CHICAGO | General Developments

[harryc]

Oct 22

Chicago | 905 W Fulton Market by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i learned about a potentially interesting redevelopment of a surface parking lot in my neighborhood through my alderman's website (47th).

the existing surface parking lot @ the NE corner of Leland/Western: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9667...7i16384!8i8192

the plans for a proposed 6 story mixed-income residential building w/ 4,000 SF ground floor retail and 42 residential units: https://airtable.com/shrUCZghaSsEk1a...iewControls=on

sorry, no rendering to post yet.


this is one of the most obnoxious surface parking lots in lincoln square, literally across the street from the western brown line stop. i'd LOVE to see it bite the dust. and 6 stories is a very appropriate scale for a wide-ass auto-sewer like western.

this is still in the "consideration" stage, so if anyone else lives in lincoln sqaure and would like to see that surface lot redeveloped, please drop a message of support to Alderman Martin here: https://airtable.com/shrF9RG5wE981WGEa

Unfortunately, 42 parking spaces for 42 units, across the street from a Brown Line stop. And these units will be affordable housing.

Why do we keep encouraging the poor to own cars by providing them with free parking?

Not only that, but the 2nd floor is entirely parking so be prepared for a blank wall travesty.

Also, this appears to be a city-owned parking lot like the Emmett St lot in Logan Square.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Unfortunately, 42 parking spaces for 42 units, across the street from a Brown Line stop. And these units will be affordable housing.

Why do we keep encouraging the poor to own cars by providing them with free parking?

Not only that, but the 2nd floor is entirely parking so be prepared for a blank wall travesty.

Also, this appears to be a city-owned parking lot like the Emmett St lot in Logan Square.

Will the spaces still be public parking or are they for the residents? Usually there is objection to losing public spaces to a development like this and some/all are demanded to be replaced. Not that I agree with that at all but given the lack of leadership aldermen are almost always going to take the path of least resistance.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by k1052

Will the spaces still be public parking or are they for the residents? Usually there is objection to losing public spaces to a development like this and some/all are demanded to be replaced. Not that I agree with that at all but given the lack of leadership aldermen are almost always going to take the path of least resistance.

The packet doesn't say what the parking will be used for, but the layout of stairs and elevators does suggest some percentage of spaces will be for public (paid) use. There are direct stairs to Western and Leland from the upper level, and an elevator that only connects Levels 1/2.

Also, the city-owned lot may be subject to the damn parking-meter deal, meaning any spots removed would have to be replaced, either here or somewhere else in the neighborhood.

Still, I can't really regard this as a progressive use of land. I'd honestly rather just keep the existing parking at-grade with residential above and no retail space, and if the city ever manages to escape the damn deal they can just enclose that space for commercial use.

[harryc]

Oct 19



Oct 28

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Why do we keep encouraging the poor to own cars by providing them with free parking?

Maybe so they can get to their jobs—which nowadays are nowhere near transit.

Folks who have jobs downtown aren't the ones who qualify for affordable housing.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Maybe so they can get to their jobs—which nowadays are nowhere near transit.

Folks who have jobs downtown aren't the ones who qualify for affordable housing.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Downtown has a huge service sector, from restaurant cooks to bartenders to hotel maids to security guards. I can’t imagine those people can afford to park downtown every day (although I’m sure some will try). This site also has access to the Western bus, one of the most frequent lines in the city, plus the Lawrence and Lincoln buses.

But even if what you’re saying is true, that low-income people simply can’t reach their jobs using the Brown Line or any one of three bus lines, that’s just another mark against this development. Since it appears much of the parking will be shopper parking and likely metered, that means we’re concentrating low-income workers in a place where they can’t bring the cars they need to get to work. Why not put it somewhere off the Kennedy in an industrial area where land is cheap and nobody will complain about density, and reserve this site for residents who will actually take advantage of the transit connections that we all pay dearly to support?

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Maybe so they can get to their jobs—which nowadays are nowhere near transit.

Folks who have jobs downtown aren't the ones who qualify for affordable housing.

Do those 30,000 hotel rooms downtown clean themselves?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Still, I can't really regard this as a progressive use of land. I'd honestly rather just keep the existing parking at-grade with residential above and no retail space, and if the city ever manages to escape the damn deal they can just enclose that space for commercial use.

of course it's not the most progressive use of land in the world, but i'm a realist on these things, not a hardliner purist. and if the city's stupid-ass parking meter deal requires the spots to stay, then so be it. i can live with this scheme if it means that damn parking lot finally gets redeveloped. it's been a vacant plot of land for i don't even know how many decades. i live a block away from it. i'm not interested in waiting around decades longer for the stars to perfectly align for the absolute best possible progressive land-use outcome.

that's not to say that i would be against refinements to make this plan as good as it possibly can be, but sometimes "good enough" is good enough in my eyes, especially when such a critical piece of land has lain fallow since the fucking nixon administration.

[killaviews]

CMAP has these community snapshots for Chicago's community areas. I was a bit surprised by the number of residents that work outside the city. For Lincoln Square its about 32% (in 2015) See page 8. I would bet the number has decreased since then though. Even for the Loop the number of residents working outside of Chicago was 27.5%. The parking issue would be less of a debate if we can get these numbers down. Reverse commuting out of the city via Metra is not a great option. I would love to see more employment centers outside of the Loop, like Lincoln Yards. Which would also help.

https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/data/community-snapshots

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by killaviews

I was a bit surprised by the number of residents that work outside the city. For Lincoln Square its about 32% (in 2015)

i'm part of that 32% (just barely).

i work up in downtown evanston.

so it's not like i'm driving out to schaumburg everyday or anything insane like that.

i ride my bike most days, it's an 8 mile route one-way, the middle 6 miles of which are along the north shore channel trail, from lawrence up to church street in evanston. a really nice and convenient bike ride to bookend my workdays.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Why do we keep encouraging the poor to own cars by providing them with free parking?

Why do we want to punish the poor for being poor? Having access to transportation options (rapid transit and a car) can make a huge difference in their situation particularly where family members have incompatible schedules (the parent that works odd shifts when transit doesn't operate, the parent that does and still needs to be able to travel when the car isn't available, the student of either who likewise needs mobility). Some folks are disabled and need a vehicle to reach areas where CTA lacks accessible infrastructure (e.g. stations that haven't been upgraded to include ADA access or stations where ADA accessible infrastructure is broken).

[k1052]

Originally Posted by JK47

Why do we want to punish the poor for being poor? Having access to transportation options (rapid transit and a car) can make a huge difference in their situation particularly where family members have incompatible schedules (the parent that works odd shifts when transit doesn't operate, the parent that does and still needs to be able to travel when the car isn't available, the student of either who likewise needs mobility). Some folks are disabled and need a vehicle to reach areas where CTA lacks accessible infrastructure (e.g. stations that haven't been upgraded to include ADA access or stations where ADA accessible infrastructure is broken).

This is an argument for dramatically improving transit not adding more cars.

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Pretty sure there's more going on than meets the eye. You know the building next door is getting torn down for a new 11 story residential and retail building right? The drawing in the zoning application shows that the building where Mothers is in will either get some sort of addition on it or is getting knocked down and rebuilt:

https://chicago.legistar.com/Legisla...vanced&Search=

The drawing shows it as 31 feet tall - that building is not 31 feet tall currently. Why would the owner even offer them renewal? Even if there's work adding onto that building, it's possible they'd have to shut down their business for awhile anyway.

It's back with a new design, somewhat less dense, and uglier IMO (mainly the base):
https://www.1212nstate.com/

[marothisu]

^ Yeah that's uglier though the street level for Division Street isn't really any worse than what's there today although I'm sure people will be upset about the continuing replacement of that strip of Division with more luxury. Very boring building though. I'm sure it'll do well as a rental building though given its location.

The website you linked to for this project says demolition starting this winter and construction to start 1Q 2020. I believe Five Faces closed and there's 4 pending demolition permits for those 4 buildings this will replace.

[ChiTownWonder]

Damn that base makes no sense. Happy about the density though, iffy about the luxury.

[killaviews]

What ever happened with that O’Brien’s hotel in old town? Never built? Empty lot?

[Via Chicago]

nothing about that building says "luxury" in the least, but that wont stop people from overpaying for it

[Baronvonellis]

LOL, they say the base will have the appearance of porcelain.
It looks like concrete panels, I don't think it will be real terracotta which is probably what they are referring to. They can't even get the terminology right on what they are trying to imitate.

[maru2501]

Originally Posted by killaviews

What ever happened with that O’Brien’s hotel in old town? Never built? Empty lot?

still empty as far as I know. gravel not parking