HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #29841  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 11:38 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
the ironic part is, its been my experience these people will stay in Berwyn etc for a few years until the kids start to get close to middle school age, and then theyre back on the house hunt. its usually at that point they make the jump to naperville or wherever for the schools (unless the parents are doing parochial)
In the group that I know none of them have relocated again as their kids started to go to school, mix of public and parochial. To some people the distant burbs will always have some attraction but I think it's probably to a lesser extent the under 40 set who lived in the city these days.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29842  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2015, 1:34 AM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,699
its good to hear some people are putting down roots. i enjoyed growing up there. tons of kids everywhere at that time...most of us on our block would just get together in the morning and not come back until sundown

while my parents still live there, their neighbors with kids in recent years have been quick to uproot. they've been through 3 different very nice families as neighbors, who all moved later b/c of schools. the grade schools are decent, but a lot move around high school....still a lot of parents who dont want their kids at Morton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29843  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2015, 4:54 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 11,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
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.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29844  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2015, 2:24 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,848
With so much love for keeping families in the city, why so much blind hatred on the forum for townhouses?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29845  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2015, 2:50 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29846  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2015, 3:00 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29847  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2015, 4:02 PM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,796
Today
Division and State Facade Project. Looks like they are going for a "historic" look. Anything is better than the previous version.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29848  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2015, 4:08 PM
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29849  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2015, 4:13 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29850  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2015, 4:36 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 399
^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...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29851  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2015, 5:58 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 11,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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....
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29852  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2015, 9:17 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten View Post
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.
__________________
* Check out my 2015 New Construction building permits map at https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...k.kXSch1pWpvKw

* Check out my 2015 Chicago conversions, rehabs, and additions map at https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...k.kyJajGMvzhcE
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29853  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2015, 10:19 PM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29854  
Old Posted Today, 2:53 AM
brian_b brian_b is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
^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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29855  
Old Posted Today, 6:19 AM
Hayward's Avatar
Hayward Hayward is offline
Living under the L Tracks
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,438
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 1:13 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.