CHICAGO | General Developments

[marothisu]

Chestnut Place was designed by Weese, Seegers & Hickey. That's not Harry Weese, but his brother Ben.

One thing that you won't see unless you go into the building is that the nice atrium which was painted by Richard Haas has been now painted white by Golub (probably has to do with renovation phase).

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Agreed, and I'm not asking for a minimum parking ratio either. Yes let the market decide.

I would love for somebody - anybody - to come up with a compelling argument why the government of the city of chicago should allow developers no upper limit on the amount of parking spaces they build for new residential developents in greater downtown, and proximate to transit in the ward - that doesn't revolve around your own personal (misguided) free market ideology. Anybody. Just try it. The opportunity for excessive parking will result in some cases in excessive parking being built (excessive meaning that folks who could reasonably go without car spots, will instead be induced to grab one because - why not, my building has 300 parking spaces and I can save 10 minutes here and there and can still drive myself to costco (or whatever) whenever I want. Excessive parking results in more congestion, pollution (negative externalities) and all of the related social, economic, and environmental fallout. Therefore, one tool in the government's toolbox to address said negative externalities should clearly be for in these dense, transit accessible areas, to have no minimum parking spots, and to institute reasonable maximum number of parking spots.

Guys, this stuff is not that hard. Pretty straightforward, practical policy....

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

If by Weese you mean Harry Weese, then this is not a Harry Weese building.

That being said, I'm not a fan of whatever I'm looking at either. I'm never a fan of these clumsy additions. Just tear the whole thing down and start over or leave it alone.

Yeah, I'm with you guys on this makeover - that rendering at least is a little f'ed up!!

[bcp]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

I would love for somebody - anybody - to come up with a compelling argument why the government of the city of chicago should allow developers no upper limit on the amount of parking spaces they build for new residential developents in greater downtown, and proximate to transit in the ward - that doesn't revolve around your own personal (misguided) free market ideology. Anybody. Just try it. The opportunity for excessive parking will result in some cases in excessive parking being built (excessive meaning that folks who could reasonably go without car spots, will instead be induced to grab one because - why not, my building has 300 parking spaces and I can save 10 minutes here and there and can still drive myself to costco (or whatever) whenever I want. Excessive parking results in more congestion, pollution (negative externalities) and all of the related social, economic, and environmental fallout. Therefore, one tool in the government's toolbox to address said negative externalities should clearly be for in these dense, transit accessible areas, to have no minimum parking spots, and to institute reasonable maximum number of parking spots.

Guys, this stuff is not that hard. Pretty straightforward, practical policy....

does chicago currently have parking maximums in place for new developments?

[SamInTheLoop]

^ No - to my knowledge there are absolutely no maximums whatsoever - anywhere.

Having stated that, it's of course important to remember that essentially everything about a PD is 'negotiable', meaning that if an alderman wanted to withould support for a project unless it had less than xyz parking spaces, there's nothing to prevent him/her from doing that and in effect that would be a sort of ad hoc maximum. Alas, that would be quite the odd occurrence in practice, because as we all know the pandering tendency would be for alderman in general to try if anything negotiate the number of spaces upward to placate NIMBY voices!

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Yeah, I'm with you guys on this makeover - that rendering at least is a little f'ed up!!

It is ugly.

But don't get your panties in a bunch just yet.
Chestnut Place is part of a of a larger planned development that limits the lot coverage at ground level to 86%.
As far as I can tell, the plaza on State St. is part of that 14% and it doesn't appear that they have received permission at this time.

[SamInTheLoop]

So wondering if anybody has heard anything about something planned for 1813 S. State in the South Loop? I noticed there were demo permits very recently issued for 1 and 2 story masonry building(s) located there......

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

It is ugly.

But don't get your panties in a bunch just yet.
Chestnut Place is part of a of a larger planned development that limits the lot coverage at ground level to 86%.
As far as I can tell, the plaza on State St. is part of that 14% and it doesn't appear that they have received permission at this time.

^ I highly doubt that a savvy developer is going to go through all this without having gotten the ok from Zoning.

You know, we're not talking about demolishing an old frame house in the neighborhoods (here's looking at you Novak), it's a skyscraper downtown.

I, for one, being a bit less design-oriented than the rest of you, welcome this project. It adds to the street level retail presence which is very good for River North. More and more people are migrating off the Mag Mile to do their shopping and that is the mark of Chicago's increasing global city awesome-ness.

[wierdaaron]

I know nothing about this building, so this could either be a tragedy or no big deal whatsoever, but I just noticed the old Western Union lettering from the side of this building on Congress is gone now and replaced with some newer company's signage.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Sad to see the trees and flowers go.

They look nice in photos, but are really unusable by pedestrians and cause considerable congestion for pedestrians during warmer months. I like trees a lot, but this isn't a particularly well-considered implementation of them.

[bcp]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ No - to my knowledge there are absolutely no maximums whatsoever - anywhere.

Having stated that, it's of course important to remember that essentially everything about a PD is 'negotiable', meaning that if an alderman wanted to withould support for a project unless it had less than xyz parking spaces, there's nothing to prevent him/her from doing that and in effect that would be a sort of ad hoc maximum. Alas, that would be quite the odd occurrence in practice, because as we all know the pandering tendency would be for alderman in general to try if anything negotiate the number of spaces upward to placate NIMBY voices!

OK..then the free-market is working just fine...chicago is doing amazing, and although developers are allowed to build as much parking as they want...they don't. Welcome to our side! ;-)

[Jibba]

Demo permit was issued for 4027 Broadway back in October. Hopefully that Studio Dwell project gets everything set to proceed.

Originally Posted by spyguy

4027 N Broadway
Preliminary proposal is 20 units, that might change to accommodate retail
Developer is Akara, designed by Studio Dwell

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I highly doubt that a savvy developer is going to go through all this without having gotten the ok from Zoning.

You know, we're not talking about demolishing an old frame house in the neighborhoods (here's looking at you Novak), it's a skyscraper downtown.

I, for one, being a bit less design-oriented than the rest of you, welcome this project. It adds to the street level retail presence which is very good for River North. More and more people are migrating off the Mag Mile to do their shopping and that is the mark of Chicago's increasing global city awesome-ness.

Go through all what exactly? This rendering looks very conceptual, and is possibly being put out to gauge interest in the commercial market.

I, for one, will posit that the reason Mag Mile, Oak Street, etc are desirable retail streets is because of their wide sidewalks. The city screwed over North State Street long ago by cutting its sidewalks down to an uncomfortable narrow width, made worse by crumbling concrete and subway grilles.

The vast majority of new buildings along State Street have acknowledged this problem and included setbacks or arcades to widen the sidewalk, either by choice or because city planners required them to do so. This proposal is bucking the trend and actually removing open space at ground level, which is awful. The building owners may profit in the short term from commercial leases, but they will ultimately regret it when other retail space opens nearby in more pleasant environs, and they are stuck with low-rent tenants.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Go through all what exactly? This rendering looks very conceptual, and is possibly being put out to gauge interest in the commercial market.

I, for one, will posit that the reason Mag Mile, Oak Street, etc are desirable retail streets is because of their wide sidewalks. The city screwed over North State Street long ago by cutting its sidewalks down to an uncomfortable narrow width, made worse by crumbling concrete and subway grilles.

The vast majority of new buildings along State Street have acknowledged this problem and included setbacks or arcades to widen the sidewalk, either by choice or because city planners required them to do so. This proposal is bucking the trend and actually removing open space at ground level, which is awful. The building owners may profit in the short term from commercial leases, but they will ultimately regret it when other retail space opens nearby in more pleasant environs, and they are stuck with low-rent tenants.

Every PD has to apply for any changes, when zoning issues a letter of approval it gets appended to the PD file. I checked a couple lately and found that the letter showed up in the digital file within a couple of weeks.
There is no letter newer than 96 on PD227 when they added a floor to the lowrise portion on Dearborn.

There are also no permits in place or applied for.

This PD got a several cookies from the city including vacation of the public way and, depending on how you parse it, 30,000-60,000 sqft.

Those don't come for free, and if expanding the State St. sidewalk from its 6 ft width is one of the concessions the developer made to get those cookies, zoning will hold them to it.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by bcp

OK..then the free-market is working just fine...chicago is doing amazing, and although developers are allowed to build as much parking as they want...they don't. Welcome to our side! ;-)

You've either mis-read or misunderstood.

There should be parking maximums. In some cases - perhaps a lot of cases, too much parking has been built in residential developments in greater downtown and in transit-proximate neighborhood locations. In some cases developers on their own have built too much. In some cases, they've probably been prodded/mandated by pandering aldermen to do so. (this mandatory upper limit on parking would be to protect the city against developers building excess parking on their own as much as aginst aldermen and NIMBYs). Again, people, adding excessive parking spaces is just like what happens when you add more lanes to the freeway - it only encourages more driving - leading to the negative social, economic and environmental externalities of congestion, waste and pollution. What is it you can't accept about this? (oh - let me guess, it conflicts with your ideology, right?)

The point of parking maximums would be to limit excessive parking from the standpoint of what works for a healthy functioning downtown society, and to limit negative externalities - not to help the private market ensure that there are enough parking spots for everyone always (what's 'good' in maximizing individual choices for all individual agents is in many, many cases, not good for society, ie 'the market' overall). Newsflash: This is an example of private market failure (just like the 07-08 financial crises and great recession)

Guys - this stuff is not challenging. The rationale of your argument is perplexing - 'since there are no parking maximums currently, and the city is not in ruins, then no maximums must be working just fine - we've got this one figured out' - ........no, not perplexing - intellectually bankrupt is more apt....

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Demo permit was issued for 4027 Broadway back in October. Hopefully that Studio Dwell project gets everything set to proceed.

No kidding - this is fantastic!

[wierdaaron]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

So wondering if anybody has heard anything about something planned for 1813 S. State in the South Loop? I noticed there were demo permits very recently issued for 1 and 2 story masonry building(s) located there......

I'll ask around. With those two buildings demoed, that whole lot will be clear.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

Every PD has to apply for any changes, when zoning issues a letter of approval it gets appended to the PD file. I checked a couple lately and found that the letter showed up in the digital file within a couple of weeks.

Of course. I am aware of how the planning process works.

I'm saying that the developer did not necessarily secure planning approval before releasing a rendering. We don't even know they released a rendering, officially... spyguy just posted it. It all seems very conceptual at this point, I could assemble this rendering in an hour with a few stock photos and SketchUp.

[ardecila]

Crain's is reporting that Roosevelt Collection just signed Mago Grill & Cantina to fill one of the retail spaces - I'm excited for this, I'm a big fan of their suburban locations.

More interesting is another 17000sf lease with Regus for a shared workspace. I'm sure Sam will spin this as a missed opportunity for McCaffery, but I'm more interested in what this shows in terms of the downtown office market. Does this signal at least a small but growing demand for office space in the South Loop?

Nobody really takes it seriously at this point as an office location, but Roosevelt Collection is only 2 blocks from a rail hub with three different lines and direct transit access to much of the city. Admittedly, access from the suburbs is shitty, unless you happen to live near Metra Electric. But the Roosevelt Corridor has much better transit access generally than the booming Fulton Market area, even if it's not as trendy post-industrial.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Demo permit was issued for 4027 Broadway back in October. Hopefully that Studio Dwell project gets everything set to proceed.

Cool looking building. Stuff still in the works

http://webapps1.cityofchicago.org/bu...mber=100561452

PRELIMINARY INTAKE REVIEW 2014-09-30 APPROVED
DRIVEWAY REVIEW 2014-11-25 CONDITIONAL PROJECT
LANDSCAPE REVIEW (ZONING) 2014-10-07 DENIED
ZONING REVIEW 2014-10-07 CONDITIONAL PROJECT