CHICAGO | General Developments

[sentinel]

Holy crap, please be careful when driving..but thanks!

[SamInTheLoop]

So the Federal Government, as reported by Crain's this week, is seeking proposals from developers on the redevelopment of the buildings it owns on the West side of State, 200 block south. There was speculation a decade ago that they would build a new Fed tower occupying at least some of this space, however my reading of the current situation is that could be off the table for the foreseeable future. However, this could be an exciting development if this block can get re-energized in a mixed-use fashion with some cool adaptive re-use or maybe even combination adaptive re-use and new construction, with some brand new retail at ground level...

[SamInTheLoop]

Industry newsletter Real Estate Alert reported earlier in the week that Sterling Bay has scored a big investment partnership in the several hundreds of $ millions with JP Morgan covering many of its W Loop parcels it's been collecting. This will speed some of these redevelopments and assuming some new developments up, big time....very positive piece of news.....

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Link N. Parker

DNAInfo is reporting that a developer wants to move forward with plans for townhouses on Milwaukke Ave in Bucktown:

http://dnainfo.com/chicago/20140716/...mingdale-trail

There was a proposal earlier for apartments there, but the g*d-damm NIMBYs stopped it.

Hopefully this development will at least have good street appeal, unlike the townhouses further up Milwaukee ave in Avondale.

Very disapointing, that site comands much more density than that, the sourinding context across Winnebago is all condo buildings. Most iritating would be the typical NIMBY comment from that dog walker- they don't want rental units. Wow, seriously FU. Dont like living near rental housing, then get the hell out of the city and choose a homogeneous suburb where nothing changes. Sorry, but that type of exclusionary attitude really angers me. This is another example of why we need higher density as-of-right zoning implimented outside of the hands of Alderman. The developers cannot even build a contextual development here.
-----------

BTW, it appers Ald. Walter Burnet (27th) has a challenger who might be bankrolled by developers and has already amased a sizable war chest according to Crain's. His campaign manager is also the CEO of Lakeside bank.

-----------

On the investment discussion, there is plenty of investment going in city neighborhoods; its just lower density, smaller scale and therfore not as noticable.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Couldn't agree more on reaction to comment on rental units. Beyond ridiculous - comments like that should be openly derided and shot down by aldermen and the city as not being consistent with the city's broad housing policy, goals, vision, and actual direction.


On the neighborhood investment discussion - I think it's a matter of proportionality......we all realize there is investment happening out in da wards, it's just that it is highly likely to be a lower proportion of the overall investment than it should be, and probably than other first tier US cities have........(just to be crystal clear, I'm not saying at all that investment in the core should probably be any less in absolute terms, in fact I feel just the opposite - it should probably be even a bit more!)...


Also, I saw that on Burnett's challenger as well. Sounds good to me! Burnett is nearly pure hack......

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by Link N. Parker

DNAInfo is reporting that a developer wants to move forward with plans for townhouses on Milwaukke Ave in Bucktown:

http://dnainfo.com/chicago/20140716/...mingdale-trail

There was a proposal earlier for apartments there, but the g*d-damm NIMBYs stopped it.

Hopefully this development will at least have good street appeal, unlike the townhouses further up Milwaukee ave in Avondale.

What a bunch of armchair quarterbacks. There is more to city planning than density and transit.

That particular census tract has, over the last 40 years, seen the largest percentage increase in density and dwelling units in all of Westtown.

This wasn't all that tough, as 60% of the land area had been industrial. But as a result of that heritage, the tract is a rabbit warren of narrow blind streets, oblique intersections, physical obstructions and bad drainage.
I suspect that it is only their dedication to duty that entices the CFD to drive their trucks into there.

Here's the story of those parcels.
All numbers are approximate.
12 years ago the property between W’bago and the tracks was zoned R4. That would allow 3 1/2 story residential buildings, 50000 sq ft total and 42 total dwelling units.
The Milwaukee half was zoned B4-2. That would allow 4 story buildings, commercial on the first floor. 80000 sq ft and 40 Dwelling units (DU) total.
Both parcels were owned by developer #1. He rolled them into a Planned development (PD) (#975). In order to maximize the residential (W’bago) side he agreed to wave a large portion of the floor area and all the DUs on the Milwaukee side (to build a strip mall) in exchange for an 80% increase in floor area and an extra 3 DUs on the W’bago side.

Eventually Developer #1 sold the W’bago side to another investor. This is common, all investors must abide by the original agreement.
That investor, Developer #2 fell into foreclosure.
Developer #3 bought it in a short sale ..
The PD was set to expire at the end of June 2012 and, by ordinance, the parcels are supposed to automatically revert to RT4 and B3-2

The Milw’ side still belongs to Developer #1 who created the PD. When it expired, any concessions he made on that portion of the development were no longer binding.

In May of 2012, developer #3 who owns the W’bago side said he feels that despite the loss of those concessions, he should retain the enhancements granted, asked for further zoning enhancements.

The Nimbys were willing to abide by the original development plan for the W'bago side, but developer #3, still wanted more.
He thought he was in the catbird seat because the Department of Planning never gets around to rolling back the zoning on expired PDs.

The Nimbys contacted Patty Scudiero directly and said:

"Ever since the fiasco of RPD 196, Chicago’s Municipal Code has made it clear that every subsequent Planned Development ordinance had a clear expiration date and that failure by the developer to perform, for whatever reason, should not be rewarded by the umbrella zoning, used to legitimize the project, becoming the new benchmark for the parcel or used as a springboard for further enhancements.

Planned Development 975 expires on June 29 2012. Section 3-16 of its own PD ordinance states that, “the zoning of the Property shall automatically revert to the B3-2 Community Shopping District and RT4 Residential Two-Flat, Townhouse and Multi-Unit District classifications applicable to the Property prior to the adoption of this Planned Development.”

The only fair disposition of a failed project is to return the parcel to its original zoning.

Section 17-13-0612-E of the Chicago Municipal Code makes that clear. It also makes it clear that the duty to initiate this change rests solely with your office.

We respectfully request that your office initiate a Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment to rezone the subject property to the zoning classification that applied to the subject property before approval of the planned development, in accordance with the procedures of Sec. 17-13-0300."

She contacted the alderman and said, "Make this go away".

The properties were zoned back.

Now, they are back where they should be with moderate density on the residential side where it may be adequately served by city services and the Milw' side (although no plans seem to be in the works) reverted back to the kind of potential it deserved.

Hopefully avoiding another strip mall.

[Chicago Shawn]

^Nonetheless, the sourrounding context is still larger buildings. I agree the stripmall was crap, but that first proposal some 13 years ago "Steeltown" was actually quite nice, would have been one of the few nicer modern designs produced by LaGreange's firm. A larger building makes sense, not just from the location midway between two rapid transit stations; but also to block noise from the El. As you mentioned, the area was mostly industrial along the rail line in the past; residential is a less intensive use even with higher unit counts.

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Couldn't agree more on reaction to comment on rental units. Beyond ridiculous - comments like that should be openly derided and shot down by aldermen and the city as not being consistent with the city's broad housing policy, goals, vision, and actual direction.


On the neighborhood investment discussion - I think it's a matter of proportionality......we all realize there is investment happening out in da wards, it's just that it is highly likely to be a lower proportion of the overall investment than it should be, and probably than other first tier US cities have........(just to be crystal clear, I'm not saying at all that investment in the core should probably be any less in absolute terms, in fact I feel just the opposite - it should probably be even a bit more!)...


Also, I saw that on Burnett's challenger as well. Sounds good to me! Burnett is nearly pure hack......

I would not say Burnett is nearly pure hack; I have seen him defind larger projects before. I've met him on a few occasions, he's a really good guy overall and does 'get it'; but the West Loop is a very high maintenance constituency that he has to serve.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

What a bunch of armchair quarterbacks. There is more to city planning than density and transit.

Sounds like you are the only armchair quarterback here, most of us have real jobs doing real things in real estate.

That particular census tract has, over the last 40 years, seen the largest percentage increase in density and dwelling units in all of Westtown.

So what? Downtown Chicago has seen the largest increase in population out of any core in the USA over the past 10 years, does that mean we should prohibit anything but townhomes down there?

This wasn't all that tough, as 60% of the land area had been industrial. But as a result of that heritage, the tract is a rabbit warren of narrow blind streets, oblique intersections, physical obstructions and bad drainage.
I suspect that it is only their dedication to duty that entices the CFD to drive their trucks into there.

This is just silly, there are FAR narrower streets in Chicago than this and certainly dozens of other cities in the USA with far more contrived street layouts. I don't see Boston burning to the ground because firefighters can't maneuver properly.

Here's the story of those parcels.
All numbers are approximate.
12 years ago the property between W’bago and the tracks was zoned R4. That would allow 3 1/2 story residential buildings, 50000 sq ft total and 42 total dwelling units.

This is the typical NIMBY argument: "wah wah wah it WAS zoned X". I don't give a fuck what it was zoned, I don't even give a fuck what it is zoned, I care what zoning makes sense and so should the rest of the city if we want to maximize our tax base.

If it is profitable to build a denser development here then it should be allowed. The entirety of this very same street just north of the Bloomingdale is lined with RM-5 and B3-2 density and functions just damn fine. I don't see how some massive catastrophe would result from doing the exact same thing 200 feet away...

[ChiTownWonder]

if you don't support development in your urban neighborhood, get out of the city and move the country!
also i red an article a while ago saying that designs for the City of Lights were to be finalized by July 7th. any word on when the plans will go into action?
http://politics.suntimes.com/article...6042014-1228am

[the urban politician]

Posted from the 451 E Grand thread:

Originally Posted by ardecila

No, read the article. Reilly point-blank called the park "a failure" and said it needed to be replaced. I don't even know if Related was intending to redesign the park before Reilly stuck his tasteless greasy meddling fingers into the project. Developers don't generally go around spending money they don't need to.

I'm torn on MVVA doing the re-design... on the one hand, his team can be undeniably talented and creative, but the firm itself is stuck in Olmsted's shadow. Maggie Daley Park might be nicer than the old Daley Bi, but it looks like a chunk of Central Park or Lincoln Park... we were designing that crap 100 years ago. It's 2014, we can do something fresh and innovative.

I just don't understand your logic here. I can understand highrise and building design changing with the times due to advances in technology, energy usage, materials, etc.

But why change park design? Is it change just for the sake of change? I don't get it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

People like bucolic, natur-y parks that are a quiet respite from the city. Central Park and Lincoln Park are highly successful examples of this. Daley Bi was a shitty park, that's all there is to it. It probably gave hard ons to modernists, but that's not the purpose of a park.

I don't need "fresh and innovative" in park design if it's not a place where I'm going to want to go for a stroll or get some relaxation.

[marothisu]

The old Hunt Club, 1100 N State, got another building permit yesterday for $6.2 million. Looks like they may start building soon for real? or have they already started??

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by ardecila

No, read the article. Reilly point-blank called the park "a failure" and said it needed to be replaced.

...

I'm torn on MVVA doing the re-design...but the firm itself is stuck in Olmsted's shadow. Maggie Daley Park might be nicer than the old Daley Bi, but it looks like a chunk of Central Park or Lincoln Park... we were designing that crap 100 years ago. It's 2014, we can do something fresh and innovative.

In my opinion that park IS a failure. It amounts to little more than a grass field with a few diagonal sidewalks. It lacks any sense of intimacy, or privacy... yet is far too small to evoke an illusion of expansiveness. It feels like the typical suburban "park". A big, flat expanse of mowed grass with a sprinkling of hedges and trees around the perimeter.

Valkenburgh has proven himself to be a skilled creator of active public spaces, with designs that are both bucolic, and urban. His parks get USED 24/7, and that is the point right? To draw people into these spaces and to keep them there... and keep them coming back.

Calling Olmsted design ideology "crap" is beneath you. Olmsted parks are as fresh and interesting now as they have ever been, and by adding a new layer of embedded use, the result is an even more successful interpretation of Olmsted. Brooklyn Bridge Park (beautiful and packed), Hudson River Park (beautiful and packed), Teardrop Park (beautiful and packed)... I will gladly take something similar for this area of the city.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Daley Bi was a shitty park, that's all there is to it. It probably gave hard ons to modernists, but that's not the purpose of a park.

Modernist? What? The garden was more Neoclassical than anything.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Calling Olmsted design ideology "crap" is beneath you. Olmsted parks are as fresh and interesting now as they have ever been, and by adding a new layer of embedded use, the result is an even more successful interpretation of Olmsted. Brooklyn Bridge Park (beautiful and packed), Hudson River Park (beautiful and packed), Teardrop Park (beautiful and packed)... I will gladly take something similar for this area of the city.

Sure, Olmsted's romantic landscapes are successful and popular. That doesn't mean we should keep building more of these designs and nothing but these designs.

Monticello is a very well-designed house that is admired by many, but that doesn't mean we should design every building in America with red brick and white windows for eternity - and that's pretty much the situation in Chicago with landscapes. Look at pretty much any park in the city - black metal fencing, winding paths, open lawns, boulders. Pale imitations of nature. Ugly chainlink dog park thrown in to appease the yuppies.

On a related note, what's with the disdain everyone has for secluded spots of beauty? Why does every open space need to be filled with screaming children or barking dogs to be considered successful?

[johneboy96]

Originally Posted by ardecila

On a related note, what's with the disdain everyone has for secluded spots of beauty? Why does every open space need to be filled with screaming children or barking dogs to be considered successful?

Because if there is no proper dog park then dogs destroy the entire park. Right now, the entire field is dead and filled with dog turds because the owners won't use the poop filled gravel pit they called a "dog run". If you look at lakeshore east they have fine grass and a clean dog park because owners actually use the dog run for more than just a poopstop.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ardecila

.

On a related note, what's with the disdain everyone has for secluded spots of beauty? Why does every open space need to be filled with screaming children or barking dogs to be considered successful?

So children shouldn't be allowed in parks now? Hearing stuff like this kinda proves the point that cities have a long way to go before they really feel like a place for families (you know, most of society).

The "de-carnivalizing" of Navy Pier comes to mind: I get that it needed some modernization and an upgrade, and I'm excited about that. But the carnival atmosphere of Navy Pier is what is so appealing about it to a lot of people. To sterilize it so just reflects the very values I'm talking about (lets all make everything look like icy cold German Miesian minimalistic hell with straight lines and zero acknowledgment of human usage). I hope I'm wrong

[Mikemak27]

Hopefully the architect of the park designates an area of the park that is dog friendly and can actually be used by dogs. When they don't do that, the grass areas of the park that are meant for children, families, and adults becomes the de facto place for dog owners to romp and piss around on. This quickly results in dog crap and dead grass everywhere. See the Fulton River District Park at Kinzie and Des Plaines for an example of a good park gone doggy take over. I guess we could ask for actual enforcement of leash laws, etc., but the police have their hands full with violent crime as it is.

[streetline]

Originally Posted by Mikemak27

Hopefully the architect of the park designates an area of the park that is dog friendly and can actually be used by dogs. When they don't do that, the grass areas of the park that are meant for children, families, and adults becomes the de facto place for dog owners to romp and piss around on. This quickly results in dog crap and dead grass everywhere. See the Fulton River District Park at Kinzie and Des Plaines for an example of a good park gone doggy take over. I guess we could ask for actual enforcement of leash laws, etc., but the police have their hands full with violent crime as it is.

Fulton River Park has a fenced in dog area, a lot of dog owners just can't be bothered to get their dogs there to do their business. Sort of like the new K2 tower a block away has a huge fenced in dog run, easily the largest in the area, and yet still has poop on their sidewalks every time I walk by.

People are too lazy, laws are too unenforced, and dogs are becoming too numerous for things to go on the way they are indefinitely. I hope that as technology advances, the city can find ways to make enforcing pet related sanitation laws profitable and thus practical. They're doing genetic tests on the feces on Montrose beach now, if they combined that sort of thing with a genetic marker record in pet registrations, they could generate a whole lot of fines...

[LouisVanDerWright]

This discussion is making my head hurt...

Originally Posted by untitledreality

In my opinion that park IS a failure. It amounts to little more than a grass field with a few diagonal sidewalks. It lacks any sense of intimacy, or privacy... yet is far too small to evoke an illusion of expansiveness. It feels like the typical suburban "park". A big, flat expanse of mowed grass with a sprinkling of hedges and trees around the perimeter.

Why does every park need to be crammed with trees and entertainment options? I see people constantly using that field for exactly this reason: it is an actual open space where they can do things. Also, I would hardly call the awesome pine grove at the West side of the park a "sprinkling of trees" that is actually my favorite part of the park, it reminds me of the north woods.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

So children shouldn't be allowed in parks now? Hearing stuff like this kinda proves the point that cities have a long way to go before they really feel like a place for families (you know, most of society).

Oh come off it, he didn't even come close to saying that. The question is why does every park have to be designed for children. Not every park needs a playground in it and this park is nice in that it doesn't have one and can therefore be used for a different set of activities.

[BrinChi]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

^
I would not say Burnett is nearly pure hack; I have seen him defind larger projects before. I've met him on a few occasions, he's a really good guy overall and does 'get it'; but the West Loop is a very high maintenance constituency that he has to serve.

I think he does 'get it' from a development & economic activity perspective. I live in East Garfield and my wife and I recently went to a meeting held to discuss a CPS proposal to redevelop the former Dodge Elementary as office space for 400 CPS administrators. Many of the long-time residents attending were still pissed about the school closing (perhaps warranted, but 8 months after the fact, and nobody tried to organize against the closing until after the redevelopment proposal) and just could not move on--they continued to bring up past examples of how they've been screwed again and again. Burnett wouldn't have it, played hardball saying take it or leave it: you people wouldn't recognize a golden opportunity if it hit you square in the face... there are 50 other school buildings CPS could choose to do this. You want it to sit vacant? The re-development is moving forward thank God. (Note: He also owns several properties in the area.)

That said, since my wife and I are white, when he met us he assumed we were the 'investors' interested in redeveloping the nearby Wolfson Building. We were like, um no we live here thank you. As he shook our hands he was scanning the room for who to talk to next--typical politician I guess.
side note: isn't it crazy I'm in the same ward as Atrium Village?