CHICAGO | General Developments

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by bcp

now some will say that it puts the burden on the nimbys, i mean neighbors....yes - it might mean that you don't have a street space in front of your flat (public benefit...nimby's seem to think they own these spaces...). yes, people might need to walk a few blocks WITH groceries! toughen up...

And this problem, the grocery fallacy as I'd call it, is actually a symptom rather than a cause. The reason people have the problem of preferring driving to the store rather than walking is a result of a focus on the automobile. If it weren't so easy to have a car here, then there would simply be far more grocery stores, albeit smaller ones, all over the place. Food deserts are more a result of the evisceration of smaller markets by mega chain grocery stores with a one million car garage. Same goes for these big box districts which do nothing but devalue neighborhood retail.

If we weren't so focused on subsidizing and, in some cases, mandating the use of the automobile, then there would be more neighborhood markets and people wouldn't be so repulsed by the idea of having to walk to the store because the store would be closer on average. This is how people once lived in Chicago. This is how people still live in cities less ravaged by the constitutional right to the automobile. It's only a problem because we made it a problem. When your problem is a lack of space for automobiles, continuing to subsidize the automobile obviously just makes the problem worse. It's circular reasoning and we need to break the cycle by dropping any sort of minimum.

[Mr Downtown]

Two Northwest Side projects of note:

A developer is proposing a seven-story, 128-unit apartment building anchored by an Aldi for Milwaukee & Leavitt (the current Aldi site next to the Bloomingdale Trail).


Hirsch Associates via DNAInfo

And from yesterday’s Plan Commission rubber-stamping ceremony:

Conversion of the old Olson Rug headquarters at Pulaski & Diversey into some sort of mixture of commercial and residential use. A “major supermarket” is anticipated as a ground-floor tenant. Alas, restoration of the waterfall isn’t planned.


Forgotten Chicago

[the urban politician]

Wow, Milwaukee Ave (and environs) is seeing a lot of proposals lately. If they all go through, there will be a lot of transformation.

This brings me to another concern, however: LVDW scolded me for bringing this up before, but I still hold to it: sizable residential projects outside of downtown just don't seem to be making it past the proposal phase. I don't know what it is about our construction lending climate around here that seems biased towards either supporting highrises in the central area or smaller residential/single-use commercial out in the neighborhoods.

But with only a few exceptions, a lot of large proposals out in the neighborhoods that have passed zoning hurdles sit on the drawing boards. Is this the case with other tier 1 American cities, or is Chicago's local lending climate stuck in an outmoded mentality?

[bcp]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

And this problem, the grocery fallacy as I'd call it, is actually a symptom rather than a cause. The reason people have the problem of preferring driving to the store rather than walking is a result of a focus on the automobile. If it weren't so easy to have a car here, then there would simply be far more grocery stores, albeit smaller ones, all over the place. Food deserts are more a result of the evisceration of smaller markets by mega chain grocery stores with a one million car garage. Same goes for these big box districts which do nothing but devalue neighborhood retail.

If we weren't so focused on subsidizing and, in some cases, mandating the use of the automobile, then there would be more neighborhood markets and people wouldn't be so repulsed by the idea of having to walk to the store because the store would be closer on average. This is how people once lived in Chicago. This is how people still live in cities less ravaged by the constitutional right to the automobile. It's only a problem because we made it a problem. When your problem is a lack of automobiles, continuing to subsidize the automobile obviously just makes the problem worse. It's circular reasoning and we need to break the cycle by dropping any sort of minimum.

spot on...a dozen small stores is a hell of a lot better for one massive store that people need to drive to...

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But with only a few exceptions, a lot of large proposals out in the neighborhoods that have passed zoning hurdles sit on the drawing boards. Is this the case with other tier 1 American cities, or is Chicago's local lending climate stuck in an outmoded mentality?

This is almost entirely a result of the cost of parking minimums and the cost of elevators. Because of the shape of the standard Chicago lot and block and the parking minimums, there are certain quirks to the economics of building size here.

First of all the shape of the Chicago lot determines that it is physically impossible to build anything more than 3 units + Retail in the city of Chicago on a single lot. The only time you see larger buildings is one 35'+ lots. There are similar quirks that result in the prevalence of 6 flat buildings on two lots. Certain styles, like the six flat, persist while others like the side entrance 6 flat or the venerable two flat have been all but wiped out as a result of the parking minimums and certain other traits of the zoning code.

Another limiting factor is the need for elevators and cost of parking. Chicago has relatively low land values for a city of this size and it is thereby more difficult to make a building work when you are spreading the costs of elevators and parking ramps over 4-10 floors instead of 11+ floors. Ramps also tend to burn up an inordinate amount of ground floor space which, when combined with the long narrow lots perpendicularly arranged on long narrow blocks, means you can't build moderately dense buildings on too small of an assemblage (one or two lots) or you can't fit a garage to meet the parking requirements.

Once you get a big assemblage with high land values, you are fine because you can build high enough to sufficiently dilute the expense of adding elevators and a parking ramp.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Very true, and certainly a major factor.


But also, there is something to bigger and downtown being more 'in vogue' vs real estate capital participants than has even been the case in prior cycles - also it's true among the fundamental demand players. It's true here and a good number of other cities right now. Since TUP mentioned he is talking only about entitled projects, I suppose the vast difference you have in NIMBYism between downtown and da wards isn't a factor to note. And then also to some extent don't forget about another factor - the fact of the matter is that this economic expansion is less 'uniform' - more unequal in a whole lot of different ways - than the 'go-go' 90s and the housing bubble-fuelled 00's. Granted, there was an illusory nature to both of those bubblicious but still stronger economies, but putting that aside - there was more dispersion - more geographic areas (in general, and to localize - more Chicago neighborhoods) were partaking. Don't get me wrong - we're moving in the right direction now economically as far as a broadening of the expansion, but it's obviously taken awhile (natural consequence of a financial crisis-triggered deep and long recession)....

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by bcp

that's a really good point...but for less-regulation free-market types (like me), maximums are a less offensive regulation...it's nice because it puts the risk on the developer. now some will say that it puts the burden on the nimbys, i mean neighbors....yes - it might mean that you don't have a street space in front of your flat (public benefit...nimby's seem to think they own these spaces...). yes, people might need to walk a few blocks WITH groceries! toughen up...

also, and this is my favorite part....pro-parking / more-regulation types really seem to talk about loving affordability...but rarely seem to embrace the concept that a home without parking is a great source for more affordable units. Maybe that's because credit would go to a developer / free-market rather than some gov't panel and new tax scheme?

You say less offensive.........But if maximums are still somewhat offensive to you, why wouldn't you just be against any parking-related regulation? That would be the free market perspective....

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

the fact of the matter is that this economic expansion is less 'uniform' - more unequal in a whole lot of different ways - than the 'go-go' 90s and the housing bubble-fuelled 00's. Granted, there was an illusory nature to both of those bubblicious but still stronger economies, but putting that aside - there was more dispersion - more geographic areas were partaking. Don't get me wrong - we're moving in the right direction now economically as far as a broadening of the expansion, but it's obviously taken awhile (natural consequence of a financial crisis-triggered deep and long recession)....

^ Yes, I'm referring to entitled projects.

But I don't totally agree here. I'm talking about large projects in established neighborhoods. Lakeview has a few proposed, you have stuff near the Blue Line/Chicago Ave that's not yet moved forward. These are solid, fully gentrified, desirable locations. Look at the Belmont/Clark project, for example--what's the hold up?

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Buckman821

You're the one who dragged Ayn Rand into this conversation in the first place when she clearly did not belong. You are constantly trying to lump your enemies of sprawl and libertarianism into one but they are completely incongruous. The fact of the matter is that Ayn Rand's world would be much more urban than the one we live in today. You don't have to like Rand, but you have to stop making completely illogical associations such as Ayn Rand = Houston.

Not illogical at all - if you spend anytime whatsoever actually thinking about it. What in the world do you think metropolitan areas - most US metropolitan areas certainly, there might be some exceptions due to very particular physical geographies - would look like in the automobile age in an Ayn Rand world? The highways would still be there - they'd be private and tolled I suppose. And public transit - do you really think there would be public transit? Don't kid yourself by saying "yes". In other words, most cities would be more-or-less Houstonish. Don't resist that - embrace it, if this is your political philosophy as far as its impacts on urbanism....

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Yes, I'm referring to entitled projects.

But I don't totally agree here. I'm talking about large projects in established neighborhoods. Lakeview has a few proposed, you have stuff near the Blue Line/Chicago Ave that's not yet moved forward. These are solid, fully gentrified, desirable locations. Look at the Belmont/Clark project, for example--what's the hold up?

I get what you're saying - but in the big picture this is also definitely a small number of projects - actually very small - when it's in the context of the enormity of Chicago and its vast neighborhoods.......

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Two Northwest Side projects of note:

A developer is proposing a seven-story, 128-unit apartment building anchored by an Aldi for Milwaukee & Leavitt (the current Aldi site next to the Bloomingdale Trail).


Hirsch Associates via DNAInfo

And from yesterday’s Plan Commission rubber-stamping ceremony:

Conversion of the old Olson Rug headquarters at Pulaski & Diversey into some sort of mixture of commercial and residential use. A “major supermarket” is anticipated as a ground-floor tenant. Alas, restoration of the waterfall isn’t planned.


Forgotten Chicago

Both good stuff. Hirsch is a name that hadn't really shown up much at all yet this cycle....

[streetline]

Originally Posted by sentinel

IIRC, George Lucas was going to be giving a talk/presentation today at Chicago Idea's Week, and I believe there was some speculation that he might present the preliminary design for his museum...anyone have additional info on this?

It's live streaming right now.
https://www.chicagoideas.com/livestream

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by streetline

It's live streaming right now.
https://www.chicagoideas.com/livestream

Nice, this is an awesome discussion. Lucas is really interesting. This is making me even more excited for the museum! Suggest everyone tunes in.

[ChiTownWonder]

wow by what he is saying San Francisco missed out!

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by streetline

it's live streaming right now.
https://www.chicagoideas.com/livestream

fuck my computer!

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Two Northwest Side projects of note:

A developer is proposing a seven-story, 128-unit apartment building anchored by an Aldi for Milwaukee & Leavitt (the current Aldi site next to the Bloomingdale Trail).


Hirsch Associates via DNAInfo

^ Wow. If this gets built, it will be a huge improvement over the suburban crap that's already there

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by ChiTownWonder

wow by what he is saying San Francisco missed out!

Also he just described it as "It will look like it's alive, well, like a sponge"... No images though.

[ChiTownWonder]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Also he just described it as "It will look like it's alive, well, like a sponge"... No images though.

But he is saying he is looking for an organic feel, something that flows with its surroundings, something never done before. when he said a sponge he meant this


he diden't want people to end up thinking it would look like this

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Yes, I'm referring to entitled projects.

But I don't totally agree here. I'm talking about large projects in established neighborhoods. Lakeview has a few proposed, you have stuff near the Blue Line/Chicago Ave that's not yet moved forward. These are solid, fully gentrified, desirable locations. Look at the Belmont/Clark project, for example--what's the hold up?

The Belmont/Clark is out for bid and I believe they already cleared the site.

The problem I see is rental vs. condo - is the demand for rentals high enough out in the neighborhoods to justify the price of new construction? Maybe the price/SF is high enough for existing apartments ($2/SF and up) but is there enough demand to fill 50+ units without dropping the rents below that threshold?

Admittedly, the Ashland/Division tower was a strong performer, and there is a track record of huge demand for Lakeview/LP/north lakefront locations so I think those will do alright.

[Buckman821]

Edit. Double Post