CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 989

marothisu · #**19761** Posted **Jul 26, 2013, 10:59 PM**

^ Yep, it's sad. Though, there have been a number of SFH built on some empty lots of Lakeview on Lakewood semi recently. The site on Broadway blows my mind though. I'm sure the land owner isn't making it easy though. That site is fairly prime real estate.

Anyway, they don't want a building of a maximum of 12 stories right near a major train station? I understand not putting a 50 story building in there, but 12 stories is not going to ruin the feel of the neighborhood, and there are no views being protected either. I guess I just don't get it..a maximum of 12 stories would scale decently in that area.

emathias · #**19762** Posted **Jul 26, 2013, 11:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

^ Yep, it's sad. Though, there have been a number of SFH built on some empty lots of Lakeview on Lakewood semi recently. The site on Broadway blows my mind though. I'm sure the land owner isn't making it easy though. That site is fairly prime real estate.

Anyway, they don't want a building of a maximum of 12 stories right near a major train station? I understand not putting a 50 story building in there, but 12 stories is not going to ruin the feel of the neighborhood, and there are no views being protected either. I guess I just don't get it..a maximum of 12 stories would scale decently in that area.

This is exactly why the TOD ordinance needs more teeth.

PKDickman · #**19763** Posted **Jul 26, 2013, 11:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Sucks, although I was never expecting a highrise to go through anyhow. At least they seem to have some plans for that intersection, which should invariable entail getting rid of that worthless Dunkin Donuts lot.

Too much land in Chicago's northside neighborhoods is underutilized. I mean, where are the developers? Why are parking lots in Ukrainian Village being developed while lots in Lakeview (I'm talking about you, old Dominick's site on Broadway) stay empty for years on end?

On the Clark and Belmont parcel they can build 6 stories, 65000 sq ft and 55DUs as of right. They don't need to build a highrise.

SamInTheLoop · #**19764** Posted **Jul 27, 2013, 1:00 AM**

I think there's an inaccurate 'read' of the situation as a result of the DNAinfo article. Crain's has absolutely excellent reporting credibility. Their article did state the new owner's plans are for an 8-12 floor building. DNAinfo just quoted a broker involved somehow in the deal that those are not the owner's plans......multiple things could be going on here - the broker could be wrong, the broker could be un or misinformed, the broker may not know what he's talking about, the broker might be trying to pre-emptively diffuse a situation with the alderman and his undeserved prerogative if he was somehow surprised, upset etc by what he read in Crain's as opposed to hearing it from the developers themselves, etc.....point is, by no means is there enough info here to conclude that the Crain's article truly did in fact contain an inacurracy that was subsequently corrected by dnainfo....

the urban politician · #**19765** Posted **Jul 27, 2013, 7:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

This-
"Blitz told him the company "understands the community would never want a building of that size," Thomas said, and the two chatted about the neighborhood's reaction to The Out Hotel Chicago proposal. "

NIBMYs in Lakeview and Lincoln Park are out of control. Developers know they don't even want to try to go toe to toe with the NIBMYs there.

I think developers can still build pretty big in those neighborhoods. I agree that the NIMBYism is pretty bad, but it's not insurmountable. And the cost of real estate in these areas is reaching the point where it probably will be worth the effort.

And lets not forget that there is still a lot of underutilized land that can be densified as-of-right. The Clark-Belmont intersection is a perfect example. They can build up to 6 stories, 55 units (as somebody else mentioned) without needing a zoning change, yet it's 2013 and we still have a Dunkin Donuts parking lot.

Look at some of those strip malls on prime spots on the north side: would underlying zoning not allow something denser than what sits there, while still allowing for there to be commercial space?

The question is what the cause of this inertia is. Perhaps a real estate/market guy like SamintheLoop knows? I wonder if very low interest rates have anything to do with it--the payments are nice and comfortable, and hence property owners don't feel obliged to dramatically raise revenues from their holdings...?

LouisVanDerWright · #**19766** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 8:10 PM**

Sorry for the crappy cell phone photo, but Pizza Hut tower makes a really great impact on the classic view towards the loop at the Damen Blue Line El platform:

Link N. Parker · #**19767** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 9:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

Well, looks like no potential high rise on the corner of Clark & Belmont

But at least they look to be doing something on that corner that could be good for the community if done right (what good is that dunkin donuts and parking lot doing?).

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130...etail-possible

I'm actually glad that a high-rise is not going to go in on that tiny lot; but I am happy that the Dunkin Donuts (and the horrible parking lot) are going away. I would be happy with a 6-story mid-rise in this location, with hopefully no parking podium.

Link N. Parker · #**19768** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Sucks, although I was never expecting a highrise to go through anyhow. At least they seem to have some plans for that intersection, which should invariable entail getting rid of that worthless Dunkin Donuts lot.

Too much land in Chicago's northside neighborhoods is underutilized. I mean, where are the developers? Why are parking lots in Ukrainian Village being developed while lots in Lakeview (I'm talking about you, old Dominick's site on Broadway) stay empty for years on end?

I am not 100% sure, but I believe that the Dominick's site on Broadway was/is tied up in various lawsuits, and this has prevented things from moving forward there.

J_M_Tungsten · #**19769** Posted **Jul 28, 2013, 11:27 PM**

Today
Godfrey

Google- A lot left to do on this one.

wierdaaron · #**19770** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 3:50 AM**

They've boiled it down to its skeleton like a museum piece.

Remy_Bork · #**19771** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 4:08 AM**

Does anyone know if the former cold storage building was going to end up all glass covered or have some sort of replication of the old brick and details? I thought the reuse of the old elements looked nice in the renderings.

Thanks!

Remy_Bork · #**19772** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 4:11 AM**

Sorry, double posted, don't know how to delete

Rizzo · #**19773** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 5:37 AM**

From what I understand, preserving existing brick on the exterior was impossible. There's apparently a long story behind that. But I would guess any masonry that turns up would be new. Though they could use the old bricks on the interior

pilsenarch · #**19774** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 2:11 PM**

I think the cold/storage google complex would benefit at this point without recreating any brick historicism... keep the concrete structure as the sole reference to its past and everything else contemporary...

lakeviewer · #**19775** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 2:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Link N. Parker

I am not 100% sure, but I believe that the Dominick's site on Broadway was/is tied up in various lawsuits, and this has prevented things from moving forward there.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxyo...Zjg/edit?pli=1

Per SELVN minutes, the site is fully owned by the city of Chicago worker and teacher pension funds. Tunney has hired a consultant to determine the best use for the land

i_am_hydrogen · #**19776** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 3:13 PM**

I visited the Cold Storage building three months ago, and, judging from the above pics, very little has transpired since then. Not sure why this one has been so slow to progress.

the urban politician · #**19777** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 3:29 PM**

^ permit delays, I believe

LouisVanDerWright · #**19778** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 4:13 PM**

What is going on with Fulton Market Cold Storage is that, once they started construction, they realized that all of the masonry was completely shot. They were originally planning on retaining all or most of that masonry and, once they realized they needed to gut it, it completely changed their construction plans to the point where they had to redesign the facade system and submit for revised permits on that portion of the project. That means a 30-60 day delay just for permits. That's not to mention the fact that they are also likely facing another delay waiting for whatever facade system they ordered to be fabricated and delivered. I heard it might be precast panels with embedded brick like the Hilshire Farms renovation, but it seems to me that it would have been faster to simply use real brick since you can order it and have it on site the next day.

In any case, there have been permiting and design delays with the facade system and that means no other work can begin since you have to have the building envelope at least partially completed before you can start any real interior work (beyond limited plumbing).

i_am_hydrogen · #**19779** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 5:02 PM**

^Thanks for the info.

the urban politician · #**19780** Posted **Jul 29, 2013, 5:55 PM**

^ Yep, a much more detailed & informative explanation than mine, for sure..