CHICAGO | General Developments

[emathias]

Originally Posted by woodrow

Simple - very rich people don't want tall there and hire very good lawyers to stop it.

I wish the City would stand up against them. The potential property tax income differences could be enormous for that location - many millions of dollars per year, different. It's in everyone's best interest to maximize income from existing locations.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by emathias

I wish the City would stand up against them. The potential property tax income differences could be enormous for that location - many millions of dollars per year, different. It's in everyone's best interest to maximize income from existing locations.

My guess is that the city doesn’t do that because it’s a nasty fight, and there are still plenty of other sites seeing dense development. Hell, we’ve got more high rises going up than anywhere but New York. We really don’t have a NIMBY problem here....

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

My guess is that the city doesn’t do that because it’s a nasty fight, and there are still plenty of other sites seeing dense development. Hell, we’ve got more high rises going up than anywhere but New York. We really don’t have a NIMBY problem here....

It could definitely be worse, but it can be better as well. Some people in Seattle point to all the construction there and say that there’s plenty of development. But we know that measuring development relative to zero is misleading; the amount of development that would occur in the absence of so much NIMBYism is much greater than is actually occurring.

To some extent this particular case isn’t a huge problem. Presumably the neighbors who get to preserve their views and relatively low-density living will pay for it in higher property values and higher property taxes. But to the extent that we’ve simply lost out on an opportunity of attracting more high-income households - and the many spillover benefits they provide - that is a loss that isn’t made up as easily.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

It could definitely be worse, but it can be better as well. Some people in Seattle point to all the construction there and say that there’s plenty of development. But we know that measuring development relative to zero is misleading; the amount of development that would occur in the absence of so much NIMBYism is much greater than is actually occurring.

To some extent this particular case isn’t a huge problem. Presumably the neighbors who get to preserve their views and relatively low-density living will pay for it in higher property values and higher property taxes. But to the extent that we’ve simply lost out on an opportunity of attracting more high-income households - and the many spillover benefits they provide - that is a loss that isn’t made up as easily.

Is this surprising in a neighborhood where it's common to tear down 5 houses and make one single home across those 5 lots...that largely sits empty?

[ardecila]

On what planet is the Gold Coast low-density? It was the city's very first highrise neighborhood... the upset NIMBYs here are highrise dwellers themselves. Also tear downs are not a problem in Gold Coast...

Anyway, I'm not really sure it's quite as simple as "opening the floodgates" to new development. The construction industry has trouble getting workers already. Without a flood of immigrants to the city like we had 120 years ago, I dunno if we would even be capable of that kind of pre-zoning citybuilding.

[the urban politician]

Tribune reporting that the Rock n Roll McDonald's is closing....

Then reopening....

As a remodeled....

Fucking....

McDonald's!!

And still the parking lot remains..

[KWillChicago]

Not sure if this was posted. I wonder if this means Deniro is out as well?

https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/12/1...-new-developer

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ardecila

On what planet is the Gold Coast low-density? It was the city's very first highrise neighborhood... the upset NIMBYs here are highrise dwellers themselves. Also tear downs are not a problem in Gold Coast...

Yeah, Gold Coast is not low density in the least bit and it doesn't have a tear down problem. The census tract that this building is in as of 2016 is almost 67,000 ppsm, with both tracts right to the west at over 60,000 ppsm each. The one south is less dense but still about 40,000 ppsm. Of course the tract bound by Dearborn, State, Division, and Chicago is 95,000 ppsm as of 2016.

I lived in this general area for 8 years and there were only really a few buildings torn down in my time. State & Chestnut had few small buildings (one definitely wasn't good) with parking lot - now it's 2 buildings with like 300 or 400 units whereas before it was maybe 50 total units there. Cedar Hotel was torn down for a building 3X the height that's a hotel which adds daily density to the area regardless. 8 E Elm was something denser but it was also replaced with something a lot taller. The place with Ashkenazi Deli was torn down for another retail building - no change in density there though the building is a little taller. There's a retail building that was torn down on Oak Street but it's being replaced or was replaced by something similar but more modern looking.

I think there was one building in the north of Division part of Gold Coast which was torn down but that's pretty rare compared to everything else. It's pretty much asinine to think that Gold Coast is tear down central - whoever thinks that definitely doesn't know the area at all.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Tribune reporting that the Rock n Roll McDonald's is closing....

Then reopening....

As a remodeled....

Fucking....

McDonald's!!

Yay the McDonald's is staying and they're making it nicer! Hopefully they do something with that "museum" upstairs.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

And still the parking lot remains..

Son of a bitch! Maybe they'll sell it next year...

[ardecila]

I didn't realize Rock'n'Roll was a franchise McDonalds. That means we can't fully hold McDonalds corporate responsible for the lame suburban design, although I'm sure they had a pretty big hand.

It also complicates any hope for an improved McDonalds flagship location, as we don't know what McDonalds promised in the franchise agreement. They may be shackled to the franchisee, which could prohibit some kind of flagship-like experience at the new location on Randolph.

[harryc]

[the urban politician]

I can live with the current building, but the parking lot is just plain dumb at this point.

I mean, really? Why would anyone drive to this stupid thing? The value of that lot must be astronomical

[MayorOfChicago]

^ I know an ENTIRE city block. Lets all drive down to choke on some hamburgers and then jaunt across the street and scarf down some of Rainforest Cafe's disgusting signature crab cakes.

[Rizzo]

Rain Forest and Hard Rock buildings are the worst, and there's really no excuse when both don't really exist in standalone buildings in other cities. They're in malls or large office buildings. I'd love to see a soaring glass tower replace both and they decorate the lower levels with as much neon guitars and mushrooms all they want. Same with the Walgreens. The McDonald's parking lot is bad but I don't mind the building. And I'm always finding myself there getting an early morning snack after a night of partying.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago

^ I know an ENTIRE city block. Lets all drive down to choke on some hamburgers and then jaunt across the street and scarf down some of Rainforest Cafe's disgusting signature crab cakes.

There's probably more "crab" in McDonald's "all beef" patties than in Rainforest Cafe's "crabcakes", though!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Domer2019]

Hey, they paid good money for those arches. We can't just let developments in chain restaurant valley block views of the arches all willy-nilly. The greatest marketing symbol in modern history, and you want some concrete to get in the way.

[aaron38]

Why would McD's sell the parking lot? They're land banking. That block will stay as is for a long time, and that's a good thing. Let it be surrounded, and when it finally goes it'll be a full block supertall.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Why would McD's sell the parking lot? They're land banking. That block will stay as is for a long time, and that's a good thing. Let it be surrounded, and when it finally goes it'll be a full block supertall.

Part of land banking requires you to know when prices are good and you should sell. That time is going to be soon for them. McDonald's DOES sell land when it's actually worth it to sell land.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by bcp

wth...what's up aaron!

Just getting adjusted to life in Chicago!

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Part of land banking requires you to know when prices are good and you should sell. That time is going to be soon for them. McDonald's DOES sell land when it's actually worth it to sell land.

I don’t know under what conditions and costs McD’s Corporate has the right to sell the underlying land, but I wonder whether the franchisee at this location saw a potential sale coming and decided to quickly remodel to discourage precisely that.