CHICAGO | General Developments

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by ardecila

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.

Sorry, because the quote button didn't include the the underlying quote from the Politician, it come out wrong.

I actually wrote what I did in support of your position.

I agree with you, both about the itsy bitsy sidewalks, and the fact that the rendering seems to prove bupkis in the effort department.

Bigger windows don't improve the pedestrian experience, if you have to walk in the gutter to get around three people looking at them.

[marothisu]

New 3 story parking structure for the Midtown Athletic Club on Elston near Fullerton is also going to have 19,000 sq ft of retail space.

[bcp]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

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....

hey man..we get it...but do you really think that because i don't agree with your ideology that i am dimwitted or intellectually bankrupt? stop throwing that crap around - sounds like a tantrum.

parking maximums have their place, yes i agree, especially near transit...but why not just say there are no requirements, and let developers take the risk of building too much or too little? what's the harm? a lot of people that have cars in the city BARELY use them. trust me, we are smart enough to figure that out without more zoning ordinances. Also, if a unit does not have parking...yet the market says it should...guess what? prices come down, real affordability happens.

rest assured, i'm not a fan of what cars and car-policy have done to our cities (and country)...that's the real fight to be fought. but in the meantime, i prefer the cruelty of the free-market.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Mine isn't the hard ideological position though - quite the contrary. It's one of practicality, one that is reality-based. Just what works for the city - for the overall populace. It's how the real world actually works. Freemarketeerism would be the rigid ideological stance here.

I can tell that the sensibleness of my position is drawing you in ('parking maximums have a place - especially in dense centralized locations and near transit'......), but then, here comes the rigid market ideology, pulling you back ('this sounds like big government, how can the government know better than the market - wait a minute, what would Milton Friedman think about me agreeing with this.....on second thought'.....), and then we lose you all over again.

Also, by your last paragraph, I can tell that you're not quite understanding the concepts I'm presenting. Laissez Faire parking (ie no maximums) stance encourages developers and in effect their NIMBY and pandermen enablers to do everything they can to maximize parking revenue - with no regard for the negative consequences for the overall market. That works great for the individual developer, but it produces market failure - again, in the form of excess congestion, pollution and all kinds of waste that the general population gets to endure, and these harsh externalities are not borne by these individual agents - they just cash their checks.

Here's the problem - I think the folks who get indoctrinated into this kind of freemarketeerism completely overlook private market failure and negative externalities, forget about them, pretend they don't exist, probably in some extreme cases don't believe they exist or truly don't understand them, or believe in fairy tale type solutions such as the market will just eventually figure it out (like anthropogenic global warming - 'don't worry, the market will come up with a solution in plenty of time'!)......total freshwater folly, and fail.

over

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by 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.

Good news on Mago - and I'm happy to hear (I've never been to any out in da burbs) that at least they have fans! Perhaps this is a much better operator than the original (also Mexican) restaurant that was planned for this space.

You know I'm alway happy to try to spin anything into a negative for McCaffery Actually, to be perfectly honest, it typically doesn't take much spin....just data, facts photographs and/or renderings are usually more than enough to paint a self-evidently very negative portrait!

But on this lease to Regus - it is kinda interesting indeed. Truthfully my reaction was that it says more about the greater difficulty of leasing out 'duplex' retail spaces - or just 2nd-level retail spaces for that matter - than anything necessarily positive about office space in this location (or near south more generally). Then, again, there's absolutlely nothing - nothing at all remotely like this anywhere close to it, so maybe it's also matter of just a real niche they can capitalize on - no competition for Regus - and my best guess is not likely to be much more of these anytime soon anywhere proximate.........how this location will turn out for Regus I have no idea whatsoever......could be a little bit of a risk for sure.........will be interesting to find out......

[bcp]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Mine isn't the hard ideological position though - quite the contrary. It's one of practicality, one that is reality-based. Just what works for the city - for the overall populace. It's how the real world actually works. Freemarketeerism would be the rigid ideological stance here.

I can tell that the sensibleness of my position is drawing you in ('parking maximums have a place - especially in dense centralized locations and near transit'......), but then, here comes the rigid market ideology, pulling you back ('this sounds like big government, how can the government know better than the market - wait a minute, what would Milton Friedman think about me agreeing with this.....on second thought'.....), and then we lose you all over again.

Also, by your last paragraph, I can tell that you're not quite understanding the concepts I'm presenting. Laissez Faire parking (ie no maximums) stance encourages developers and in effect their NIMBY and pandermen enablers to do everything they can to maximize parking revenue - with no regard for the negative consequences for the overall market. That works great for the individual developer, but it produces market failure - again, in the form of excess congestion, pollution and all kinds of waste that the general population gets to endure, and these harsh externalities are not borne by these individual agents - they just cash their checks.

Here's the problem - I think the folks who get indoctrinated into this kind of freemarketeerism completely overlook private market failure and negative externalities, forget about them, pretend they don't exist, probably in some extreme cases don't believe they exist or truly don't understand them, or believe in fairy tale type solutions such as the market will just eventually figure it out (like anthropogenic global warming - 'don't worry, the market will come up with a solution in plenty of time'!)......total freshwater folly, and fail.

over

...eh..nevermind, waste of time. free-markets suck, happy now?

[streetline]

Originally Posted by ardecila

...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.

How do you figure? Unless you're counting the Red line a whole lot more heavily than any other el line, I'd say Fulton Market has better transit access (although it's not a big difference until you get west of the River).

Roosevelt Collection is about 1/3mi from the only el stop on Roosevelt, and Fulton St is within 1/3mi of an el stop (or two or three near Halsted) out to Elizabeth St. And neither one are exactly near Metra, but much of Fulton is still closer to the big West Loop Metra stations.

[wierdaaron]

Originally Posted by streetline

Roosevelt Collection is about 1/3mi from the only el stop on Roosevelt

Uphill. Can't say that of many places in Chicago.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by streetline

How do you figure? Unless you're counting the Red line a whole lot more heavily than any other el line, I'd say Fulton Market has better transit access (although it's not a big difference until you get west of the River).

Roosevelt Collection is about 1/3mi from the only el stop on Roosevelt, and Fulton St is within 1/3mi of an el stop (or two or three near Halsted) out to Elizabeth St. And neither one are exactly near Metra, but much of Fulton is still closer to the big West Loop Metra stations.

Fortunately I don't need to speculate. Per Mapnificent, a 30 minute commute from each point is shown below. Notably, the 30-minute zone for Roosevelt Collection includes Midway Airport and larger chunks of Lincoln Park and Lakeview. Fair warning, this tool does not really understand Metra service and gives weird results once you get past city limits.

Fulton Market (Google HQ)



Roosevelt Collection

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

WTF? There goes another piece of Chicago's architectural heritage. It's not Taj Mahal, but this little plaza and the building itself have a great design. It's a Weese who seems to be the architectural victim of the moment along with anyone else who ever dabbled in brutalism or monumental massing. I put this building in the same generation of extremely late Moderism that is slowly devolving into post modernism. I am not a fan of this wart they are planning to add to the base.

Seems we can't take one step forward (like the new tower across the street) without taking at least one, maybe two, steps backward. I was looking forward to the interaction of this plaza and the new building's arcade across the street. This was going to be a very unique public space with extreme density looming over it. Now it's just another street where there is retail just mashed up against the sidewalk.

I disagree. The Google streetview image shows exactly how clumsy the existing base is. The fenestration and entrance canopy---awful design. The new design will remove all that. It doesn't really matter it's detached since there was never good composition or appeal at street level. I looked at this building to rent in when I first moved to Chicago. They should have made these changes then. Better late than never

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by marothisu

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

Link didn't work for me, what is it?

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I disagree. The Google streetview image shows exactly how clumsy the existing base is. The fenestration and entrance canopy---awful design. The new design will remove all that. It doesn't really matter it's detached since there was never good composition or appeal at street level. I looked at this building to rent in when I first moved to Chicago. They should have made these changes then. Better late than never

I'm sure I'm a philistine for agreeing with you

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I disagree. The Google streetview image shows exactly how clumsy the existing base is. The fenestration and entrance canopy---awful design. The new design will remove all that. It doesn't really matter it's detached since there was never good composition or appeal at street level. I looked at this building to rent in when I first moved to Chicago. They should have made these changes then. Better late than never

Whereas I don't disagree with you regarding the design of the current base; I don't agree with you regarding the new design. The overall design is just clumsy. It looks cheap, oversized, and tasteless. This lot, as I said, would be better off left alone or completely demolished.

[chrisvfr800i]

I heard the tower at State & Huron is dead due to aldermanic interference. Has anyone else heard anything on it??

[marothisu]

This is finally happening it looks like as a building permit was issued for it yesterday.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130...to-residential

Halsted & Oakdale/Wellington. 4 story 25 unit building replacing a former 1 story paint store (Sappanos).

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Whereas I don't disagree with you regarding the design of the current base; I don't agree with you regarding the new design. The overall design is just clumsy. It looks cheap, oversized, and tasteless. This lot, as I said, would be better off left alone or completely demolished.

I don't care for the new design as much either so that means we agree

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

I heard the tower at State & Huron is dead due to aldermanic interference. Has anyone else heard anything on it??

Haven't heard anything, but is this the VDT-designed tower?

[untitledreality]

NIMBYs out and about for Montrose Green of all projects:

NORTH CENTER — Tempers flared as neighbors clashed during a community meeting Wednesday night to debate a zoning change request for a proposed transit-oriented development on Montrose.

Opponents of the mixed-use Montrose Green project took issue with its density, height and the lack of parking spaces.

sauce

This is simply mind boggling. If this city is serious about the TOD ordinance it needs to have some real teeth. A project like this should be as of right. It disgusts me that this needs any sort of aldermanic approval.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

NIMBYs out and about for Montrose Green of all projects:



This is simply mind boggling. If this city is serious about the TOD ordinance it needs to have some real teeth. A project like this should be as of right. It disgusts me that this needs any sort of aldermanic approval.

These people need to get the fuck out of Chicago and stop stopping its progress. They're bitching about height at 55 feet and 24 residential units? Who the fuck are these people? That's not even dense..GOD

[chrisvfr800i]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Haven't heard anything, but is this the VDT-designed tower?

That's the one. It was a 28 storey, 7500 sqft per floor tower. I hope it can be resurrected!