CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 2147

sentinel · #**42921** Posted **Sep 27, 2018, 2:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

What a joke.

This is the map they created that highlights the height limits by area:

Idiotic.

the urban politician · #**42922** Posted **Sep 27, 2018, 2:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiShawn

According to Block Club, Burnett (27th) and Solis (25th) said they'll consider developments on a case-by-case basis, which sounds like political speak for go pound sand with your height restrictions. Solis also said the parking minimums (1:1) for condos were too high.

Wow, I’m glad Solis is talking this way. As Pilsen’s Alderman, we need more development there. Also, I’m glad more city leaders are getting on board with the move away from excess parking.

I loved reading this:

Quote:

Ald. Walter Burnett (27th), whose ward includes the West Loop, lauded Neighbors of West Loop for their hard work on the plan, but said that he considers proposed developments on a case-by-case basis and will continue to do so in the future.

An outright cap on height could limit development and deter certain projects from coming into the neighborhood and bring needed economic resources to the West Loop and the city of Chicago, Burnett said

“It’s volatile to make any kind of decisions that are going to slow things down,” the veteran alderman said.

r18tdi · #**42923** Posted **Sep 27, 2018, 4:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel

This is the map they created that highlights the height limits by area:

So why the tight limits around the Clinton stop, east of the Expressway? Does that guy who drafted the plan live over there?

nomarandlee · #**42924** Posted **Sep 27, 2018, 6:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi

So why the tight limits around the Clinton stop, east of the Expressway? Does that guy who drafted the plan live over there?

Yea, that is what stuck out to me. The rest was predictable but the area immediately around Ogilvie? That would seem fertile ground for large towers and there isn't a slew of residents around there now as it is I don't think.

jc5680 · #**42925** Posted **Sep 27, 2018, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Yea, that is what stuck out to me. The rest was predictable but the area immediately around Ogilvie? That would seem fertile ground for large towers and there isn't a slew of residents around there now as it is I don't think.

Depends on what you mean by a slew, I suppose - but the area has filled out quite a bit in the last 10 years, primarily with residential/hotel developments. Catalyst, Hyatt place, EMME are in the bounds. A lot of K Station is just outside, but very much part of that neighborhood. Lake continues to fill in with the kind of businesses you see in the neighborhoods (money gun,st Lous, old town barber, fitness boutiques). Oriole is in the box. It's hardly river north, but not exactly as sleepy as a lot of people generally assume.

What is odd to me, within those bounds, there are really only 2 sites prime for development: Jefferson/Fulton and Clinton/Lake. The farthest being only a block and a half from the Clinton stop. Those sites are begging for some density, at the very least within the scale of their immediate ~250 ft neighbors 180/200 N Jefferson. River point is 2 blocks from those sites, there is a case for height in that scale as well.

LouisVanDerWright · #**42926** Posted **Sep 27, 2018, 11:16 PM**

The sites around Clinton should be slated for only 750'+ office towers, wtf are these people smoking?

BonoboZill4 · #**42927** Posted **Sep 27, 2018, 11:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The sites around Clinton should be slated for only 750'+ office towers, wtf are these people smoking?

I'm not so surprised seeing this actually when I look at it now. The view from my office shows how many (relatively) short buildings there are near that area, and I'm sure there were enough big names in their NIMBY group living there that they got them to add that into the map.

Like you said though, it's absolutely absurd and asinine.

BonoboZill4 · #**42928** Posted **Sep 27, 2018, 11:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

yes, sarcastic

ardecila · #**42929** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 12:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4

I'm not so surprised seeing this actually when I look at it now. The view from my office shows how many (relatively) short buildings there are near that area, and I'm sure there were enough big names in their NIMBY group living there that they got them to add that into the map.

Like you said though, it's absolutely absurd and asinine.

Well, keeping the area as low-rise will at least make it easier in another 30-40 years when they have to thread more rail tracks through the area because Union Station and the Green/Pink Lines are completely at capacity. They already did an engineering study about digging a tunnel below the midrises at Fulton/Clinton. Any new highrises will have a forest of deep foundations that can't be tunneled through.

PKDickman · #**42930** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 6:27 PM**

I just ran these numbers for a conversation on Reddit, I thought you guys might be interested.

re:ACS 1yr Pop change 2016-17

Someone asked for CCA data and I explained

You need tract level data to compute community areas and that won't be out until Dec.
But you can get data for PUMAs which, for us, are groups of CCAs.
Biggest gains are in the NW bungalow belt. Biggest losses are in the Garfields and Lawndales.
Very respectable gains across the South side

(North)--Edgewater, Uptown & Rogers Park 2474
(North)--Lake View & Lincoln Park -41
(North)--West Ridge, Lincoln Square & North Center 5625
(Northwest)--Irving Park, Albany Park, Forest Glen & North Park -1126
(Northwest)--Portage Park, Dunning & Jefferson Park 7544
(West)--Austin, Belmont Cragin & Montclare 13563
(Northwest)--Logan Square, Avondale & Hermosa -8637
(West)--North & South Lawndale, Humboldt Park, East & West Garfield Park -14582
(West)--West Town, Near West Side & Lower West Side -5384
(Central)--Near North Side, Loop & Near South Side -1570
(Southwest)--Brighton Park, New City, Bridgeport & McKinley Park 4667
(Southwest)--Gage Park, Garfield Ridge & West Lawn -9615
(South)--Chicago Lawn, Englewood/West Englewood & Greater Grand Crossing 974
(South)--South Shore, Hyde Park, Woodlawn, Grand Boulevard & Douglas 2751
(South)--Ashburn, Washington Heights, Morgan Park & Beverly 1727
(South)--Auburn Gresham, Roseland, Chatham, Avalon Park & Burnside 3845
(South)--South Chicago, Pullman, West Pullman, East Side & South Deering 8686

Yeah, these are guestimates and the Margin of error might run 8000-10000 per PUMA. But, of course, so were the 2016 estimates

I also didn't include Edison Pk or O'hare who are lumped in with suburban PUMAs

the urban politician · #**42931** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 6:33 PM**

^ Nice, very Marothisu-esque

With all of the black flight we’ve been hearing about, I wonder where all this population gain on the south side is coming from?

Some of these numbers have to be off, though. There is no way that the Central area lost residents.

Actually, the more I look at these numbers the less they make any sense to me

Vlajos · #**42932** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 6:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Nice, very Marothisu-esque

With all of the black flight we’ve been hearing about, I wonder where all this population gain on the south side is coming from?

Some of these numbers have to be off, though. There is no way that the Central area lost residents.

Actually, the more I look at these numbers the less they make any sense to me

Yeah, they don't make sense. The central area of the City has gained thousands of rental units that have been leased with net absorption. I don't trust the year to year numbers at this smaller level.

Jim in Chicago · #**42933** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 8:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Yeah, they don't make sense. The central area of the City has gained thousands of rental units that have been leased with net absorption. I don't trust the year to year numbers at this smaller level.

And given the definition "Near North Side, Loop & Near South Side" it just doen'st add up. All those areas are booming with new units and pretty much zero loss. The gain should be huge, not negative.

Steely Dan · #**42934** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 9:00 PM**

^ yeah.

sniff test failed.

harryc · #**42935** Posted **Sep 28, 2018, 11:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel

This is the map they created that highlights the height limits by area:

Idiotic.

Odd all my maps show the east edge of the West loop as being the expressway.

My maps also show Fulton Market and River West as separate hoods.

KWillChicago · #**42936** Posted **Sep 29, 2018, 4:28 AM**

Anyone go to the opening of the merch mart lighting?

SIGSEGV · #**42937** Posted **Sep 29, 2018, 4:31 AM**

Damn I'm tempted, but Notre Dame-Stanford will be on... now if they'd just show that game on the Mart, then I'd go.

BonoboZill4 · #**42938** Posted **Sep 29, 2018, 5:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

Anyone go to the opening of the merch mart lighting?

I'm going! Might try to sneak into the office and view from there to get away from the riff raff

KWillChicago · #**42939** Posted **Sep 29, 2018, 6:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4

I'm going! Might try to sneak into the office and view from there to get away from the riff raff

There you go. You have an amazing view of it by the way, from your previous photos. Appreciate the Wolf shots.

spyguy · #**42940** Posted **Sep 29, 2018, 4:13 PM**

Ugh, demolition delay for 42-46 E Superior again. Not sure what they are planning after Reilly axed the last proposal.