CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 1654

the urban politician · #**33061** Posted **May 3, 2016, 2:33 PM**

This developer needs to stop changing his mind and just build the stupid thing

spyguy · #**33062** Posted **May 3, 2016, 3:06 PM**

63rd & Cottage - 70 units

the urban politician · #**33063** Posted **May 3, 2016, 3:08 PM**

^ yes!!!

Randomguy34 · #**33064** Posted **May 3, 2016, 4:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

63rd & Cottage - 70 units

I think I'm more excited about this proposal than any skyscrapers that have been proposed in the past couple of weeks

marothisu · #**33065** Posted **May 3, 2016, 4:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

I think I'm more excited about this proposal than any skyscrapers that have been proposed in the past couple of weeks

This is good news - I hope though that the apartments are more of a mix including enough affordable. It's good to see new proposals for areas of town like this. There's been some renovation work not far away from there, and some more project like (but not totally) new stuff to go up near there in the last few years but this is a good sign.

PKDickman · #**33066** Posted **May 3, 2016, 5:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

This is good news - I hope though that the apartments are more of a mix including enough affordable. It's good to see new proposals for areas of town like this. There's been some renovation work not far away from there, and some more project like (but not totally) new stuff to go up near there in the last few years but this is a good sign.

This looks like it's part of the Grove Parc PD (NE corner) They are heavily weighted to affordable, seniors and low income. It's a big project though and I suspect this particular building will lean toward market rate units.

It looks like they were able to get rid of the second floor parking deck.

You know, I was sitting in the room when we hammered out the first TOD ordinance and we have routinely backed them because we believe that they're important to the city's future and because our area's financial characteristics gave them the best chance to prove viability.
But it is great to see the principles applied somewhere other than the blue line.

Couldn't happen a nicer place. I hope it starts a trend.

LouisVanDerWright · #**33067** Posted **May 3, 2016, 5:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

This developer needs to stop changing his mind and just build the stupid thing

I've dealt with this guy before, he's got amateur hour written all over him and has zero taste. He has completed a few medium sized projects like this, but they are mostly happy brick pomo crap. His actual name is Enrico Platti.

the urban politician · #**33068** Posted **May 3, 2016, 5:37 PM**

^ Yep, agreed.

Also, why on earth would anyone advocate for anything but market rate housing here? Does the south side lack affordable housing?

LouisVanDerWright · #**33069** Posted **May 3, 2016, 5:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

I think I'm more excited about this proposal than any skyscrapers that have been proposed in the past couple of weeks

Yeah, sweet. Is this TOD per chance? Would be nice to see the TOD bonuses spur more organic growth along the much maligned L corridors on the south Side.

the urban politician · #**33070** Posted **May 3, 2016, 6:08 PM**

^ Is it tod? Did you look at the rendering?

LouisVanDerWright · #**33071** Posted **May 3, 2016, 9:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Is it tod? Did you look at the rendering?

Being built next to a train doesn't make it TOD, being built under the TOD ordinance does. If you build a giant parking garage next to the train, is that TOD? How many spaces does this have.

PKDickman · #**33072** Posted **May 3, 2016, 10:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Is it tod? Did you look at the rendering?

My TOD comments were based on the picture. The original design was for 5 stories including a second floor parking deck.
The drawing would indicate 4 floors and no deck, although I'd like to see the floor plans.

The underlying zoning for the PD is B3-3.
So the TOD ordinance just reduced their parking requirement by at least 50% as of right.
It runs almost up to 60th and there are no subareas so it is technically one zoning lot adjacent to a transit station and the reduction might apply to the whole damn thing.

My guess is that they took advantage of it.

ardecila · #**33073** Posted **May 4, 2016, 3:09 AM**

^ I dunno, the housing advocates I've met all seem to think that parking is just as much of a fundamental right as safe housing...

Honestly not a great idea to spend public money on a transit system that largely benefits the poor, and then spend public money again to build parking for those same poor. Car ownership is very expensive, especially when you have a limited income. City sticker, state registration, gas, parking, maintenance, etc. Not a habit we should be encouraging among those who can't afford it. Thankfully we live in one of the few places in America where transit is a serious alternative to driving in most of the city.

Chi-Sky21 · #**33074** Posted **May 4, 2016, 1:15 PM**

I would say any high density near transportation is TOD. Regardless of if it falls in line with the ordinance or not.

King of Chicago · #**33075** Posted **May 4, 2016, 4:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

63rd & Cottage - 70 units

I definitely like this!

msu2001la · #**33076** Posted **May 4, 2016, 5:52 PM**

No comments on the gondola proposal?

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...-chicago-river

I think this is kind of interesting, albeit touristy. The design of the supports could definitely be a bit more elegant, but as an overall concept I don't hate it.

marothisu · #**33077** Posted **May 4, 2016, 5:54 PM**

Anyone know what's coming to 819-823 N Ashland (Ashland & Fry, just north of Chicago)? 3 demolition permits for the 3 buildings there owned by 819 N Ashland LLC (same address as the Wormhole Coffee building on Milwaukee Ave).

Via Chicago · #**33078** Posted **May 4, 2016, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by msu2001la

No comments on the gondola proposal?

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...-chicago-river

I think this is kind of interesting, albeit touristy. The design of the supports could definitely be a bit more elegant, but as an overall concept I don't hate it.

apparently people wont be content until downtown is literally an amusement park. ignoring the fact this is butt ugly and looks like a bunch of electrical lines.

perhaps Geller can finance this himself seeing as how "ashamed" he is of Chicago. better yet, maybe he can buy himself a one way ticket back to london.

ardecila · #**33079** Posted **May 4, 2016, 6:04 PM**

It looks awesome in that section of the river. the experience of riding one of these things through a highrise canyon is probably not something you can do anywhere else in the world.

I'm not sure how the pylons would fit in the narrower canyon west of Michigan, though, and certainly would be very tight on the South Branch.

Via Chicago · #**33080** Posted **May 4, 2016, 6:07 PM**

i love how their solution to "getting tourists into the neighborhoods" is literally building more carnival rides downtown.

maybe they could have started by actually building the Blues museum on the south side. oh wait...