CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 1999

the urban politician · #**39961** Posted **Jan 29, 2018, 6:10 PM**

^ Good to see these developments.

I would like to see that little office building go up soon

Jim in Chicago · #**39962** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 3:20 PM**

[QUOTE=marothisu;8065116]I just saw that the weird 1 story commercial building at the corner of Archer and Clark is done in Chinatown which was previously a small strip of vacant land next to the train tracks. Meet Fresh, a Taiwanese dessert chain, is in it. Looks like it opened about 3 weeks ago and already has over 60 reviews on Yelp - pretty crazy. This is pretty close to the Red Line, but still weird as you can see here:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/20...!4d-87.6301614

We've chatted about this odd little development before. One other slot is filled with a rehabilitation place. There is no convenient dropoff closer than the parking lot so the vans clog Clark by parking out in front. Not great planning.

i_am_hydrogen · #**39963** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 4:01 PM**

A developer is launching sales of 32 planned condos on a site that overlooks Lincoln Park from its southern rim, after a previous developer tried apartments and later condos there over the past four years.

List prices run from $1.65 million for a 2,300-square-foot two-bedroom with a den and a terrace to $5.85 million for a 4,500-square-foot penthouse with four bedrooms, a den and a private rooftop deck as well as two terraces, according to Salgado.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale..._medium=Social

italy5150 · #**39964** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 5:59 PM**

The Tribune has renderings of what the replacement for the Rock 'n' Roll McDonald's is going to be. Even though it's a vast under-utilization of the space, it looks decent.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...129-story.html

Source: Chicago Tribune

i_am_hydrogen · #**39965** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 6:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by italy5150

The Tribune has renderings of what the replacement for the Rock 'n' Roll McDonald's is going to be. Even though it's a vast under-utilization of the space, it looks decent.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...129-story.html

Source: Chicago Tribune

I would say more than decent. I'm actually pretty impressed.

left of center · #**39966** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 6:13 PM**

Kudos to the addition of solar panels as well as the reduction in surface parking, but otherwise this design doesn't thrill me. It looks like a suburban chain retail outlot development trying to look edgy. At least the heinous yellow arches were honest about what you will find when you enter the building.

This block needs to be developed into something denser that will contribute to the immediate neighborhood and downtown area. A McDonald's can still occupy the first floor.

Via Chicago · #**39967** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 6:32 PM**

Quote:

Former Rock 'n' Roll McDonald's gets new eco-friendly look from

definition of greenwashing right here....because nothing says eco-friendly like tearing down a 12 year old 1 story structure and replacing it with a 1 story structure that itself will probably be torn down in under 12 years

Khantilever · #**39968** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 6:47 PM**

Nice! It’s not a bad thing that Chicago has a McDonald’s flagship and their HQ. And the flagship can’t pretend to be something that the vast majority of McDonald’s locations are not. A more contemporary design and better pedestrian experience is a big improvement here, and hopefully it’ll trickle down to the rest of the franchise in some ways.

Steely Dan · #**39969** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

definition of greenwashing right here....because nothing says eco-friendly like tearing down a 12 year old 1 story structure and replacing it with a 1 story structure that itself will probably be torn down in under 12 years

yeah, that was my first thought as well.

who the fuck are they kidding?

HomrQT · #**39970** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 7:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by italy5150

The Tribune has renderings of what the replacement for the Rock 'n' Roll McDonald's is going to be. Even though it's a vast under-utilization of the space, it looks decent.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...129-story.html

Source: Chicago Tribune

They should have kept the old rock and roll mcdonald's until they sold the site to a developer. This is just stupid.

Suburban Shadow · #**39971** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 7:23 PM**

The roof is all solar panels.

Zerton · #**39972** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 7:28 PM**

Ha. It looks like a Renzo Piano building. Pretty nice actually.

rlw777 · #**39973** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 7:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by italy5150

The Tribune has renderings of what the replacement for the Rock 'n' Roll McDonald's is going to be. Even though it's a vast under-utilization of the space, it looks decent.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...129-story.html

Source: Chicago Tribune

It seems the Architect Carol Barney is a big fan of Renzo Piano. I knew I saw some pencil tip white columns holding up a lofted roof somewhere before.

Jim in Chicago · #**39974** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

They should have kept the old rock and roll mcdonald's until they sold the site to a developer. This is just stupid.

I'm still scratching my head at this one. Was there something functionally wrong with the old one or is this one very much better in some profound way I'm missing? (I'm talking in a business sense, - outmoded kitchen, health and safety issues, not enough seating, not enough parking (LOL), roof leaks, etc. - not architecturally.)

It just seems like it would make more sense to continue to use a facility that is functional and only 12 years old. Development must be on the horizon at some point.

Via Chicago · #**39975** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 7:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in Chicago

I'm still scratching my head at this one. Was there something functionally wrong with the old one or is this one very much better in some profound way I'm missing? (I'm talking in a business sense, - outmoded kitchen, health and safety issues, not enough seating, not enough parking (LOL), roof leaks, etc. - not architecturally.)

It just seems like it would make more sense to continue to use a facility that is functional and only 12 years old. Development must be on the horizon at some point.

thats the thing. its not like we're in between cycles at the moment. we're in the midst of a massive boom...why pass up that opportunity in favor of continuing to flip burgers (in a moderately nicer space, at significant additional cost on top of it???)

left of center · #**39976** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 8:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in Chicago

I'm still scratching my head at this one. Was there something functionally wrong with the old one or is this one very much better in some profound way I'm missing? (I'm talking in a business sense, - outmoded kitchen, health and safety issues, not enough seating, not enough parking (LOL), roof leaks, etc. - not architecturally.)

It just seems like it would make more sense to continue to use a facility that is functional and only 12 years old. Development must be on the horizon at some point.

Its an image thing. McDonald's wants to put forth a more modern looking restaurant at its landmark location, as opposed to one that echos the past. Marketing is huge to these companies, so they see the cost as justified. The franchisee isn't paying a dime for this, its all coming from McD's HQ, according to the Trib

Khantilever · #**39977** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 8:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center

Its an image thing. McDonald's wants to put forth a more modern looking restaurant at its landmark location, as opposed to one that echos the past. Marketing is huge to these companies, so they see the cost as justified. The franchisee isn't paying a dime for this, its all coming from McD's HQ, according to the Trib

Exactly, like the mag mile. I’m sure most of the mag mile retailers don’t make a direct profit off of those locations. I bet even Apple won’t recoup their investment there.

It’s all advertising, which is also why it’s unreasonable to expect McDs to build anything but some version of a typical McDs here until they actually sell the site to a developer. What advertising value is there to a McDs with no drive thru? How would their flagship reflect their company vision if it were just a tenant at the bottom of a skyscraper? They have those already.

Via Chicago · #**39978** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 8:37 PM**

.

woodrow · #**39979** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 8:44 PM**

^^^^

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center

Its an image thing. McDonald's wants to put forth a more modern looking restaurant at its landmark location, as opposed to one that echos the past. Marketing is huge to these companies, so they see the cost as justified. The franchisee isn't paying a dime for this, its all coming from McD's HQ, according to the Trib

Rizzo · #**39980** Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 11:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

definition of greenwashing right here....because nothing says eco-friendly like tearing down a 12 year old 1 story structure and replacing it with a 1 story structure that itself will probably be torn down in under 12 years

This is a business. Restaurant or retail. It’s a competitive marketplace.

For example there’s a company called sears that didn’t seem to refresh their stores much. It didn’t result in much success.

Since the previous building has become a punching bag of dialogue on this forum for years, take it or leave it. It’s not becoming a skyscraper soon. There’s far worse insults to urbanity in the central area.