CHICAGO | General Developments

[Tom Servo]

Speaking of large scale developments in Lake View, what's the status on 3030 N Broadway? Last I read, the alderman said something about a Spring 2013 start... but what ever happened with all the foreclosure stuff? I was a big fan of that development.


http://www.44thward.org/3030-n-broadway/

I think VDT does outstanding work! Would really hate to see this one die.

[Tom Servo]

Also, just read this article.

http://lakeview.patch.com/articles/o...with-neighbors

I forgot about this proposal! Very nice too! I really don't understand the community concerns regarding crime. I don't see it. This is such a positive development for N Halsted imo... along with the Halsted Flats, the new Whole Foods and Community center, and the LGBT senior housing next door to the police station, I feel like N Halsted is being modernized in a very positive direction, and all this development, I feel, will actually reduce crime and general seediness of the area now.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by markh9

UIC Soccer Stadium by JGMA:

really like this

[SamInTheLoop]

^^^ ^^ ^

All exciting stuff. Unfortunately, though, it really seems as if the mixed-use Lakeview project with the Mariano's is dead. I think the developer was that Alison Davis vehicle.....I'd say unless another developer steps in and tries to re-start the same/similar project, it likely won't go anywhere....

Love that soccer stadium. Really hope JGMA can broaden its client base. They do some great work.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

You asked if market demand could "factor in" to PD approval. It cannot be part of the decision record, because the owner could then sue.

As for what the local alderman bases his judgment on, that's a different matter. He can deny a new six-flat merely because it would reduce demand for his nephew's six-flat building next door—but he has to claim the reasons are based on the public health, safety, and welfare.

Technically, I actually asked if it "should" (not 'could') factor in. But I guress it's almost 2 questions really - should the law allow it? But I suppose, in practice, with the aldermanic prerogative 'system' we are cursed with, in which aldermen regularly do not support PDs (and thus they never advance to Plan Commission to get a hearing before the political rubber stamp body) for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the legally permissable ones, why shouldn't a PD's ludicrous unfeasibility - within the foreseeable future - be one of the technically illegal factors that are considered? Also, I'm curious what you have in mind when you state "decision record" If you mean actual Plan Commission statements, that's not relevant because in practice only projects that already have aldermanic support make it to the Plan Commission. Or, do alderman have to file some official reason with the city why they are not in support of a PD application that's been filed, and thus effectively not allowing it to be heard at the Plan Commission (or in the blue moon that they get on the agenda, the commission will reject it in deference to aldermanic prerogative). If the latter, I was not aware that was the case. But of course that would be a joke as well, because on paper you could just claim the decision was based on one or multiple of the legally permissable reasons....

[SamInTheLoop]

Article in the Trib today reporting on a new analysis by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, which found that (surprise, surprise), Chicago lags behind other cities such as New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Boston when it comes to recent growth in residential and business development proximate to transit stations. Really? Even in light of Chicago's total lack of TOD planning policy (just individual politically-decided development by individual politically-decided development approach doesn't work that well?)? No way.......

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Article in the Trib today reporting on a new analysis by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, which found that (surprise, surprise), Chicago lags behind other cities such as New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Boston when it comes to recent growth in residential and business development proximate to transit stations. Really? Even in light of Chicago's total lack of TOD planning policy (just individual politically-decided development by individual politically-decided development approach doesn't work that well?)? No way.......

I believe part of the reason is, that large tracts of land in Chicago are located in challenged areas. The greenline travels thru many devastated areas especially on the west and southsides. I don't think any of the other cities on the list have the same set of social and economic circumstances however, the current situation does present a golden opportunity.

[intrepidDesign]

Some pics from my walk at lunch

Catalyst 2.0



Soho House, lots of commotion from inside. Sounded like power washers.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by jc5680

Patch is reporting that things are back in motion for Parkway Point…

I think (functionally) this is a great development for that part of Diversey, but that double-height, aqua glass lower portion is...terrible. I laud the architect for not going pseudo-retro for the design, but those first ~30 ft. of that front elevation are very poorly scaled and detailed.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

Soho House, lots of commotion from inside. Sounded like power washers.

They have completed the majority of the interior demo and are currently sandblasting all of the timber framing and brick inside the building. Buildout should commence as soon as they finish cleaning up after the sandblasters. You can even see the sandblasting curtains they put up on the 3rd and 4th floors of the building in this picture.

I am unbelievably excited about what this project means for Chicago. Soho House isn't exactly a household name, but it is on a whole new level for Chicago in terms of institutions that attract the global elite. I already am working with a few clients and investors who want to invest in Chicago because they are members at Soho House and want to have a reason to come here and enjoy their new clubhouse. Think about that for a second: these are the kind of people who invest millions of dollars in places because they want an excuse to visit their favorite club's newest clubhouse...

Hopefully the deals I'm working on with these people will close because they will cater partially to the crowd at Soho House and just act as a further attraction in Chicago for them.

[the urban politician]

^ Wow, that indeed is interesting. Keep us updated..

[jarta]

Sam, ...

Also, I'm curious what you have in mind when you state "decision record" If you mean actual Plan Commission statements, that's not relevant because in practice only projects that already have aldermanic support make it to the Plan Commission. Or, do alderman have to file some official reason with the city why they are not in support of a PD application that's been filed, and thus effectively not allowing it to be heard at the Plan Commission (or in the blue moon that they get on the agenda, the commission will reject it in deference to aldermanic prerogative).

The "decision record" is the record made before the Plan Commission and, later, the Zoning Committee. Whatever happens involving the Alderman before he releases his aldermanic "hold" is not a part of the City's offical record concerning the PD. The official record is very relevant. In fact, it's all that's relevant when a court reviews the record of what happened.

Once the aldermanic hold is placed on a PD (or any zoning change), unless the alderman releases it, as a matter of comity (not comedy), the aldermanic hold prevents any further consideration of the PD by the Plan Commission or the Zoning Committee. Each alderman has the ability to gum up the works until he/she is satisfied. It's always worked that way in Chicago. It's a tradition not without criticism - for obvious reasons.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...an-zoning-sale

[emathias]

Originally Posted by urbanpln

I believe part of the reason is, that large tracts of land in Chicago are located in challenged areas. The greenline travels thru many devastated areas especially on the west and southsides. I don't think any of the other cities on the list have the same set of social and economic circumstances however, the current situation does present a golden opportunity.

That's certainly part of the issue, but it's not the only part. Even for lines that go through safe, popular neighborhoods, there are a large number of under-utilized areas around them. The Green Line total was 20 million in 2012 vs about 33 million for the Brown Line. On a per-station basis, that means even the Brown Line only averaged less than 2 million riders per station over an entire year. Even the Red Line's Howard Branch (from Grand north to Howard) only averages about 2 million per station per year.

By comparison, Boston's Red Line averages 3.4 million riders per station on an annual basis - and you can't just say that Boston's shorter lines run in more dense areas, because not even just the five State Street subway stations on Chicago's Red Line average 3 million riders per year.

New York's system-wide average is 4 million riders per station (using the international definition of station, so 421 stations per wikipedia). Chicago's system-wide average is about 1.5 million per station - we don't even have a LINE that averages as much as New York's entire system does. Even the Loop stations only average about 2.4 million each annually.

Think about this:

Chicago Red Line station, land use within just 1 block: Nearly an entire surface parking lot adjacent to the station. About 1/2 block of surface parking behind/next to the YMCA adjacent to the station. A single-story McDonald's - with a drive-through - adjacent to the station.

Division Red Line station, land use within just 1 block: 1/2 square block of surface parking for (essentially) a 1-story grocery store directly adjacent. 1/4 block of surface parking 1/2 block away. A 1-story Walgreens 1/2 block away. A 1-story bank building 1/2 block away.

Roosevelt Red Line, land use within just 1 block: 1/2 square block of surface parking for a 1-story grocery store. A gas station. A 2-story building next to a surface parking lot (trader joe's). Adjacent SW from the station, single family homes.

Harrison Red Line, land use within just 1 block: Surface lots all over within 1 block east and south of the station.

North/Clybourn Red Line, land use within just 1 block: 1-story retail building, parking garage, undeveloped land, multiple other 1-or-2 story buildings.

Belmont Red Line, land use within just 1 block: undeveloped land, 1-2 story buildings adjacent to the west and east. Surface parking 1 block north to serve a 1-story building.

Addison Red Line, land use within just 1 block: SW, lots of parking lots or 1-story buildings between Sheffield and Clark.

Sheridan Red Line, land use within just 1 block: Thorek's surface lots. Empty lot on corner. Underutilized lots along Irving Park and Sheridan immediately south of station. This is a bit of a special case, because the threat of reconstructing the station and curves creates a lot of uncertainty for developers.

Wilson Red Line, land use within just 1 block: All those 1-story buildings Broadway. Everything between Sheridan and Kenmore fronting Wilson. That triangle of land on the SE corner of Broadway and Wilson. That Aldi.

And all of those, even Wilson, are in reasonably safe, popular areas. I could go on and on - it would be a (much shorter) list of describe the stations that have appropriate TOD-friendly densities and development patterns. They're not developed not due to lack of demand, but because the City not only doesn't encourage it, but it actually makes it difficult to develop good buildings at TOD scale.

[ehilton44]

Originally Posted by emathias

That's certainly part of the issue, but it's not the only part. Even for lines that go through safe, popular neighborhoods, there are a large number of under-utilized areas around them. The Green Line total was 20 million in 2012 vs about 33 million for the Brown Line. On a per-station basis, that means even the Brown Line only averaged less than 2 million riders per station over an entire year. Even the Red Line's Howard Branch (from Grand north to Howard) only averages about 2 million per station per year.

...

They're not developed not due to lack of demand, but because the City not only doesn't encourage it, but it actually makes it difficult to develop good buildings at TOD scale.

This may be more for the transportation forum, but aren't both the red line and brown line close to capacity? Maybe they could force very slightly tighter headways, but without expanding to 10-car trains the train is pretty much bursting (during rush hour).

This isn't an argument against TOD, in fact, its more of an argument for expanding transit in conjunction with encouraging TOD.

[the urban politician]

Small potatoes, but today I noticed that a new bank has been built at the southeast corner of Damen and Grand, where there was once a fugly empty lot.

It's round and, even though it has a parking lot, properly holds the corner and addresses the street. We do seem to be making some progress on urban design in this city.

In addition, the opening of a new bank this far south speaks to how much gentrification has pushed south in Ukrainian Village and is coming up against the Kinzie industrial corridor.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by urbanpln

I believe part of the reason is, that large tracts of land in Chicago are located in challenged areas. The greenline travels thru many devastated areas especially on the west and southsides. I don't think any of the other cities on the list have the same set of social and economic circumstances however, the current situation does present a golden opportunity.

Plays a role, I'm sure, and it's no doubt true that there are many idiosyncratic factors, however I do believe that we need to keep sight of the forest and realize the common overarching theme that Chicago's utter lack of comprehensive, citywide density-focused TOD planning policy (with executable teeth) is a key factor....

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ehilton44

This may be more for the transportation forum, but aren't both the red line and brown line close to capacity? Maybe they could force very slightly tighter headways, but without expanding to 10-car trains the train is pretty much bursting (during rush hour).

This isn't an argument against TOD, in fact, its more of an argument for expanding transit in conjunction with encouraging TOD.

It's close to capacity, but there are a number of things that can be done to mitigate it for much less than the cost of a new line.

And I wouldn't call it at capacity until they're running at 3-minute headways for over an hour. I don't think they're doing that just yet. Getting them to 2.5 minute headways and going to 10-cars increases capacity by 50%. So, realistically, there are options even if they need them. At the outside, going to 10 cars and down to 90 second headways you end up with 150% more capacity, so at the upper end of what you could theoretically do with a fully upgraded stations and power and signals on the existing line, you end up with the equivalent of 1 1/2 more lines to serve the area. Not cheap, but probably cheaper than building 1 1/2 more lines from scratch and that would let you serve ridership higher than New York on a per-station average.

I do think, though, that increasing ridership on the Pink Line from Western east and from Pulaski west would be excellent. I picked those boundaries because the middle part there is the most dangerous, least popular area. And boosting ridership on the Orange Line should also be a goal, as nearly all of it runs through areas with acceptable rates of crime and most of the stations have plenty of surroundings worth upzoning. The Green Line would probably do better to boost ridership by building infill stations at Cermak (happening), 26th, and 31st, and at Damen and Western. That would enable organic expansion along the Green Line to happen in the same way it's happened long the Blue Line towards O'Hare. Ridership at the Ashland/Lake station doubled between 2001 and 2012. Even Roosevelt (adding riders for Red and Green) grew by 50% during that timeframe, from a much higher base. Coordinated development near new stations on the Green Line would boost ridership and economic development at the same time.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I really don't understand the community concerns regarding crime. I don't see it. This is such a positive development for N Halsted imo... along with the Halsted Flats, the new Whole Foods and Community center, and the LGBT senior housing next door to the police station, I feel like N Halsted is being modernized in a very positive direction, and all this development, I feel, will actually reduce crime and general seediness of the area now.

To be very honest, it was not until the Center on Halsted opened that I noticed an uptick in incidents along Halsted. The dynamics shifted fairly rapidly over the first 1-3 years of it being open and I believe that is driving many people's concerns. However, a fancy new hotel that caters to Gay clientele will not add to any dysfunction IMO.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by emathias

Chicago Red Line station, land use within just 1 block: Nearly an entire surface parking lot adjacent to the station. About 1/2 block of surface parking behind/next to the YMCA adjacent to the station. A single-story McDonald's - with a drive-through - adjacent to the station.

It's really sad. Everytime I pass by there (it's my station), I just wonder how nobody's managed to turn that lot into high rises. That would be a great spot to do it in.

Luckily the "Tower of Jewel" is probably starting construction at the end of this year right near the Clark/Division stop. Also the rental tower at State/Chestnut will be completed sometime next year or 2015 so that should add even more, BUT that parking lot across from Holy Name is huge.. They could seriously fit 2 high rises on that or one big one like what's on Huron where Whole Foods is.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Any news on the project on the corner at Broadway?

On top of the couple projects on Diversey mentioned above, the podium/bustle of Lincoln Park Plaza (the twin-looking mid-rise apartment building above with the horrible Yelp reviews) is getting some kind of upgrade. I'm not sure they're touching the retail (where Panera etc. are), but one section - I think the residential entrance - has been improved significantly.

Hopefully the Broadway corner project does happen in some form, since that's much more of a prominent site and is one of the ugliest corners anywhere right now.