments? Can they actually block permits from being issued because of it? Or is it more of a "shame on you, you can do better" sort of thing?

Via Chicago · #**49366** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 12:53 AM**

The latter

left of center · #**49367** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

The latter

I figured. Hoping I was wrong though

ardecila · #**49368** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 1:46 AM**

The buildings are nice because they don't have to accommodate parking at the base - the site is big enough to put all the parking in a surface lot in back, plus room for a private courtyard and a public park. That is what allows the funky shapes and rounded corners.

west-town-brad · #**49369** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 1:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center

Does the Committee on Design have any teeth when it comes to ugly developments? Can they actually block permits from being issued because of it? Or is it more of a "shame on you, you can do better" sort of thing?

also they only review Planned Developments, which is a specific designation and not all development projects in the city.

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/dept...ignations.html

sentinel · #**49370** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 2:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center

Does the Committee on Design have any teeth when it comes to ugly developments? Can they actually block permits from being issued because of it? Or is it more of a "shame on you, you can do better" sort of thing?

I'm still ok with that

Busy Bee · #**49371** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 2:14 PM**

Never underestimate the effectiveness of public shaming. Also true, never underestimate its ineffectiveness.

k1052 · #**49372** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 2:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel

I'm still ok with that

Yes. They shouldn't have veto power. I don't want the approval shit shows that take place in the coasts arriving in Chicago.

marothisu · #**49373** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 2:27 PM**

New construction permit was issued for a new 4 story, 53 unit apartment building with 16 parking spots at 3421 N Ashland Ave. This replaces an industrial building there - it was talked about a few months ago on here due to a zoning application.

More currently:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/34...1!4d-87.668376

The GREAT architecture that is replacing it. Via https://www.44thward.org/development...n-ashland-ave/

Handro · #**49374** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 2:46 PM**

Can an architect or developer help me understand why buildings like this get built? It seems like we can mostly agree that's a total POS, is there a school of designers this appeals to?

the urban politician · #**49375** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 2:58 PM**

^ If it replaced a vacant lot I wouldn't mind.

But the building that was already there was actually not too bad. A residential conversion of that building totally could have been pulled off

marothisu · #**49376** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 3:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ If it replaced a vacant lot I wouldn't mind.

But the building that was already there was actually not too bad. A residential conversion of that building totally could have been pulled off

A residential conversion of the current building, maybe with a little attention to detail, new windows, etc and perhaps a new exterior color would look much better than whatever is in this rendering.

left of center · #**49377** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 3:31 PM**

Yikes! Yea, that rendering is incredibly bland. I agree, keep the existing building facade, and build a few floors above it to maintain the project's density and you are good to go. That would be a massive improvement over this.

Mr Downtown · #**49378** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 5:00 PM**

I'm particularly amused at the idea of sitting in the little patios right next to that stretch of Ashland. (A friend lives in one of the townhouses across the street).

The existing industrial building is too deep (107 ft) to turn into double loaded residential units (generally 75 ft). Plus you need the parking at the rear to attract residents for the larger units. There certainly are other partis that could have worked, though. One that put the residential units up a half-floor above sidewalk level would be much preferable.

Busy Bee · #**49379** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro

Can an architect or developer help me understand why buildings like this get built? It seems like we can mostly agree that's a total POS, is there a school of designers this appeals to?

Architects that become architects because they were good at math?

rgarri4 · #**49380** Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 5:03 PM**

Believe it or not gutting and rehabbing an old building can sometimes cost way more than starting from scratch depending on the existing building. And judging from the design there's clearly a budget they're trying to hit. It's easy for us to wonder why they didn't slap a few floors onto a full gut and rehab or a fasciectomy etc. But in the real world stuff cost time and money.