HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #48001  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 12:06 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro View Post
yes the permit was issued yesterday:

3154495
100898589
PERMIT - WRECKING/DEMOLITION
DEMOLITION PERMIT
11/30/2020
11/30/2020
0
1399 W LAKE ST
WRECK AND REMOVE A 4 STORY MASONRY MIXED USE BUILDING
Yeah this is out of left field. Marquette owns the building now, but it's just a single city lot. They could put up a little condo building there, but that doesn't seem any more profitable than just rehabbing the existing... and you'd need to sell condos with terrible train noise.

My guess is that Marquette is just landbanking this and they're either gonna go after the auto shop next door, or they're gonna wait out the billboard lease at Lake/Ogden and combine with that site as the original La Luce owner intended (i.e. the dog park is temporary). They are clearly laser-focused on this corner of West Loop after building one and now two more highrises within spitting distance of each other, so it would not surprise me if they're playing a long game trying to tee up tower #4.

These sites all fall within the TOD radius of the Ashland/Lake station, so in some ways this is confirmation of the success of TOD...
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48002  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 2:49 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro View Post
Sad day. Demo permit was issued for the building that formerly housed LaLuce at 1399 W Lake. Really a shame this couldn’t be saved.
Sad sad day. Ugh. Our city just got a bit less interesting. A shame.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48003  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 3:15 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
These sites all fall within the TOD radius of the Ashland/Lake station, so in some ways this is confirmation of the success of TOD...
TOD, you mean an existing mixed use building with no on-site parking and several rentable units?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48004  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 3:44 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 19,489
^ Exactly, plus maintaining existing building stock is the best way to preserve affordable housing.

All of those 120 year old buildings have awkward, substandard apartment layouts by modern standards. People will pay less rent for them than in a brand new building which will almost certainly charge much higher $$/sf just to recoup the cost of construction.

This is why I always chuckle at local leaders paying lip service to "affordable housing" when most of them are amateur nitwits who just don't have a damn clue what they are talking about.

We are are about to demolish affordable housing right here, and nobody fought to save it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48005  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 3:58 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
My guess is that Marquette is just landbanking this and they're either gonna go after the auto shop next door, or they're gonna wait out the billboard lease at Lake/Ogden and combine with that site as the original La Luce owner intended (i.e. the dog park is temporary).
Based on this morning's Block Club article, it looks like Marquette already sold the La Luce building to Anthony Giannini, who also owns the Midwest Performance Cars building. The tax records still show Marquette as the owner of La Luce, those must be out of date. Looks like Mr. Giannini has already assembled a developable site and is now wiping it clean. Damn.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48006  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 4:09 PM
RedCorsair87 RedCorsair87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 482
Chicago Yimby is doing a 31 Day Countdown to 2021 with the tallest buildings under construction in 2021. It's worth a look.

Here is today's: 330 N Green aka "Big Sexy"

https://chicagoyimby.com/2020/12/20-...elopments.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48007  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 4:25 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Exactly, plus maintaining existing building stock is the best way to preserve affordable housing.

All of those 120 year old buildings have awkward, substandard apartment layouts by modern standards. People will pay less rent for them than in a brand new building which will almost certainly charge much higher $$/sf just to recoup the cost of construction.

This is why I always chuckle at local leaders paying lip service to "affordable housing" when most of them are amateur nitwits who just don't have a damn clue what they are talking about.

We are are about to demolish affordable housing right here, and nobody fought to save it.
Very good points, the alderman love to build "affordable housing" that costs $600k for a one-bedroom unit to construct.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48008  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 5:39 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Based on this morning's Block Club article, it looks like Marquette already sold the La Luce building to Anthony Giannini, who also owns the Midwest Performance Cars building. The tax records still show Marquette as the owner of La Luce, those must be out of date. Looks like Mr. Giannini has already assembled a developable site and is now wiping it clean. Damn.
I hear Bottom Lounge is staying put, so that's a plus.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48009  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 10:29 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
The provisions of a landmark district are not that burdensome.
While that's true, it does introduce a new layer of bureaucracy onto a community that for 50 years mostly hasn't bothered to pull any permits for a lot of the work done there.

I think there's a generational split that makes this a really muddled message from "the community." "No landmark district" is coming from the old couples who bought those two-flats for $5000 back in 1974 and now wouldn't mind selling to a hipster developer for enough money to buy 200 hectares in Michoacán, or enough to comfortably retire near the grandkids in Dallas. They certainly don't want to apply for permits and get architectural drawings to replace the gutters or back porch.

Then there's the young radicals, nursing complaints about student loans and lack of middle-class jobs and worried that gentrification will not only force them out of affordable housing but seriously change the character of Pilsen.

Neither group really understand what's legal under Illinois law and what's possible given Chicago politics. And the way public discussions have had to happen during a pandemic, and in two languages, with people who sometimes want to be invisible to the legal system, has made it no easier. Add in a firebrand greenhorn alderman and a clueless planning commissioner washing his hands of the whole affair and you get the holy mess we saw yesterday, which accomplished absolutely nothing toward saving any aspect of Pilsen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48010  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 11:13 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,556
^ Don't need to tell me, I've lived in Pilsen for almost ten years now.

I don't think there's an increased risk of code enforcement, though. If the oldtimers can get away without pulling permits for a new roof or porch now, they can continue to get away with it after the landmark district. The city isn't gonna perform more roving inspections.

More common, though, is for a contractor to get a quick repair/replace permit approved same day (the contractor often exceeds the scope of work that is allowed for such permits). I don't think that Easy Permit process is available to properties in a landmark district - everything needs to have a plan review by Landmarks staff at the very least.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48011  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 11:30 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
While that's true, it does introduce a new layer of bureaucracy onto a community that for 50 years mostly hasn't bothered to pull any permits for a lot of the work done there.

I think there's a generational split that makes this a really muddled message from "the community." "No landmark district" is coming from the old couples who bought those two-flats for $5000 back in 1974 and now wouldn't mind selling to a hipster developer for enough money to buy 200 hectares in Michoacán, or enough to comfortably retire near the grandkids in Dallas. They certainly don't want to apply for permits and get architectural drawings to replace the gutters or back porch.

Then there's the young radicals, nursing complaints about student loans and lack of middle-class jobs and worried that gentrification will not only force them out of affordable housing but seriously change the character of Pilsen.

Neither group really understand what's legal under Illinois law and what's possible given Chicago politics. And the way public discussions have had to happen during a pandemic, and in two languages, with people who sometimes want to be invisible to the legal system, has made it no easier. Add in a firebrand greenhorn alderman and a clueless planning commissioner washing his hands of the whole affair and you get the holy mess we saw yesterday, which accomplished absolutely nothing toward saving any aspect of Pilsen.

Definitely needed to meet the community where they are in terms of understanding and addressing their situation, concerns, fears, motivations, etc.....which is why I was very curious as to what the actual on-the-ground community outreach/education/discussion really looked like for this 'effort' to pass the landmark district. I'm sure the pandemic made all of that much more challenging - perhaps particularly in a still heavily immigrant based neighborhood. Perhaps this particular version of the district would have been doomed at any rate do to the specific mix of dynamics here.....but that did the Planning Department actually do to try to get it passed? I haven't been following his work closely thus far, but perhaps a.....clue in your "clueless planning commissioner"? Just bad leadership here/lack of direction on this initiative? I mean, it's definitely as much of a political and communication project as anything else, and perhaps those skills/effort/competence just wasn't there??
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48012  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2020, 1:39 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,206
Yeah, I'm a little concerned that Cox is the outsider who was going to sweep into town and turn things around in terms of equity and investment. It's unexpectedly turned out to be a tough time to try to do that.

Not sure how strong the Landmarks Division will continue to be. Deputy Commissioner Eleanor Gorski's last day was Monday (she's going to UIC). I don't know what role Cox sees for preservation. Is it just an "old white person" thang that's not important in trying to set up a New World Order? I was annoyed that Cox's new DPD hires were done primarily on the basis of skin color—even to the point of readvertising the positions when the first group of applicants weren't the right color. And then yesterday he just threw the longtime Landmarks staff under the bus, suggesting that he was just putting on the table a district he didn't believe in for council to do whatever they like with.

As far as permits, Landmarks does take pride in doing most applications in landmark districts as Easy Permits. But the horror stories of having to hire expediters had already circulated in the community.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48013  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2020, 3:11 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,206
1399 W. Lake (La Lucé building) is still standing. Demo permit revoked; a new 90-day demo hold in place.

Petition, for whatever that's worth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48014  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2020, 3:19 AM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,297
Weird. Is this just some oversight on the city that they didn't automatically do a 90 day hold in the first place? Or is it because it was already on the delay list once that they didn't catch it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48015  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2020, 5:02 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,206
I haven't yet seen anything authoritative, but someone on Reddit claims "the initial demo permit issued a few years ago expired, but then this one was released without triggering the 90 day delay - someone fucked up, it should have triggered the demolition delay before the new permit was released. That's what this revocation is rectifying."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48016  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2020, 1:51 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,297
So they're just going to demolish this on March 1st instead. Got it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48017  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2020, 2:29 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 19,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Is it just an "old white person" thang that's not important in trying to set up a New World Order? I was annoyed that Cox's new DPD hires were done primarily on the basis of skin color—even to the point of readvertising the positions when the first group of applicants weren't the right color. And then yesterday he just threw the longtime Landmarks staff under the bus, suggesting that he was just putting on the table a district he didn't believe in for council to do whatever they like with.
When I made a comment similar to this (bringing up concerns about “anti-racist” statements made by a woman in Woodlawn who wanted to keep that neighborhood a certain “color”) you told me to go back to Libertyville (I can pull up that quote if you’d like)

And here you are voicing basically an identical concern.

Just thought I’d point that out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48018  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2020, 7:07 PM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 7,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro View Post
Sad day. Demo permit was issued for the building that formerly housed LaLuce at 1399 W Lake. Really a shame this couldn’t be saved.


Image Credit: DNAInfo
Former Fulton Market restaurant and Schlitz tavern is safe from wrecking ball - for now - after city revokes demolition permit

Quote:
A surviving Victorian building in Chicago’s rapidly developing Fulton Market district, originally a Schlitz tavern and later the home of the Italian restaurant La Luce, has been temporarily spared a date with the wrecking ball.

City officials on Wednesday revoked a demolition permit for the building, located at 1393-1399 W. Lake St., that was mistakenly issued Monday, according to Peter Strazzabosco, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Planning and Development.

The permit has been put on hold through March 1 under the city’s so-called “demolition delay” ordinance, which requires city officials to review applications to tear down potential landmark buildings.

“This sort of slipped through,” said Ward Miller, executive director of the advocacy group Preservation Chicago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48019  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2020, 7:30 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Is it just an "old white person" thang that's not important in trying to set up a New World Order?
Broke: Limiting private landowners' rights in order to preserve the existence and value of a scarce and irreplaceable public resource across generations.

Woke: Letting today's landowners set municipal policy to maximize their own economic benefit on the stated basis of their inherited membership in a specific group that is politically favored in today's zeitgeist.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48020  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2020, 8:09 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
Is this just some oversight on the city that they didn't automatically do a 90 day hold in the first place? Or is it because it was already on the delay list once that they didn't catch it
I guess there was a mix-up with the address in the city's system, per Block Club.

Quote:
A 90-day demolition hold had been entered in the city’s system for 1393 W. Lake St. instead of the address range of 1393-1399 W. Lake St.,” Strazzabosco said. “As there was no hold on the 1399 W. Lake address listed on the application, the Department of Buildings issued the demolition permit. The Department of Planning and Development’s Landmarks Division discovered the discrepancy and immediately requested the permit be revoked."
An odd one for sure.
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 11:41 AM.

     

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