HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #48561  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2021, 12:06 AM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
You can pearl-clutch about SROs all you want, but by eliminating them you're only increasing the number of homeless. Obviously building and fire codes should be enforced, etc but they definitely need to be part of the housing solution.


Belwood Hotel on Diversy - my residence for a few months - a few decades ago.

Yes there is a need for this housing option.
__________________
Harry C ---- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48562  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2021, 1:49 AM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryc View Post

Belwood Hotel on Diversy - my residence for a few months - a few decades ago.

Yes there is a need for this housing option.
There has been a move toward more co-housing communal living in recent years. Maybe that can open the door to some new ideas on housing and greater acceptance of the need

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...e-ages/501467/

Last edited by VKChaz; Apr 21, 2021 at 2:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48563  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2021, 2:48 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,664
co-housing with interviews, lifestyle preferences, age restrictions, and designed for millennials mostly - let's not kid ourselves: those places will not be accepting a street-hardened down on his luck fellow that may have substance abuse problems and no money or bank account

the move is nice - but the same people pushing for those low cost options are usually the same trying to shut down SROs (a very important part of keeping people off the street, getting them a chance for nearby clinic care (if zoning and neighbors allow), and keeping the cost of any eventual health / legal troubles lower for the public)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48564  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2021, 4:01 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp View Post
co-housing with interviews, lifestyle preferences, age restrictions, and designed for millennials mostly - let's not kid ourselves: those places will not be accepting a street-hardened down on his luck fellow that may have substance abuse problems and no money or bank account

the move is nice - but the same people pushing for those low cost options are usually the same trying to shut down SROs (a very important part of keeping people off the street, getting them a chance for nearby clinic care (if zoning and neighbors allow), and keeping the cost of any eventual health / legal troubles lower for the public)
millennial co-housing: https://www.common.com/damen/

sro housing: https://www.chicagohomeless.org/wp-c...ilsonHotel.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48565  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2021, 4:28 PM
Handro Handro is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,016
New 7-story office tower planned for Fulton Market at 817 W. Lake (pending the landing of an anchor tenant...) right next to the hotel planned at Halsted/Lake:

https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/04...-booming-area/



It's currently an empty lot: https://www.google.com/maps/place/81...7!4d-87.648237
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48566  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2021, 5:46 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 896
Good to see the Community Development Commission approved $5.5M in TIF in support of the redevelopment of the former Armour Building, 3300 S. Federal St. The $26.8M plan will restore the landmark building, vacant since 2012, creating 20 affordable units and 82 market rate units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48567  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2021, 8:24 PM
BrinChi BrinChi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
Thanks for sharing! Quite an interesting read. I am familiar with that block on clark street... I always imagined that it's the last block of downtown Chicago circa 1980 that's still in tact. But I didn't realize the market rate SRO housing it provides.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48568  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2021, 2:33 AM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp View Post
co-housing with interviews, lifestyle preferences, age restrictions, and designed for millennials mostly - let's not kid ourselves: those places will not be accepting a street-hardened down on his luck fellow that may have substance abuse problems and no money or bank account

the move is nice - but the same people pushing for those low cost options are usually the same trying to shut down SROs (a very important part of keeping people off the street, getting them a chance for nearby clinic care (if zoning and neighbors allow), and keeping the cost of any eventual health / legal troubles lower for the public)
Not to belabor this, but the relevant point is a general trend that could be learned from. From the Atlantic article:

Quote:
DePaulo argues that it would be particularly helpful to integrate cohousing into public-housing policy. “People who work on housing for the poor have to deal with people’s whole lives,” she argues in her book. “They can’t just give them a place to live and forget about them.” Keeping rent affordable is the foremost concern for people in charge of managing public housing, but cohousing can fill in other difficulties of living without much money: Splitting cooking, childcare, and household expenses can save lots of time and money. For these reasons and others, Danish and Swedish governments have long supported cohousing.
Maybe something comes of it, maybe not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48569  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2021, 3:07 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is online now
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 3,942
The new High-bay at UChicago (https://facilities.uchicago.edu/construction/high_bay/), which I am looking forward to being able to use!





Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
UC is gearing up for two big projects on campus:

1. UC Medicine is planning a massive 600,000 gsf Cancer hospital in two phases (or maybe all of it will be built at once but only 50% of the interior space will be built out at first...? Not final information yet). I think it's for the massive NW lot on 57th and Drexel, but not yet confirmed.

2. I believe some others have mentioned the new PME building before, but it will be located at the SW corner of 56th and Ellis, and is planned to be about 15% larger than the newish Eckhardt building directly south of the site. Project will be complete by 2026.

This is the current view from my floor's elevator lobby in Eckhardt. New PME building will demolish the accelerator building here (hence the need for the new high-bay!), presumably eventually destroying our view of downtown.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48570  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2021, 12:13 PM
marothisu marothisu is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 5,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
The first building in a ~160 unit development at Ravenswood & Lawrence, across from the Ravenswood Metra stop was issued a new construction building permit on Wednesday. This building will be 4 stories tall with 55 units, 36 parking spaces. This one for 4736 N Ravenswood Ave.

...

The other phase of this was permitted yesterday. Still 4 stories but 112 units. On the parking lot that was on Wolcott:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/47...!4d-87.6757314
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48571  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2021, 4:10 AM
gandalf612 gandalf612 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 151
April 22nd The one behind the Uptown theater... loathe entirely

Last edited by gandalf612; Apr 24, 2021 at 4:12 AM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48572  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2021, 4:11 AM
gandalf612 gandalf612 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 151
April 23rd The one by the Sheridan Red Line
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48573  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2021, 4:12 AM
gandalf612 gandalf612 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 151
April 21st Optima Lakeview real brick???


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48574  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2021, 6:53 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,287
Central Market - 942 W Randolph

April 12

Location - Location - Location


April 23







__________________
Harry C ---- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48575  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2021, 8:42 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 23,579
an alderman and community group shoot down a development for not being dense and urban enough? WTF?

what strange-ass alternate universe did i wake up in this morning?

it would be beyond refreshing if this sort of enlightened thinking would catch on. are some non-urbanists actually starting to get it?

if we want healthier, more vibrant communities full of amenities that we all enjoy, then we need MORE density and MORE mixed-use.


Quote:
North Center Alderman Shoots Down Developer’s Plan For Luxury Condos At Chicago Joe’s Property
Neighbors and the alderman rejected the plans due to a lack of commercial space, affordable housing and residential density to support local businesses.

Alex V. Hernandez
1:00 PM CDT on Apr 23, 2021


NORTH CENTER — A developer is going back to the drawing board after an alderman and neighbors rejected a plan to build condos at the site of Chicago Joe’s.

Developer Landrosh Development wanted to build an upscale condo complex at the 2250 W. Irving Park Road property, which currently includes a restaurant, six apartments and a parking lot across four city lots.

Condos would’ve sold for about $1.1 million, according to the proposal.

The Northcenter Neighborhood Association and the Northcenter Chamber of Commerce declined to support the proposal due to the lack of commercial space, affordable housing and residential density to support local businesses.
full article: https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/04...joes-property/
__________________
If a Pizza is baked in a forest, and no one is around to eat it, is it still delicious?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48576  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2021, 8:46 PM
marothisu marothisu is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 5,514
^ so im a bit confused in general. Not saying this is bad - its good to demand more density. In general though how does this work? Let's say a developer has some land and zoning they need is already in place, but go to the neighborhood like this anyway with meetings. Even though they don't have to and could build. In this situation, what power does "the community doesn't support this " really have for something like this? Maybe an alderman can be an asshole and block future developments from them but I'm pretty sure blocking a company just because it's an entity you don't like is still illegal? Okay so people already there won't buy a new $2M condo and not support the non existent commercial space?
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48577  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2021, 10:13 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 20,018
^ Yes, that’s a good point. I’m glad that they want more density, but my understanding is that zoning rules are such that you can always build less dense than existing zoning, but not more dense than it.

So by what means did a community process become required? That article didn’t really clear that up unless I missed something
__________________
Loving the sound of turbos
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48578  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2021, 1:10 AM
pip's Avatar
pip pip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,753
Yay! Glad to read that article
__________________
Only 4 years to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48579  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2021, 5:51 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Yes, that’s a good point. I’m glad that they want more density, but my understanding is that zoning rules are such that you can always build less dense than existing zoning, but not more dense than it.

So by what means did a community process become required? That article didn’t really clear that up unless I missed something
The site is split between two zoning categories: the Chicago Joe's building is B2-3, the parking lot is B1-1. The B1-1 side does not permit ground floor residential, so the developer requested that it be upzoned to match the other parcel for a unified development across both lots.

The B2-3 zoning the developer wants would allow up to 41 units with a TOD bonus, but he's only proposing to do 8 enormous luxury units (~3300 SF each) including two duplex-down units on the ground floor, hence the need for rezoning.

The developer is probably trying to ride the post-Covid SFH frenzy by providing "home replacement" 4-bed or 5-bed condos, just a few steps away from Coonley School. Ironically this type of development would be perfect for a side street in Northcenter, but can't be built there because it's all locked as RS-3 forever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
^ so im a bit confused in general. Not saying this is bad - its good to demand more density. In general though how does this work? Let's say a developer has some land and zoning they need is already in place, but go to the neighborhood like this anyway with meetings. Even though they don't have to and could build. In this situation, what power does "the community doesn't support this " really have for something like this? Maybe an alderman can be an asshole and block future developments from them but I'm pretty sure blocking a company just because it's an entity you don't like is still illegal? Okay so people already there won't buy a new $2M condo and not support the non existent commercial space?
It's not a spite move like other alders have done. The developer needs an upzoning to do what he wants, but he's not entitled to it - the Alderman won't grant the upzoning since it doesn't fit the community's goals. The developer still has the zoning that the property came with originally, and he is free to build whatever that zoning allows. Of course, the B1-1 side doesn't allow much of anything right now - you could put up a two-story building with commercial at ground floor and only 2 apartments above (likely not profitable to build this). The B2-3 side could go bigger, but that side isn't big enough by itself to allow the colossal units the developer wants to build.

Don't cry for the developer in this case, either he will pivot and make bank building a TOD midrise with smaller units, or he will flip the land for profit to another developer who got the message that Ald. Martin wants a substantial project here. He got egg on his face by trying a strategy that is a slamdunk in other North Side wards - threaten density, offer low-density alternative - but Martin (and apparently the community group) wants the opposite in this case.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; Apr 25, 2021 at 6:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48580  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2021, 6:06 AM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
I believe that was originally published in the Chicago Reader.
__________________
I like travel and photography - check out my Flickr page.
CURRENT GEAR: Nikon Z6, Nikon Z 14-30mm f4 S, Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S, Nikon 50mm f1.4G
STOLEN GEAR: (during riots of 5/30/2020) Nikon D750, Nikon 14-24mm F2.8G, Nikon 85mm f1.8G, Nikon 50mm f1.4D
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:49 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.