CHICAGO | General Developments

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

Speaking of which, does anyone know if Chicago has any provision for transfer of development rights to make projects like that financially attractive?

Yes - either a Planned Development (allowing the buildable Floor Area to be transfered from one parcel to another) or the "Adopt-a-landmark" program wherein contributions to preserve a landmark purchase density bonuses.

Of course, the latter is not applicable in this case because everyone in this city/country hates Modernism. I like honte's idea a lot - it's probably too good an idea to work, we'll just end up with a squatter version of Marquee Michigan instead, ample streetlife-killing open space, and 50% Section 8 inside. Win-win!

[killaviews]

Any word if the retail development on the site of the old Gino's North building just north of Eylsian. I haven't been over there in a while, is something going up there now?

[Jibba]

A shot of the (relatively) recently completed North Avenue bridge:

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Jibba

A shot of the (relatively) recently completed North Avenue bridge:

Is that your bike, or the abandoned wheeled steed of some less dedicated cyclist?

[Jibba]

^It's mine. It might as well be abandoned, though, as it is a complete pile.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Yes - either a Planned Development (allowing the buildable Floor Area to be transfered from one parcel to another) or the "Adopt-a-landmark" program wherein contributions to preserve a landmark purchase density bonuses.

Of course, the latter is not applicable in this case because everyone in this city/country hates Modernism. I like honte's idea a lot - it's probably too good an idea to work, we'll just end up with a squatter version of Marquee Michigan instead, ample streetlife-killing open space, and 50% Section 8 inside. Win-win!

Neither can happen, density bonuses including adapt a landmark can only be taken in D-districts (downtown, and only in areas with D-district zoning). Adopt a Landmark alone, requires at least a base FAR of 5 (such as DX-5). Another example of how restrictive our zoning code has gotten.

However, the Mercy site is already a PD, number 138. Which means it is a really old one, and the base zoning with its allowable FAR, under which the PD was originally created on likely does not exist anymore. Being that close to the lake, I will take a guess that it was R-6, R-7 or R-8 in the 1957 code. So, maybe some flexibility will be allowed, such as changing underlying zoning to B3-5, RM-6, or RM-6.5 which are the only neighborhood zoning classes without a height limit, although PD process is required (B3-5 no height limit on parcels with 100+ feet street frontage). The PD would certainly have to be amended if the use is changing. Plus, the Mercy PD takes up quite a bit of area, so a FAR of 5, would allow for a sizable development to occur. 5 FAR is what is allowed in B3-5. 4.4 and 6.6 FAR are allowed in RM-6 and RM-6.5 respectively; and FAR premiums are available, but only if the developer reduces the overall unit count.

I really hate the new 2004 code. I wish we could have kept the amended 1957 code and added the pedestrian friendly features such no blank walls and pedestrian streets.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by Jibba

^It's mine. It might as well be abandoned, though, as it is a complete pile.

The salt will eat any bike, best to ride a complete pile during the winter.

Great night shots all around, and this one in particular.

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by Jibba

A shot of the (relatively) recently completed North Avenue bridge:

Judging by the height of the seat, I'd say your 6'2".

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Grant Park Conservancy and Grant Park Advisory Council public meeting:

Thursday, December 18, 2008, 6:30pm

Daley Bicentennial Plaza Fieldhouse
337 E. Randolph ( just east of Columbus Drive)


Planning for the Southwest Corner of Grant Park: public input

EDAW and Adrian Smith +Gordon Gill Architecture are working with the Grant Park Conservancy and Advisory Council and Chicago Park District to design a world-class, sustainable park at the SW corner of Grant Park at Roosevelt Road and Michigan Avenue (east of the Agora sculptures to Columbus Drive) where the railroad tracks and huge empty railroad beds are now. The planners and architects will be making a presentation. Your input will contribute to what could be the most innovative and green park in the country.

reminder this is tonight, thanks for posting Steely. I might try to make it, if the weather doesnt suck too bad.

[Mr Downtown]

Yeah, we'll see how much public input Bob O'Neill allows. I predict a total meeting time of 108 minutes, 52 minutes of it consisting of His Blovialness speaking solo.

[the urban politician]

To some of you living in the South Loop/Downtown, I'm just curious to know how you guys envision this part of Grant Park evolving.

This is a great opportunity, after all. In the next decade or two this area is going to be very densely developed, I suspect.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Yeah, we'll see how much public input Bob O'Neill allows. I predict a total meeting time of 108 minutes, 52 minutes of it consisting of His Blovialness speaking solo.

who's Bob O'Neill? I was at the last meeting and there was a long Q&A session.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...61&TM=41931.55

Two parking garages at six corners?
Proposals would reshape parking in busy area

By MICAH MAIDENBERG

At 1611-1619 N. Damen, CG Development has proposed a 134-space garage with ground-level retail. The four-story structure would be built atop a surface lot and require demolition of an existing building. The zoning committee was scheduled to consider a higher zoning classification for the property on Dec. 18.

At 1616-1628 N. Milwaukee, a company associated with Kryzstov Karbowski, one of the neighborhood's most active developers, wants to build a five-story, 140-space garage. Karbowski's group is presenting the proposal to area community organizations.

..."What you don't usually see near a transit station is a parking garage, because the proximity to transit is an opportunity," she said. "You can do increased residential density there."
-----

At least someone gets it.

[lawfin]

Which building would be demolished.....I don't know I think a parking garage is not necessarily a great use....maybe if they could do mixed use for first few floors say 3-5 and then put a garage on top say another 3-4 stories...totaling 5-9 stories...I know this height would not be allowed by current zoning

here is a street level google maps link

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...FZyCfwId_yXG-g


am glab surface lot will be going....not too gald of existing bulding goinf for a parking garage

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by harryc

The salt will eat any bike, best to ride a complete pile during the winter.

Great night shots all around, and this one in particular.

Yes, the salt is hell on the cables, crank, gears, just about anything metal. That's the one good thing about riding a P.O.S. That and theft prevention. Thanks for the compliment, too.

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

Judging by the height of the seat, I'd say your 6'2".

Nope, only about 6'1/2" (it's a small frame). Very close, though.

Here is the building that would be torn down for the developer CG's parking garage (it is the one with the "Caoba" awning, and, from what I've heard around the neighborhood, it's late 19th century):


I'm almost feeling ambivalent about the garage proposed by CG: it is going to be (clad in) brick, and it will have retail on the first floor. So as far as garages go, it's slightly better than standard procedure. Also, I'm afraid that since Bucktown has become a full-blown destination for shopping, there will be just too much demand for more parking in the future. As much as I hate the idea of a parking garage in the area, especially at the planned location, too many people are going to push for it--it's going to be an uphill battle against it.

As for Karbowski's plans, I am remaining extremely skeptical. Thankfully, Waguespack and some of the community groups around here have the same healthy (and necessary) skepticism regarding any project revolving around this clown. He got approval to convert Northwest Tower into a hotel (and not with Waguespack's approval) mostly because of his relation to a powerful zoning attorney that approached the city zoning board about the project. The couple historic warehouses that abut Northwest Tower are currently for sale by Karbowski, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't want to level them to make way for his precious parking garage, and, as far as I know, they aren't protected by any landmark ordinance or certification.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I'm just curious to know how you guys envision this part of Grant Park evolving.

Conceptually, I see it as Millennium Park's more movement- and family-oriented sister. I think it should be an inviting pathway from Roosevelt Road transit stations to the Museum Campus, and should include a world-class playscape that will be a memorable part of family visits to Chicago. For some reason I keep thinking of the Tuileries. Challenges include the siting of “Agora,” which is apparently difficult to alter, and the shadowing that will make that part of the park less attractive than the blocks to the north.

[lawfin]

Oh god the emergence of the dreaded shadow ogre once again

[Dr. Taco]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Oh god the emergence of the dreaded shadow ogre once again

shut your mouth, dude. Mr. Downtown's input is completely appreciable

[honte]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

Neither can happen, density bonuses including adapt a landmark can only be taken in D-districts (downtown, and only in areas with D-district zoning). Adopt a Landmark alone, requires at least a base FAR of 5 (such as DX-5). Another example of how restrictive our zoning code has gotten.

Wow, I didn't realize this. Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Yeah, we'll see how much public input Bob O'Neill allows. I predict a total meeting time of 108 minutes, 52 minutes of it consisting of His Blovialness speaking solo.

Thank you!

Originally Posted by Jibba

Here is the building that would be torn down for the developer CG's parking garage (it is the one with the "Caoba" awning, and, from what I've heard around the neighborhood, it's late 19th century)

Thanks for the image. I'd peg that one around 1905 at the earliest without looking closely. I'd be very surprised if it were any older than that.

Concerning the garages, I don't know what to say... certainly, I couldn't support them at the expense of historic buildings. Even if that were not an issue, it's a very hard call. Wicker Park / Bucktown is in the interesting predicament of being the first true destination "inland" neighborhood for retail / shopping (it's hard to call North / Clybourn a real neighborhood), and the choices made here are going to have a large impact on other future developments throughout the city. It's nice to see the area has "arrived" in such a large-scale economic sense, but will its success also be its total undoing?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Conceptually, I see it as Millennium Park's more movement- and family-oriented sister. I think it should be an inviting pathway from Roosevelt Road transit stations to the Museum Campus, and should include a world-class playscape that will be a memorable part of family visits to Chicago. For some reason I keep thinking of the Tuileries. Challenges include the siting of “Agora,” which is apparently difficult to alter, and the shadowing that will make that part of the park less attractive than the blocks to the north.

Family-oriented? World-class playscape? You have Millennium Park (Crown Fountain, winter ice rinks, free concerts), softball fields, the entire Museum Campus, and, God forbid, a possibly relocated children's museum right there. How much more "pro-child" can that area get? Or are you actually advocating for a glorified playground?

Apologies if this sounds acrimonious but, coming from a suburb where the children are among the most coddled in the region, I find this idea absolutely repulsive. The city's done enough catering to young family-tourists.

Maybe someone can help me out here, but didn't Burnham's plan for Grant Park call for a more bucolic experience in the southern portion? Something pastoral and contemplative would nicely complement the theme park to its north.