CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 1392

Ned.B · #**27821** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 1:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

This is pretty nice. But I'm curious, when was the brick added to the secondary building?

The whole thing was redesigned after it was found that they could not salvage any of the exterior walls on the old building. At that point the tower was added back into the concept and the addition design was tweaked.

I think this building came out good as a whole, but P&W needs to stay away from references to classical/historical design because they really suck at it. Those cornices and columns are the sort of cartoon shit that you find in suburban strip malls. I mean, c'mon all they had the do was copy the proportions of the old facade.

Mr Downtown · #**27822** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 2:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

There's nothing appropriate about these [Prairie Avenue townhouses. They're] a total waste of space and under scaled for the central area

Seems like your objection is to the pro forma, not the architecture. The developer has entitlements for two large towers, but instead thinks this is a better investment. Would you tell him no townhouses, because "we don't want those kind of people living here?"

ardecila · #**27823** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 3:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ned.B

I think this building came out good as a whole, but P&W needs to stay away from references to classical/historical design because they really suck at it.

You mean Hartshorne Plunkard?

Ned.B · #**27824** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

You mean Hartshorne Plunkard?

Or whoever it was that provided that part of the building. Both firms worked on the project.

Chi-Sky21 · #**27825** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Of course you'd speak up for them. There's nothing appropriate about these. It's a total waste of space and under scaled for the central area. There's nothing wrong with big and not everything has to be contextual. These may be okay in Jefferson Park or Bronzeville, Lakeview perhaps... But what I've come to realize is that developments like this in the downtown/central area region are nothing but NIMBY incubators. People bitching and moaning about height, density, light and all other kinds of bullshit that's more fitting of Homer Glen.

As someone who has recently moved to Homer Glen I take offense to this. Really? Who references Homer Glen!?! Nobody even knows this place when i tell them where i live! Or are you just mocking that we are the only dark sky community around?

munchymunch · #**27826** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 5:23 PM**

I think there is soil testing equipment at division and wells. In front of Atrium Village.

Tom Servo · #**27827** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

As someone who has recently moved to Homer Glen I take offense to this. Really? Who references Homer Glen!?! Nobody even knows this place when i tell them where i live! Or are you just mocking that we are the only dark sky community around?

You should change your 'location' then because it says 'Chicago'

BVictor1 · #**27828** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 6:56 PM**

.

Chi-Sky21 · #**27829** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 7:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

You should change your 'location' then because it says 'Chicago'

Born and raised there so I will ALWAYS say i am from Chicago. And considering I still own property in the west loop it is still technically true.

BVictor1 · #**27830** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 7:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Seems like your objection is to the pro forma, not the architecture. The developer has entitlements for two large towers, but instead thinks this is a better investment. Would you tell him no townhouses, because "we don't want those kind of people living here?"

My objection is to both. The developer didn't want to deal with the hacks in the neighborhood and just felt it easier to get this done over a tower. I don't know if they think it is a better investment or just easier to finance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

As someone who has recently moved to Homer Glen I take offense to this. Really? Who references Homer Glen!?! Nobody even knows this place when i tell them where i live! Or are you just mocking that we are the only dark sky community around?

You take offense huh

I referred to Homer Glen because that was the first thing that came to mind. I could have said Schaumburg, but I didn't

.

Chi-Sky21 · #**27831** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 7:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

You take offense huh

I referred to Homer Glen because that was the first thing that came to mind. I could have said Schaumburg, but I didn't

.

Just playing around. Just found it strange someone actually knew of this place!

the urban politician · #**27832** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 7:22 PM**

Could the Atrium Village redo really be moving forward? That would be kick ass news.

New Brown Line stop, please!

ardecila · #**27833** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 8:13 PM**

^ Possibly. The first phase of Atrium Village was always going to be an 8-story midrise at Division/Wells, with a major big box retail component and a 27-story tower adjoining to the south.

The Brown Line stop might have to wait a few years. Most likely it will be funded through the Near North TIF. That TIF has nearly $60M and could fund the station tomorrow, but much of that money is likely earmarked for replacement public and affordable housing in the Cabrini area.. Fortunately, all the private-sector development in the area (New City, Basecamp, Chestnut/Orleans, etc) will start to bring in a ton of new revenue to the TIF and spur the case for a new station.

Chi-Sky21 · #**27834** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 8:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ Possibly. The first phase of Atrium Village was always going to be an 8-story midrise at Division/Wells, with a major big box retail component and a 27-story tower adjoining to the south.

The Brown Line stop might have to wait a few years. Most likely it will be funded through the Near North TIF. That TIF has nearly $60M and could fund the station tomorrow, but much of that money is likely earmarked for replacement public and affordable housing in the Cabrini area.. Fortunately, all the private-sector development in the area (New City, Basecamp, Chestnut/Orleans, etc) will start to bring in a ton of new revenue to the TIF and spur the case for a new station.

Why would they use TIF money for replacement public and affordable housing? Isn't that what the CHA is for and the tons of money they are sitting on?

untitledreality · #**27835** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 8:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Fuck townhouses in the central area. Chicago is about 229 sq. mi, the central area is what 10 to 15 sq. mi? Build that shit somewhere else.

I have always seen the problem with these developments to be their anti-urban nature, rather than the low scale programming. If the central station gated communities (and others of their ilk) had instead been constructed in a traditional Chicago lot configuration with sole proprietorship, I would welcome such developments. The mega mcmansions on Superior and Huron are a good example. They are an urban solution for low scale programming that fills a market demand in the short term, but does not cause generational damage to the urban fabric.

XIII · #**27836** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by untitledreality

I have always seen the problem with these developments to be their anti-urban nature, rather than the low scale programming. If the central station gated communities (and others of their ilk) had instead been constructed in a traditional Chicago lot configuration with sole proprietorship, I would welcome such developments. The mega mcmansions on Superior and Huron are a good example. They are an urban solution for low scale programming that fills a market demand in the short term, but does not cause generational damage to the urban fabric.

Don't worry, these will go up and 20-50 years from now, someone on some forum somewhere will be upset that tearing them down for a new skyscraper is destroying the heritage and character of the area.

Its the circle of life

the urban politician · #**27837** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 9:22 PM**

The Central Station townhomes have nothing in common with gated communities

BVictor1 · #**27838** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

Why would they use TIF money for replacement public and affordable housing? Isn't that what the CHA is for and the tons of money they are sitting on?

It's more mixed income. It's not CHA.

http://www.fitzgeraldassociates.net/...um-village.htm

wierdaaron · #**27839** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 9:35 PM**

I could use a good primer on the affordable housing fund. From what I can tell, downtown area residential needs to either provide affordable housing or contribute money to a fund that will help provide it. I don't remember seeing any new developments that haven't opted to contribute to the fund. I imagine things would be different if the fund contribution weren't an option.

untitledreality · #**27840** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The Central Station townhomes have nothing in common with gated communities

You're kidding me right? Harbor Square and Park Row both have actual gates to enter the block. Heck, none of the units in Harbor Square even have a single non emergency exit means of egress to a public street.