CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7 - Page 802

RedCorsair87 · #**16021** Posted **Nov 18, 2019, 1:27 AM**

Love it or hate it, this would have been a great spot of a better looking OBP tower.

harryc · #**16022** Posted **Nov 18, 2019, 2:43 AM**

Nov 12

Nov 13

SolarWind · #**16023** Posted **Nov 18, 2019, 2:50 AM**

November 14, 2019

LouisVanDerWright · #**16024** Posted **Nov 18, 2019, 2:51 AM**

Guys, let's do some math here. A 25 story building with 190 units all for profit. Vs a 50 floor building with say 300 units (not going to double your density or FAR even if you double the height. It would get slimmer) with 30 "affordable" units. Assume each of those 30 units wipes out the profit of one other unit. So now we are talking about going through a zoning change with a bunch of other hoops to jump through so you can build (300-60=240, 240-190 is 50) 50 more units to a parcel. Is it really worth it? The marginal gain is miniscule.

Remember, those ARO units cost the same to construct as conventional units. It's probably not a 1 for 1 tradeoff and, well, some parts of town are now 15 or 20%. If I owned this property I would go for the slam dunk shorty over risking a bitch slap from Alderman Reilly for daring to propose a true highrise in THE original highrise district. Also remember that the taller you get, the less efficient the floor plans become, so not only do you only gain like 20% more units, you greatly increase the cost of ALL of the units by increasing the height.

SolarWind · #**16025** Posted **Nov 18, 2019, 2:51 AM**

November 14, 2019

SolarWind · #**16026** Posted **Nov 18, 2019, 2:51 AM**

November 14, 2019

SolarWind · #**16027** Posted **Nov 18, 2019, 2:52 AM**

November 14, 2019

OrdoSeclorum · #**16028** Posted **Nov 18, 2019, 2:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Guys, let's do some math here. A 25 story building with 190 units all for profit. Vs a 50 floor building with say 300 units (not going to double your density or FAR even if you double the height. It would get slimmer) with 30 "affordable" units. Assume each of those 30 units wipes out the profit of one other unit. So now we are talking about going through a zoning change with a bunch of other hoops to jump through so you can build (300-60=240, 240-190 is 50) 50 more units to a parcel. Is it really worth it? The marginal gain is miniscule.

I don't have the knowledge to be sure what you're saying is accurate. But there's certainly some truth to it and I'd be interested in hearing an informed counterpoint. I appreciate the perspective.

There's probably something government can do regulation-wise to incentivize developers to develop affordably. What we should certainly do to make housing affordable is get rid of parking minimums, especially in areas where the cost of land is low; make it legal to build courtyard buildings and four plus ones again; make it legal to build buildings that are mostly one-bedrooms and studios without having to navigate a bunch of veto points.

Khantilever · #**16029** Posted **Nov 18, 2019, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

I don't have the knowledge to be sure what you're saying is accurate. But there's certainly some truth to it and I'd be interested in hearing an informed counterpoint. I appreciate the perspective.

There's probably something government can do regulation-wise to incentivize developers to develop affordably. What we should certainly do to make housing affordable is get rid of parking minimums, especially in areas where the cost of land is low; make it legal to build courtyard buildings and four plus ones again; make it legal to build buildings that are mostly one-bedrooms and studios without having to navigate a bunch of veto points.

Regulation-wise is difficult. Any such unfunded requirement is effectively a tax on development. We need to actually subsidize development.

One option thrown around a lot are zoning subsidies which, in some sense, is what the ARO is supposed to do. If you build affordable units, you get more density. Sounds good in theory, but the problem is that existing zoning is unreasonably restrictive to begin with. If nearly every development requires a zoning change for anything to be built, then a zoning bonus is no longer a subsidy--it's just a tax on all development.

I'd be fine with giving density bonuses for affordable-units if we amended Aldermanic Privilege and re-drew the zoning map to something more reasonable.

SolarWind · #**16030** Posted **Nov 19, 2019, 1:59 AM**

November 18, 2019

SolarWind · #**16031** Posted **Nov 19, 2019, 1:59 AM**

November 18, 2019

BVictor1 · #**16032** Posted **Nov 19, 2019, 7:27 AM**

Sorry that these are unedited... My gd photoshop somehow fucked up and I can't find my backup to reinstall. Irritated.....

400 N. Aberdeen

-Zoning from M2-3 to DX-5

-3 FAR (currently)

-55,000 sq ft site (Full Block)

-ESG Architecture & Design

-loading on and west side/parking access on the east (north side of the site/building)

-building set back 30-40’

-2 levels of parking (150 spaces)(all screened)

-400,000 sq ft - SPECTULATIVE BUILDING

-16 floors & 240' approx

-2 outdoor patios per floor and they flip flop was the building rises

-level 16 amenity

-Leed Silver

-21 months of construction

-April 2020 construction start?

-$3.9 million toward the contribution to the city for the neighborhood opportunity fund

-property tax revenue would go to about $6,000,000 from $150,000 currently collected annually

-Alderman says "there’s going to be more density in this area"... (for those who were complaining) "it’s a forgone conclusion"

-Another central area plan being considered to expand Central Area west to Ashland…? (This is the 2nd time I've heard Burnett say this).

These next two almost made me LOL in the meeting just because of how much the context has changed over the past decade.

I'm sure there will be an article by Block Club Chicago in the next day or so. Look for better renderings and interview with two NIMBY's from the northside of the tracks.

west-town-brad · #**16033** Posted **Nov 19, 2019, 4:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I'm sure there will be an article by Block Club Chicago in the next day or so. Look for better renderings and interview with two NIMBY's from the northside of the tracks.

No doubt quoting NIMBYs who have lived in the area for upwards of 2 years.

RedCorsair87 · #**16034** Posted **Nov 19, 2019, 4:39 PM**

^Looks a little too busy for me, but I'll wait until I see better photos.

Regarding Union West, I really like the building minus the top glass portion. Solid brick work. One of BKL's better pieces of work.