CHICAGO | General Developments

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I've read that the retail center at 3301 N Ashland is under construction and has financing. Does anybody have a rendering of this?

Here is the only image I can find, from Newcastle's website. Nice to see that it will front the street:



Source

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by ardecila

To be honest, though, I see this as an argument to keep restricting development but to do it more carefully. The TOD ordinance is a step in the right direction, but the radius needs to be tripled. Boundaries of PMDs should be redrawn to accommodate residential and mixed-use development near CTA and Metra stops. Why is Clybourn on Metra or Ashland/Lake on the Green Line so hobbled by PMD zoning when these locations offer such great access to downtown?

Reasonable.

[Skyguy_7]

The wrecking crew has finally shown up to the long-vacant eyesore at NE corner of Belmont and Ashland. Reverse Banana.

[Jibba]

edit

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by george

Hoping the old Central Furniture neon sign can be preserved or moved to their new Humboldt Park store.

[the urban politician]

^ Are they adding a 4th story to the building?

[george]

It is a great retro sign and but only 3 floors.



https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9063...69FVnArkdg!2e0

[wierdaaron]

There's a group of LSE residents now who are upset about the tennis courts intended to be built in Peanut Park once Maggie Daley Park is finished.

The story goes that the president of NEAR really wanted his tennis courts, and he knew that nobody else in the community does, so he left them out of the newsletter and never mentioned them again, telling the Parks District that the whole community wanted them. Now a bunch of community members realized that the park would be junked up with pointless tennis courts, so they're trying to mobilize a grassroots movement quickly to demonstrate to the parks district a wide opposition to the courts. There was a stand set up on Randolph street to try to get written statements, guy said they had over 400 of them already. They have a website at www.savepeanutpark.com

What do you guys think? Personally I think tennis courts are a dumb 90's throwback but I assumed there must have been significant demand for them since they were shoehorned into the new park plan, and I don't have a hard time believing that a neighborhood group's leader would try to slip something like that past the neighborhood.

[ardecila]

I actually support the tennis courts. Downtown residents shouldn't have to join the East Bank Club or schlep up to Lincoln Park for access to recreational facilities. LSE residents already have a sizable, secluded park all to themselves,
Maggie Daley Park is an amenity for all of downtown and is not LSE's private backyard.

Peanut Park was a waste of space anyway - now all of Maggie Daley Park will be winding paths and rolling meadows, so surely there is room for some tennis courts. The fees are unfortunate but tennis courts are maintenance intensive. I'd support replacing some or all of the pay tennis courts with free basketball courts, but I have a feeling the community would frown on that for certain reasons... maybe volleyball?

[Neuman]

The tennis courts at Daley Bi-Centennial were heavily used prior to the demolition of that area. Nuveen Investments used to sponsor an annual corporate tennis pro-am tournament there.

Tennis is a dumb 90's throwback??? How old are you?

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Are they adding a 4th story to the building?

The article says restaurant on first floor and bar/entertainment on 2 & 3. It states the developer is unsure what is planned for the basement, so apparently they counted the basement as a floor.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Reasonable.

What I meant to say was, we could be using restrictions to steer dense development to logical locations by train stops, but the PMD boundaries and the zoning map are boneheaded and arbitrary. PMD boundaries are almost literally set in stone, while the city pretty much never upzones land unless a specific developer requests it, and alderman down zone property freely.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

I think you just don't get it. (we all know the difference between public and rapid btw) The density for the residential proposed at the Maxwell was appropriate for the area - this was not a cluster of several 500 unit towers on a similar sized parcel. You keep holding onto this view that these DS zones are somehow necessary. They are simply not. One problem that Chicago does not remotely have is being exorbitantly expensive - not even close. If these big box, and or service businesses that support the Greater Loop get 'priced out' through rising land values, the impact within the Loop and surrounds would probably be imperceptable. Would it perhaps make various services a little more expensive - yes that's possible - but only a little. It's not going to disrupt the way of life in the core or anything like that - necessary businesses and whatever support services are necessary will find ways to not only survive but many of them to thrive - the economy and various industries are quite adaptable.......and big box stores - or whatever size box, will pay what they need to, and change their store concept/store size/layout to access the dense urban populations that they absolutely need to to continue to grow and satisfy Wall St, or whoever their equity investors/owners are.

It's funny too that you mention PMDs. They also - certainly any PMDs within a few miles of the Loop - are also anachronistic and should be repealed as well...........

Your thinking on this DS/PMD stuff is very 1970s-1990s-urban planning-based (ie outdated). It is not 21st century global city-based, where it needs to be.......

Originally Posted by ardecila

The crazy thing is that we're not even close to running out of land near the CBD. There are still massive swaths of land along both branches of the river, huge land tracts in the IMD, blocks and blocks of parking lots around the United Center, most of the Fulton Corridor is underutilized with one-story buildings, etc. Not to mention the huge land still available in Riverside Park, potential railyard decking, etc.

At a further radius, there are places like the Stockyards/Central Mfg District, the Belt Railway corridor, and the Lake Street corridor that are unlikely to see residential demand for decades, but are perfect for downtown service.

To be honest, though, I see this as an argument to keep restricting development but to do it more carefully. The TOD ordinance is a step in the right direction, but the radius needs to be tripled. Boundaries of PMDs should be redrawn to accommodate residential and mixed-use development near CTA and Metra stops. Why is Clybourn on Metra or Ashland/Lake on the Green Line so hobbled by PMD zoning when these locations offer such great access to downtown?

You both deserve gold stars.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

But the "vast majority" of Chicago drives. Everywhere.

Which just further proves that, at least in Chicago, you don't need to be right on top of transit to build residential. They are going to build an auto-oriented retail box anyhow, why not include some residential density too if the developer wants? It might be more auto-oriented residential than we'd prefer, but surely a dense auto oriented mixed use building is a more urban form than a retail only auto oriented building. Let the developers add to the tax base if they want to.

Originally Posted by ardecila

The crazy thing is that we're not even close to running out of land near the CBD.

I meant to respond to this earlier, but yeah, Chicago's land situation really insane. We are the only city in the world anywhere near this size and density that has this kind of open land. I've been looking at projects recently in several other similarly sized global cities and my partners overseas are dumbfounded at our land prices and supply of excellent parcels. Go try to find a site like the full block behind Wrigley in NYC, Paris, or London. It doesn't exist, we have literally dozens of those sized sites and they are only medium sized when you compare them to whats in Cabrini or south of the Sears Tower.

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Which just further proves that, at least in Chicago, you don't need to be right on top of transit to build residential. They are going to build an auto-oriented retail box anyhow, why not include some residential density too if the developer wants? It might be more auto-oriented residential than we'd prefer, but surely a dense auto oriented mixed use building is a more urban form than a retail only auto oriented building. Let the developers add to the tax base if they want to.



I meant to respond to this earlier, but yeah, Chicago's land situation really insane. We are the only city in the world anywhere near this size and density that has this kind of open land. I've been looking at projects recently in several other similarly sized global cities and my partners overseas are dumbfounded at our land prices and supply of excellent parcels. Go try to find a site like the full block behind Wrigley in NYC, Paris, or London. It doesn't exist, we have literally dozens of those sized sites and they are only medium sized when you compare them to whats in Cabrini or south of the Sears Tower.

time to start banning buildings under 50 stories within a mile of navy pier.

[chris08876]

Chicago greenhouse to be largest rooftop installation

Brooklyn, N.Y.-based Gotham Greens and Method Products PBC are pairing to install the world’s largest rooftop greenhouse in on Chicago’s south side.

The greenhouse, designed by William McDonough + Partners, will be capable of producing up to a million pounds of fresh produce annually for Chicago-area retailers, restaurants, farmers markets and community groups. It is planned for the rooftop of Method’s newest plant, which is expected to be the first Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design Platinum-certified manufacturing plant in its industry, according to a news release.

“Chicago has shown remarkable leadership in urban farming and green building over the past decade,” said Viraj Puri, co-founder and chief executive officer of Gotham Greens, in a news release, “and we’re thrilled to be contributing to the trailblazing work being done in these sectors and furthering Chicago’s position of the greenest and most innovative cities in America.”

The installation is a natural pair for Method, said Drew Fraser, chief executive officer, in a news release.
“Gotham Greens shares a goal of using business as a force for social and environmental good,” Fraser said, in the release. “We are thrilled to partner with a like-minded organization, who has demonstrated that the innovative, adaptive use of urban space can make a significant impact on local communities.”

The facility is scheduled to be operational in the spring.

================================
http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-veget....kuzmCbSA.dpuf

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

time to start banning buildings under 50 stories within a mile of navy pier.

market forces drive height. if the city can support density of that level, trust me it will be built.

arbitrarily mandating height limits dosent help anything.

[jcchii]

it is time for a ton of asian-style cheap highrise apartments close to the CBD, however

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by jcchii

it is time for a ton of asian-style cheap highrise apartments close to the CBD, however

If they made them look better than the cheap international style, I wouldn't mind it. I say let's get the bodies into downtown and it'll start snowballing into a bigger thing later.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

arbitrarily mandating height limits dosent help anything.

Welcome to the world of zoning buddy....