CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 992

wierdaaron · #**19821** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 3:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiPsy

wierdaaron: Do you think it looks better now than it did before decapitation? http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/4a24000a.jpg

Absolutely. It used to look much more eastern-european. I don't know much about the remodel to what it looks like now or who did it, but I'd subscribe to their newsletter.

BWChicago · #**19822** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 5:19 PM**

You'll have to subscribe to the newsletter of Fire, then

Busy Bee · #**19823** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 5:43 PM**

It would be amazing to see the original roofs reconstructed.

wierdaaron · #**19824** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 6:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWChicago

You'll have to subscribe to the newsletter of Fire, then

Sign me up.

Those slanted roofs just look like some kind of weird alpine ski chalet, and the top of the clocktower looks like a doghouse. The way it looks now is much more reminiscent of early American train stations in my mind, and the ramparts on the clocktower are lovely.

I'd call it cleansing fire.

wierdaaron · #**19825** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 7:22 PM**

The tower at GEMS School LSE has been up for a while. You can tell they've got a semester deadline.

Speaking of schools, I've noticed some work going on in the old/current Jones College Prep building now that classes are out. I imagine they need to do some work to connect or integrate it with the new building.

I thought the South Loop British School wanted to be open for fall 2014 semester, but I guess MrDowntown and friends have successfully blockaded it because I haven't seen any activity there.

Mr Downtown · #**19826** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 9:43 PM**

No, the British School sailed through Plan Commission, Zoning Committee, and City Council.

untitledreality · #**19827** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 11:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

but I guess MrDowntown and friends have successfully blockaded it because I haven't seen any activity there.

I wish they would have been successful in their endeavor. Its a half ass design of a school, and a half ass design of a park.

wierdaaron · #**19828** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 11:14 PM**

Huh. Well if they want to open their doors in a year they should light a fire under it.

ardecila · #**19829** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 2:30 AM**

Re: Lathrop... I'm kinda split on this one. There's a definite need for affordable housing but the neighborhood sank their chances when they complained about the density. The developer's paying some price for the land, and if you reduce the number of units he can build, then those units need to bring in more revenue through higher rents to offset the fixed costs. Higher density = lower housing costs.

Skyguy_7 · #**19830** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 12:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Speaking of schools, I've noticed some work going on in the old/current Jones College Prep building now that classes are out. I imagine they need to do some work to connect or integrate it with the new building.

My company is doing the HVAC work at the old Jones. It's just a rehab to bring the building up to date with its new neighbor.

chris08876 · #**19831** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 12:16 PM**

Rumor Mill: New Ordinance Seeks to Legalize Transit-Oriented Development

by Steven Vance

Last week I interviewed Jacky Grimshaw about the Center for Neighborhood Technology’s recent report on Chicago’s lack of transit-oriented development compared to our peer cities. Afterward, I was thinking about the reconstruction of the entire Red Line south of Roosevelt, which will replace tracks and renovate many stations. This project is going to significantly speed up transit, but are there policies in place to incentivize development near these nine stations where riders will be able to get downtown faster?

“Rail transit does increase access and property values,” Grimshaw said. Higher densities should be allowed near transit so that more people can make use of the improved access. But as the CNT report pointed out, denser, mixed-use developments are not allowed near some train stations. In these cases, CNT recommended that transit-oriented development should be made explicitly legal, and Grimshaw hinted that the Department of Housing and Economic Development, where the city’s urban planners and zoning administrators work, is working on a transit-oriented development “overlay” ordinance to accomplish that.

A source in city government confirmed that an ordinance is in the works. In areas within 600 feet of transit stations, it would lower parking requirements and allow taller buildings, more housing, and even swap car parking for additional bike parking. Developers would have to build up to the sidewalk (similar to Pedestrian Street zoning rules) and drive-throughs would be banned. This ordinance would address many of the barriers that are currently holding back transit-oriented development in Chicago.

However, not all of the obstacles to TOD are legal in nature. Our source made sure to point out that there’s a physical barrier to TOD near several stations on the Blue and Red Lines: expressways.
=========================================
Steven Vance, http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/07/1...d-development/

SamInTheLoop · #**19832** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 1:28 PM**

^ Really?! If this actually happens and has an impact,

And, Hunt and DeVries will have a great second edition of their new book!

SamInTheLoop · #**19833** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 1:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by untitledreality

I wish they would have been successful in their endeavor. Its a half ass design of a school, and a half ass design of a park.

This. Everything about this project and how it came to be approved is nothing short of disgusting imho.

LouisVanDerWright · #**19834** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 1:45 PM**

In other news: There is about to be a big announcement regarding the Congress and Portage Theaters that should lead to major improvements to both buildings. I know that not only are several new tenants being announced, but this will lead to a complete exterior renovation of the Congress and, at least in the not to distant future, the possible return of the old "C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S" vertical marquee.

joeg1985 · #**19835** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Re: Lathrop... I'm kinda split on this one. There's a definite need for affordable housing but the neighborhood sank their chances when they complained about the density. The developer's paying some price for the land, and if you reduce the number of units he can build, then those units need to bring in more revenue through higher rents to offset the fixed costs. Higher density = lower housing costs.

I totally agree. I wish the neighborhood would have supported more density. Even if we just added four more floors to each of the buildings. That area lacks a sense of urbanism with that giant strip mall on the southeast corner of the intersection. I was really hoping for a few 20-35 storey towers mixed with 7-10 storey lowrise buildings.

Seattle has a great example of a project like this with their plans to rebuild Yesler Terrace. We should be doing that but on a slightly bigger scale.

Mr Downtown · #**19836** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 2:49 PM**

^What's the logic of putting highrises in a location so far from any rail transit?

Vlajos · #**19837** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 3:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

In other news: There is about to be a big announcement regarding the Congress and Portage Theaters that should lead to major improvements to both buildings. I know that not only are several new tenants being announced, but this will lead to a complete exterior renovation of the Congress and, at least in the not to distant future, the possible return of the old "C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S" vertical marquee.

Sounds interesting, when can we expect the announcement?

joeg1985 · #**19838** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 3:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^What's the logic of putting highrises in a location so far from any rail transit?

The transportation infrastructure isn't there now but with their decade plus construction timeline we have the opportunity to improve it. Add a water taxi station on the river, Ashland BRT isn't terribly far away, and I think that Damen would be a great candidate for a streetcar. Obviously there are no plans for streetcars in the city but I'm holding out hope/actively lobbying for there to be plans for such things. This is a dream but I don't think it's terribly far fetched.

marothisu · #**19839** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 4:16 PM**

What is the cost of BRT versus street cars (i.e. light rail)? Wondering how much cheaper BRT is than LR. It would be cool to see the water taxi service expanded. Somehow last week was the first time I ever did that and I liked it a lot. Of course it can't cover everywhere or anything, but it's a cool way to travel and can definitely cover some areas that aren't close to any rail.

wierdaaron · #**19840** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 6:02 PM**

Has anyone ever looked at using the old freight tunnels for some kind of downtown link transit system, or is that a ridiculous idea?

According to 100-year-old maps the tunnels go under union station and could hypothetically do a circuitous route between union station, merch mart, mag mile, navy pier, grant park, and museum campus. In the transpo thread I saw talk of using light rail for that, but since dealing with surface traffic is such a problem, could some use be made of those unused tunnels? I realize they are extremely narrow tunnels.