CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 1493

ardecila · #**29841** Posted **Aug 1, 2015, 4:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

In case anyone is wondering why the micro apartments on California avenue haven't started construction yet, this is why.

Developer Wants to Double Logan Square 'Micro Apartment' Project

Left out of your summation is that the developer acquired additional property to the north allowing him to build more units. Probably the unit density of the new development is the same as before.

From the description, sounds like this new improved version will just be a Megatron courtyard building with tiny units and crazy density.

Viva los millennials! And their tiny apartments.

Mr Downtown · #**29842** Posted **Aug 1, 2015, 2:24 PM**

With so much love for keeping families in the city, why so much blind hatred on the forum for townhouses?

BVictor1 · #**29843** Posted **Aug 1, 2015, 2:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

With so much love for keeping families in the city, why so much blind hatred on the forum for townhouses?

Townhouses are fine, OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL AREA where the highest densities and tallest buildings are allowed. Chicago is about 230 square miles, and of that about 10-12 of those square miles is for the highest and most intensest densities. You want townhomes, fine! But use the other 218 square miles of the city for them.

k1052 · #**29844** Posted **Aug 1, 2015, 3:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Townhouses are fine, OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL AREA where the highest densities and tallest buildings are allowed. Chicago is about 230 square miles, and of that about 10-12 of those square miles is for the highest and most intensest densities. You want townhomes, fine! But use the other 218 square miles of the city for them.

This pretty much. Andersonville and Back of Yards? Sure. Gold Coast and South Loop...not such a big fan.

J_M_Tungsten · #**29845** Posted **Aug 1, 2015, 4:02 PM**

Today
Division and State Facade Project. Looks like they are going for a "historic" look. Anything is better than the previous version.

Randomguy34 · #**29846** Posted **Aug 1, 2015, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Left out of your summation is that the developer acquired additional property to the north allowing him to build more units. Probably the unit density of the new development is the same as before.

From the description, sounds like this new improved version will just be a Megatron courtyard building with tiny units and crazy density.

Viva los millennials! And their tiny apartments.

Sorry, had to leave for somewhere and I wanted to post it before I left. i guess I should be careful next time.

Man, over 150 units in one small block plus all the other proposals near the California 'L' stop (Logan Square twin towers, Magellan 120 unit development, Mega Mall redevelopment, Congress Theater) is got to make the station's ridership increase dramatically. Plus, they all help contribute into the transit TIF fund surrounding the stations

Mr Downtown · #**29847** Posted **Aug 1, 2015, 4:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

10-12 of those square miles is for the highest and most intensest densities.

Why can this determination not simply be left to the market? What is the public policy served by forcing landowners to not build anything until they can satisfy skyscraper fans?

It's one thing to support additional density around CTA stations, but quite another to complain about townhouses on sites where there is no transit at all, such as Riverside Park or Finkl or the Prairie District.

pilsenarch · #**29848** Posted **Aug 1, 2015, 4:36 PM**

^has nothing to do with skyscrapers, it has to do with density... it is indeed in the city's interest to mandate to developers that they must build densely in the areas that are adjacent to transit and in or near the CBD... this is what makes cities work...

ardecila · #**29849** Posted **Aug 1, 2015, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Why can this determination not simply be left to the market? What is the public policy served by forcing landowners to not build anything until they can satisfy skyscraper fans?

It's one thing to support additional density around CTA stations, but quite another to complain about townhouses on sites where there is no transit at all, such as Riverside Park or Finkl or the Prairie District.

Well, there's a big donut hole in the building code between townhouses and skyscrapers. Midrise buildings are really appropriate for these transitional areas around downtown, but they fall under highrise building codes, so they're only feasible once land values go beyond a certain point and you can justify the cost of Type I construction, sprinklers, elevators, etc.

In other cities (DC, SF, Seattle, etc) innovative developers have figured out that they can do wood-framed midrises on a concrete podium under IBC up to 7 or 8 stories. Requirements are far more onerous and costly in Chicago to build a building of similar size....

marothisu · #**29850** Posted **Aug 1, 2015, 9:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Today
Division and State Facade Project. Looks like they are going for a "historic" look. Anything is better than the previous version.

LOL - you beat me to it. The windows were all boarded up a few weeks ago - some replaced now. Has it been vacant above the first floor for awhile? I remember seeing a guy come out of there a few years ago but never considered it could be vacant now.

Hope it looks awesome by the time they're done w/it.

untitledreality · #**29851** Posted **Aug 1, 2015, 10:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

With so much love for keeping families in the city, why so much blind hatred on the forum for townhouses?

I have no problem with townhouses, rowhouses, or single family homes being anywhere in the city. Put them on any 25'x120', street fronting, individual parcel of land you want.

Unfortunately when it comes to many townhouse developments in this city, they do not follow this pattern. Instead they create a fortress block that closes itself off from the city, is typically pedestrian hostile, are governed by associations which prevent customization, and ultimately block any future piecemeal redevelopment... which, you know, is what cities are all about.

brian_b · #**29852** Posted **Aug 3, 2015, 2:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

^has nothing to do with skyscrapers, it has to do with density... it is indeed in the city's interest to mandate to developers that they must build densely in the areas that are adjacent to transit and in or near the CBD... this is what makes cities work...

So these townhouses in the South Loop that people are complaining about... I know of two going on - Calumet Row on Calumet, which is 7 homes on something slightly smaller than 2 city lots and the townhouses at 18th and Prairie which is 62 homes on a parcel that is about 12 or 13 city lots.

Yes, you could get more housing units in mid or high rise buildings, but these are still dense developments, especially since they are going to be 3-4 person households.

Rizzo · #**29853** Posted **Aug 3, 2015, 6:19 AM**

Townhomes may not be the most efficient use of land in the central area of the city. And by efficient, I mean putting the most people possible closest to jobs and public transportation. But cities aren't designed to be totally efficient or else they'd look boring. That doesn't mean I'm all in for townhomes for downtown, but I think there's still plenty enough space close by for towers.

the urban politician · #**29854** Posted **Aug 3, 2015, 2:24 PM**

^ Yeah, I agree with this. If Manhattan can have them, so can our central area. It's nice to break up the scale a bit.

aaron38 · #**29855** Posted **Aug 3, 2015, 5:19 PM**

^^^Isn't NYC more aggressive on air rights and FAR than Chicago is? Thus, NYC would have more lots that had sold off all air rights, and only townhomes can go there?

And with most towers now having windows on all 4 sides, instead of blank walls on the lot lines, townhomes have a niche to fill in the space between towers (though we often just get parking podiums.)

wierdaaron · #**29856** Posted **Aug 3, 2015, 5:48 PM**

Finally got a chance to see the british school park thing.

Hero panorama (you'll want to expand for the full effect):

Single skyline shot:

I think even if the empty lot to the north gets filled in with a supertall, the view here will still be incredible.

Lot of rules for a public park:

1001 S Clark around the corner:

From the ground level, waiting for the elevator, I noticed you can see 1001 S State going up in the distance:

I didn't get a photo, but site prep for the townhomes along Wells at 9th (former parking lot) is well underway. The site is fenced in now and the ground has been turn up into gravel.

Busy Bee · #**29857** Posted **Aug 3, 2015, 6:07 PM**

The Rooftop @ Roosevelt Collection code of conduct:

No Being Human

aaron38 · #**29858** Posted **Aug 3, 2015, 6:42 PM**

^^^Ties in nicely with the discussion about the burbs on previous page. Signs like that go up, is it any wonder some people want their own backyard? That's not a park, it's a prison yard.

Jim in Chicago · #**29859** Posted **Aug 3, 2015, 7:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The Rooftop @ Roosevelt Collection code of conduct:

No Being Human

I guess dogs are welcome anywhere except the bushes, since that stuff ISN'T GRASS. Plastic, all plastic, all fake. Yet another reason to yearn for your own yard.

Ryanrule · #**29860** Posted **Aug 3, 2015, 7:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Left out of your summation is that the developer acquired additional property to the north allowing him to build more units. Probably the unit density of the new development is the same as before.

From the description, sounds like this new improved version will just be a Megatron courtyard building with tiny units and crazy density.

Viva los millennials! And their tiny apartments.

they will probably price them the same as fake-luxury normal size apartments. 2000 studios and the like