CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 2342

emathias · #**46821** Posted **Feb 23, 2020, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro

This is pretty cool! Been wondering if this was going to push ahead, hadn’t heard anything about it in what feels like years: corner at 800 N Milwaukee (Chicago/Milwaukee, opposite the CVS) issued demo permit.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChiBuildi...58113203953664

Would love to see this happen!

harryc · #**46822** Posted **Feb 24, 2020, 1:44 AM**

Feb 18

"Soil testing"

Chicago | Riverline by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr
they were filling it back in when I was there.

harryc · #**46823** Posted **Feb 24, 2020, 1:54 AM**

Chicago | Roots Pizza by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

harryc · #**46824** Posted **Feb 24, 2020, 11:35 AM**

Feb 20

Chicago | 318 N Carpenter by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Feb 22

Chicago | 318 N Carpenter by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

harryc · #**46825** Posted **Feb 24, 2020, 1:16 PM**

The old bar closed before finishing or opening the new deck. I would have loved a roof top bar at the level of the El tracks. Would have been like the old days at Dakin / Sheridan.

Chicago | Lake and Halsted by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

west-town-brad · #**46826** Posted **Feb 24, 2020, 5:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Within the downtown zoning districts, small buildings have some protections built in because small lots are bad candidates for high rise redevelopment. If you’re a developer, you really want a larger site to work with. And assembling large sites from several smaller ones is extraordinarily difficult, it can take years.

New York, Hong Kong, and a few other cities can make “sliver towers” work on small sites but certainly not Chicago.

so why are the river north mansion historic protections necessary?

ardecila · #**46827** Posted **Feb 24, 2020, 7:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

so why are the river north mansion historic protections necessary?

Most of them aren't necessary, as the buildings are sandwiched in between larger structures.

The only reason that historic district even saw the light of day is because Brendan Reilly wanted to put the nail in the coffin of the proposed tower at Wabash/Superior.

Rizzo · #**46828** Posted **Feb 24, 2020, 8:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

Good to see a rendering of it. I remember when the zoning app came out a few years ago for that.

More renderings, including one showing off a nice street wall filling in along Milwaukee

https://www.lipeproperty.com/1122-w-chicago

spyguy · #**46829** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 2:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Most of them aren't necessary, as the buildings are sandwiched in between larger structures.

The only reason that historic district even saw the light of day is because Brendan Reilly wanted to put the nail in the coffin of the proposed tower at Wabash/Superior.

Not everything is replaced by a highrise. See Oak Street as well as other areas on the near north side where building facades have been "modernized" or replaced by similarly small scale retail buildings.

This is great news and hopefully just the start.

spyguy · #**46830** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 3:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro

777 N Franklin was approved. This is a pivotal project to me--extension of the burgeoning Chicago ave canyon from State St. to the river, and exclaimation point to the transformation of the Franklin canyon from Chicago to the river. Riding the brown north-south through this section has changed dramatically in the past 10 years.

Couple blocks away these are set to rise:

Ricochet48 · #**46831** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 4:50 AM**

^^^ Just glad something is taking the spots east of the Hudson apartment complex. Surprised the little building in the middle is surviving though haha.

That area has changed so much. Next luxury high rises all over and a couple offices.

sloop.chi · #**46832** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 2:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

Couple blocks away these are set to rise:

Chicago needs about 100 of these, if not more. City has plenty of low rise and a strong high rise count. Mid rise is lacking sorely. I really like these and want more

maru2501 · #**46833** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 3:25 PM**

^ yeah, and maybe that becomes the go-to filler as the boom starts to ebb. Still money to be made

Steely Dan · #**46834** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 3:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sloop.chi

Chicago needs about 100 of these, if not more. City has plenty of low rise and a strong high rise count. Mid rise is lacking sorely. I really like these and want more

yeah, chicago has this weird duality where it seems like you can either build 4 stories, or 40 stories, but not so much 10 story stuff.

jc5680 · #**46835** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 4:03 PM**

^ Elevator economics—4 is as high as you can go before they are required, right? Once you have to pay for those you might as well spread that cost out as much as you can. In residential at least.

--

1001 Fulton

ardecila · #**46836** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 4:07 PM**

The city's building codes enforce full high-rise standards for buildings over 80', causing a big step change in construction costs at 80'. 8 stories in 80' is possible but very tight, so you see a lot of buildings up to 6/7 stories under the low-rise standards, and then another group of buildings at 12 stories and up under the high-rise standards where the added unit count starts to balance out the higher construction cost.

These 9-story buildings are probably between 90' and 110', so they are solidly in that no-go zone.

It's not really about whether you have an elevator or not, but about what kind of construction type, what kind of sprinkler system, etc. Chicago has adopted a new building code, too, so the calculus behind these decisions is changing.

jc5680 · #**46837** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 4:21 PM**

^ aren't elevators required above 4? I can't speak broadly to construction incentives, but elevator costs/maintenance (and more recently a cab replacement) is routinely one of the biggest costs to my building's annual budget.

The 4 then 10+ dichotomy makes even more sense to me if there are large cost considerations at 4 then again ~8 floors.

mark0 · #**46838** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 4:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc5680

^ aren't elevators required above 4? I can't speak broadly to construction incentives, but elevator costs/maintenance (and more recently a cab replacement) is routinely one of the biggest costs to my building's annual budget.

The 4 then 10+ dichotomy makes even more sense to me if there are large cost considerations at 4 then again ~8 floors.

Even at 4 floors elevator buildings make sense because the units command a higher price and sell faster. 3 floors is typically the limit most people purchasing want to walk up.

west-town-brad · #**46839** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 4:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark0

Even at 4 floors elevator buildings make sense because the units command a higher price and sell faster. 3 floors is typically the limit most people purchasing want to walk up.

I've seen 4-unit elevator buildings.

No thanks on that replacement/maintenance cost. Or waiting to be rescued when the thing acts up.

mark0 · #**46840** Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

I've seen 4-unit elevator buildings.

No thanks on that replacement/maintenance cost. Or waiting to be rescued when the thing acts up.

Easier when they are double loaded 8 unit 4 story buildings for sure.