Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba
Cool to see a TOD new-build on a narrow, single-parcel site like this. If it's successful it can be a new pro forma for developers to follow. There's a lot just south of the Sedgwick stop of the Brown Line that could follow suit. These can probably only be built with no parking (at this unit density, anyway).
Visually, though, it's a dog. What's with the jumbo scale of these things? Is it the result of modern code requirements (and the requisite plenum space, or something)? It makes for a lot of opaque expanses of facade material. The swimming pool illusion is an -- um -- inventive solution for that.
|
There's no plenum in a residential building. I honestly don't see more "opaque expanses" than the average 1910s tenement building.
Code requires a very tall floor-to-floor height on the ground floor if retail is planned... all things equal, this will boost the height of a new 4-story building over the height of an old 4-story building.
It does appear that the residential floors in this proposal also have a pretty tall floor to floor height... this is probably just a design decision to provide loft style space with enormous windows. These won't be cheap units.
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad
I’ve seen builders avoiding the TOD route even when eligible to avoid having to include affordable housing. The former MB Bank at Armitage and Western is one example. That project includes parking yet is 1,000 feet from the train station.
|
I don't think affordable housing is part of the calculus for TOD. Affordable requirements are tied to the number of units - if you need an upzoning and you are building 10 units or more, the affordable requirements kick in (requirements vary by location). If your zoning already allows your desired number of units, then your 100% reduction in parking can be done through a Special Use at ZBA without any affordable requirements.
I don't see any rezonings for the MB drive-thru parcel, but I do see two ZBA appeals in 2020 so maybe they went for the TOD after all. I can't see the ZBA to confirm because they literally haven't posted their agendas online since 2015...
EDIT: looks like the ZBA appeals were to reduce their setbacks so they could fill the lot. I think the decision to build all the parking and not seek TOD is just a business decision that preserves the developer's ability to sell the units as condos. Even now, developers won't build condos without at least one parking space per unit.
https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/01...ared-them-out/