CHICAGO | General Developments

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Infill is already happening, of the CHA replacement housing variety.

In my opinion, I think it is designed pretty well. The problem is, we need private investment.

And as long as you can still buy a 2 flat in Logan Square for $75,000 + a bit of rehab, why would private investors flock to the south side?

On a side note, I keep getting emails about a GORGEOUS graystone just half a block west of Washington Park on the south side (okay, it's not a lakefront hood but it's right next to Hyde Park) that is for sale for $80,000. It is a multiunit building. When you see pictures of this building it almost brings a tear to your eye.

Such gorgeous property sitting there, decaying, for no good reason, and nobody wants to take a chance on it...

FCUK I was unaware CHA was doing development in the area. I am sorry maybe it seems cruel but the absolute last thing this city needs is to any more subsidized housing. Aren't there entire subdivisions out in the exurbs that need residents....put them there. Not along the lakefront. If Chicago want to compete internationally with the heavy weights we need a lot less warehousing of the poor and more policy that encourages the educated to settle here with amenities like a beautiful lakefront among other things. Don't waste that investment on knuckleheads who are just going to let the hole thing go to hell within 5-10 years anyhow

[untitledreality]

A little update on a old rendering of eight townhomes at Shakespeare and California.





All images taken from Trulia. There are floor plans online as well.

It turns out this is a Ranquist development, which already has the first home under contract with a bunch of interest on a few more... even well before construction has started. The listing has an asking of $399,800 which for the neighborhood and level of quality we have grown accustom to seeing from Ranquist seems like a good deal.



Ranquist has also given the project [known as 'FlexHouse'] its own website, where detailed information about the units... and larger images are available. Construction is set to start July 1st 2012 per the site. http://flexhouselogansquare.com/#

[spyguy]

Montana Row (1544 W Montana)


Single family home at Prairie and Cullerton


44th and Cottage redevelopment
155 units, retail, plaza

[ardecila]

I like the plaza, but I really wish CHA didn't demand such goddamn traditional buildings. As a huge developer on the South and West Sides, they could really push for innovative new design instead of this brick and precast crap.

[the urban politician]

^ I for one disagree.

I'd rather see the brick and precast crap. It will age better than some fancy modernist design resembling a beetle humping a grasshopper which, after decades housing CHA residents, will almost certainly look a lot shittier over time.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by lawfin

I am sorry maybe it seems cruel but the absolute last thing this city needs is to any more subsidized housing. Aren't there entire subdivisions out in the exurbs that need residents....put them there. Not along the lakefront. If Chicago want to compete internationally with the heavy weights we need a lot less warehousing of the poor and more policy that encourages the educated to settle here with amenities like a beautiful lakefront among other things. Don't waste that investment on knuckleheads who are just going to let the hole thing go to hell within 5-10 years anyhow

Just wanted to clarify if you are being serious or sarcastic, because your sig line is "don't be a right wing zombie", and I think a lot of people would say that describes what you're saying. I'm not trying to comment, just clarifying.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I for one disagree.

I'd rather see the brick and precast crap. It will age better than some fancy modernist design resembling a beetle humping a grasshopper which, after decades housing CHA residents, will almost certainly look a lot shittier over time.

First off, all new CHA housing is mixed-income, which means there ARE assessments and so forth to ensure regular maintenance. However, using the failure of 1960s public housing as a rationale to decry modernism is weak. Good architects should design buildings that require minimal maintenance, but no architect can design a totally maintenance-free building, and the amount of money that CHA spent to maintain their high-rise properties is absolutely shameful. Those buildings could have been designed with brick and stone, and they would still have gone to hell in a handbasket. If our society can't commit to maintaining these buildings, it doesn't matter what style they're in - we shouldn't be putting them up in the first place.

Second, I don't know why you're assuming a modernist design has to be complex or "fancy".

Here are few social-housing projects from Paris that are similar to what I'm imagining:
http://www.archdaily.com/17568/louis...-housing-ecdm/
http://www.archdaily.com/80890/socia...et-architecte/
http://www.archdaily.com/51744/bouci...enac-gonzalez/
http://www.archdaily.com/107991/he-h...uf-architecte/
http://www.archdaily.com/141892/stud...-architecture/

You don't even have to go that far, though. The North Side has tons of nice new modernist housing, and there are already numerous firms in the city doing this type of work. The CHA redevelopments are so fricking gigantic that they are going to become endless seas of ugly traditional buildings, and the Bronzeville-Oakland-Washington Park area is one of the worst offenders because everything that gets built is either a CHA project or a wanna-be greystone.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Just wanted to clarify if you are being serious or sarcastic, because your sig line is "don't be a right wing zombie", and I think a lot of people would say that describes what you're saying. I'm not trying to comment, just clarifying.

Whoa! Talk about living in a black or white world..

So you can't be against far right wing neo-cons as well as subsidized housing at the same time? Give me a break

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

A little update on a old rendering of eight townhomes at Shakespeare and California.





All images taken from Trulia. There are floor plans online as well.

It turns out this is a Ranquist development, which already has the first home under contract with a bunch of interest on a few more... even well before construction has started. The listing has an asking of $399,800 which for the neighborhood and level of quality we have grown accustom to seeing from Ranquist seems like a good deal.



Ranquist has also given the project [known as 'FlexHouse'] its own website, where detailed information about the units... and larger images are available. Construction is set to start July 1st 2012 per the site. http://flexhouselogansquare.com/#

^ It looks like at least one brick 2 flat is being demo'd for this project.

I've seen worse, but it's kind of irritating given that there is a friggin vacant triangle shaped parcel just across the street

[denizen467]

^^ No, it was just the phrasing, which kinda went way beyond that...

[Vlajos]

Wow, I didn't realize you could buy a 2-flat in Logan Square for $80K. That's freakin' cheap!

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I for one disagree.

I'd rather see the brick and precast crap. It will age better than some fancy modernist design resembling a beetle humping a grasshopper which, after decades housing CHA residents, will almost certainly look a lot shittier over time.

Oh come now, you and I both know that most of the happy brick schlock like this ages even worse than the modernist stuff you are decrying. Just take a look at some of the brick further east on Belmont that was built in the 90's. It is of such shitty quality that the bricks near street level are already dissolving from the salt.

Developments like this:



Will age fantastically because they will use premium, modern, materials which, frankly, will last an extremely long time even compared to stuff built with brick 100 years ago. Modern building materials like Vinyl or metal panels might never wear down or age even over a hundred years. For example, just look at materials like anodized aluminium used on buildings like 860-880. That building is 60 years old and looks as if it could have been built yesterday now that they've cleaned it up and repaired the plaza. Modernism actually tends to age extremely well if it is maintained.

Also, I think you are looking at the wrong site if you think anything is being demolished for this development. I'm pretty sure it is solely being constructed on the huge vacant lot that currently exists there.

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Wow, I didn't realize you could buy a 2-flat in Logan Square for $80K. That's freakin' cheap!

You can't. They only list that shit at $80k to generate interest, the lowest sale I've seen recently was $126,000. Anything that sells for less than $125,000 in LS probably requires a metric shit ton of work.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Just wanted to clarify if you are being serious or sarcastic, because your sig line is "don't be a right wing zombie", and I think a lot of people would say that describes what you're saying. I'm not trying to comment, just clarifying.

I know I am just as guilty as this as anyone (probably more so), but can we please cut this crap out. Hayward is right, the endless off topic circles on here are getting exhausting.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Also, I think you are looking at the wrong site if you think anything is being demolished for this development. I'm pretty sure it is solely being constructed on the huge vacant lot that currently exists there.

^ No, that's not true.

If you go to the development's website, it shows exactly where this project is being built. It is on SW corner of the intersection, where a boarded up brick 2 flat sits, and just west of that are some vacant lots. The townhomes will be facing the Chicago Police Dept just to the north.

Besides, there really is no way this development could fit on a triangular site

[the urban politician]

I was first excited reading this as an early sign of Gabe Klein's commitment to making the city more pedestrian friendly.

It's a good start, but as I visited the links I got a bit disappointed. Too watered down and weak.

How about something a bit more bold than this, Mr. Klein? Are you serious--seasonal block parties on cul-de-sacs? Give me a break, how is that much of a change?

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ No, that's not true.

If you go to the development's website, it shows exactly where this project is being built. It is on SW corner of the intersection, where a boarded up brick 2 flat sits, and just west of that are some vacant lots. The townhomes will be facing the Chicago Police Dept just to the north.

Besides, there really is no way this development could fit on a triangular site

No, I'm not saying its on the triangle, I'm saying its on that huge vacant lot on the corner, I don't think the two flat is included.

[ChiPhi]

This kind of might go in transportation, but I think it is much more appropriate here. The Make Way For The People initiative was posted on Curbed today. Who knows how much teeth this "initiative" will have, but its nice to see we have some urban planners who understand what they are doing... Now if anything gets done, I will believe it.

Also, the Sullivan Center / Former Carson Pirie Scott building will be slightly less empty in anticipation for the City Target that will open there soon (does anyone know when that will happen). Crain's reports that DSW will open its store this week.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

You can't. They only list that shit at $80k to generate interest, the lowest sale I've seen recently was $126,000. Anything that sells for less than $125,000 in LS probably requires a metric shit ton of work.

That's what I thought. I bet $125K is teardown quality.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

That's what I thought. I bet $125K is teardown quality.

Yes and no, it depends on the zoning. That building could have been made habitable with a decent amount of work and was frame. However, some would probably also tear it down and re build rather than drop $100k on a renno. What it really comes down to in that case is the zoning which I believe was RS-3 (Single Family). Since it was a grandfathered 2 flat in RS-3 zoning there is no way anyone is going to tear it down and build new as they'd have to get a variance or build single family. These logan square / Avondale two and three flats are wildly profitable at these prices as you can charge a lot more for rent than your expenses and payments come out to.

[ChiPhi]

People were dicussing the Congress/ Kennedy ramps being covered by a park over on the highrise forum, but it belongs over here, so...

I think that putting a park in that spot is a much better idea. I know the city already has a lot of underused park space at its eastern edges (and far too little as you move west), but I don't see any developers stepping in to develop these lots anytime in the next ten or so years, at least not at the cost of other very important areas that need fill. And while we can assure that this (albeit very valuable address) will become a park instead of a parking lot, we don't have that power over most of the other deserving developable parcels in the city.

Also, I second the call for someone in the city to take some pics. Once I get back to Chi town in a few weeks, pics will be my first call to order...