CHICAGO | General Developments

[SolarWind]

November 24, 2015




Next at 347 West Chestnut in background ^

[SolarWind]

November 24, 2015

[UrbanLibertine]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

November 24, 2015




Next at 347 West Chestnut in background ^

What project is this?

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by UrbanLibertine

What project is this?

SL - Sedgwick at Locust

6 story belgravia condo project mostly 2-3 br condos http://sedgwickatlocust.com/

behind it is the 28 story "Next" apartments

http://nextapts.com/

[SamInTheLoop]

^^ I'm getting these confused too.....is this that maybe 6-7 story one that Marothisu I think posted a rendering of recently? (ah, not sure how your post wasn't showing up for me, NNR.......I see this is the one!)

Losing track of them all......

[BWChicago]

Nevermind, forgot about the Wrigley Thread

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

This should be fantastic.

Took the blue line out to o'hare for the first time in a little while recently. Even though I'm of course passionately following all this near nw-side tod development here, it was really exciting to see all this construction along the blue line/milwaukee actually beginning to take shape.....I think this is the beginning of a real pivot in Chicago neighborhood development to something more appropriate, more urban, more dense, more tod, and more walkable......exciting times....

^ While this is great, it unfortunately is still far too little in the big scheme of things. It's good for the Blue Line, albeit there is a lot more that has to happen.

The land around Red Line stops on the north side, for example, which is "farthest along" in regards to property values, should be getting developed far more densely. It makes no sense that you have miles and miles of towers along Lakeshore Dr and Sheridan Rd when the Red Line is several blocks west of here.

The TOD ordinance should be enabling property owners around the Diversey, Fullerton, Addison, Sheridan, Belmont stops to be building much larger projects. But even today you will still see some strip malls or a piece of shit 7-11 type building with a parking lot right next to these stops.

If you look at the Red Line north, I can only think of about 1 project that takes advantage of TOD: the Clark/Belmont Tower. That's it.

Yes, the Ricketts are building their crap at Wrigley, but they probably would have done that anyway. And I'm not counting North/Clybourn since the development there always has so much damn parking.

Where else? It's the busiest line in the city, runs through the best non-downtown real estate, runs 24 hours per day, and has some of the best cultural/nightlife/restaurant scene in the region. That land needs to be developed to a higher use.

My impression is that one or more of three things are going on:

1. Property owners near these stops are oblivious to the possibilities

2. NIMBYism (I frankly think this can be overcome in Chicago and isn't as huge a barrier as people think)

3. Banks. I believe this is one of the biggest culprits. Banks make or break everything. They control the global economy, and it is their biases and whims that determine whether a company or a project will be financed. For some reason, there must still be a suburban mindset to many lenders. If it's not downtown, it probably won't do well. If it's not on the lakefront, it probably won't do well. Things seem to be getting better, but lenders need to be convinced that neighborhood TOD projects will be financially successful. Meanwhile, they have no problems shoveling money into the hands of suburban homebuilders, and each and every time get burned when there is a recession and have to foreclose on hundreds of unsold homes out in exurbia.

[harryc]

[Randomguy34]

Huh, so this is what Manhattan would look like if they could transplant our buildings

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ While this is great, it unfortunately is still far too little in the big scheme of things. It's good for the Blue Line, albeit there is a lot more that has to happen.

The ball is rolling. That's really the important thing.

More importantly, the city, developers, and residents now have a logical framework for deciding where additional density should be allowed. Hopefully one day the area around transit stations is seen as an inevitable spot for dense development, just like downtown and the north lakefront are. This in turn will steer developers toward sites near transit in a virtuous cycle.

The bigger problem is that we're not really expanding our transit system to keep up with the new demand that could be coming. BRT will be a great addition, but BRT stations do not qualify for TOD bonuses.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The bigger problem is that we're not really expanding our transit system to keep up with the new demand that could be coming. BRT will be a great addition, but BRT stations do not qualify for TOD bonuses.

Yes, but at the same time we have swaths of land on the south side in areas like Bronzeville, Washington Park, and Woodlawn with adequate public transit, cheap (relatively) land and properties that's seen big depopulation. Of course the last thing anybody wants to see is these neighborhoods white washed, but at the same time IMO there's no reason an area like Bronzeville can't become a hot neighborhood for millenials looking for a racially diverse neighborhood. It basically needs more stuff like food options and everyday life things and there's no reason it couldn't become a lot more dense just like we're seeing with Logan Square.

But I definitely agree with your point before about it being the start, perhaps. I think the most important thing is that the developments also need to be done the right way to persuade more of the public it's the best thing to do. If these things are done wrong, it could dissuade people. Let's hope not! In any case, it's awesome to see - that stretch of Milwaukee has sucked lately but in a year or year and a half, it's going to look a lot better.

[george]

11/26

LSD Flyover at Ohio St Beach & Grand

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by ardecila

but BRT stations do not qualify for TOD bonuses.

That's not necessarily true. I think their intention was to include them , but the ordinance is poorly written.

It defines the transit zone by the distance to a "CTA or Metra rail station".
Depending on how you parse it, it could be interpreted as "a CTA rail or Metra rail station", or "a CTA station or a Metra rail station".

The later interpretation could include BRT stations which would be different than bus stops.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The land around Red Line stops on the north side, for example, which is "farthest along" in regards to property values, should be getting developed far more densely.

Have patients, doctor.

Mature, slow-growing cities like Chicago remake themselves over a matter of decades, not years. Remember that living in the city has only become attractive to the middle class again in the last 30 years. Chicago's troubled racial history only recently faded from big parts of the North Side and it still shadows the South and West Sides.

It makes no sense that you have miles and miles of towers along Lakeshore Dr and Sheridan Rd when the Red Line is several blocks west of here.

Don't fool yourself by looking at how tall the buildings are. The actual population density in the Winthrop-Kenmore corridor (or the Pine Grove equivalent south of Irving Park) is substantially greater than the widely separated towers along Marine Drive or Sheridan Road. All those courtyard buildings, and even the 4+1's may not make the skyscraper fanboy heart beat faster, but that's how real density happens in a city.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Have patients, doctor.

Nice

Mature, slow-growing cities like Chicago remake themselves over a matter of decades, not years. Remember that living in the city has only become attractive to the middle class again in the last 30 years. Chicago's troubled racial history only recently faded from big parts of the North Side and it still shadows the South and West Sides.

We've been down this road before, and I guess I'll never manage to convince you that demographics are a hyperlocal phenomenon. As a metro area Chicago is mature and slow-growing, but when it comes to the city's core, it's anything but. As evidenced by the downtown area seeing the nation's fastest population growth from 2000-2010, there is a good chance that if developers "build it they will come" provided that there is not another huge, international financial meltdown.

Don't fool yourself by looking at how tall the buildings are. The actual population density in the Winthrop-Kenmore corridor (or the Pine Grove equivalent south of Irving Park) is substantially greater than the widely separated towers along Marine Drive or Sheridan Road. All those courtyard buildings, and even the 4+1's may not make the skyscraper fanboy heart beat faster, but that's how real density happens in a city.

^ I agree, but I'm not complaining about courtyard buildings. I'm talking about lots, strip centers, and 7-11 stores with parking lots right next to L stations. A complete underutilization of land, and if nobody else will, I'll buy out one of those suckers and redevelop them myself! (LVDW, wanna join me?)

[harryc]

Nov 23

[streetline]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Don't fool yourself by looking at how tall the buildings are. The actual population density in the Winthrop-Kenmore corridor (or the Pine Grove equivalent south of Irving Park) is substantially greater than the widely separated towers along Marine Drive or Sheridan Road. All those courtyard buildings, and even the 4+1's may not make the skyscraper fanboy heart beat faster, but that's how real density happens in a city.

I see a lot of people making this type of claim, but from what I can tell from looking at census block group level population density numbers, it just isn't true. The streets you mention have very respectable density, but the towers on Sheridan a block or two east have as much or more.

See here for a density map: http://www.socialexplorer.com/ba4e078b8c/view

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by streetline

I see a lot of people making this type of claim, but from what I can tell from looking at census block group level population density numbers, it just isn't true. The streets you mention have very respectable density, but the towers on Sheridan a block or two east have as much or more.

See here for a density map: http://www.socialexplorer.com/ba4e078b8c/view

Yep, very true. Nice map too

[Randomguy34]

Yeah, where else are you going to get a census tract in the US above 530,161.2 per sq. mile (seriously though, it's the densest in all of the US)

Anyway, Streetline is right about how the highrises on Sheridan are much denser, which doesn't seem to be an opinion.

[marothisu]

And to the person who's saying how they don't understand why it's dense along the lake? Come on - use your head. Humans love water and Lake Michigan is a great body of water. It's no different for why in some other cities there are high rises lining the water (In Miami it's obvious. In Honolulu you can see it too. In the NYC area you can see it in areas like Jersey City and Long Island City in Queens). Humans love that stuff, even when it's 1/2 mile away from transit, they'll still say "well I have an amazing lake view."

Furthermore, back in the day when many buildings were actually built, there was a huge street car system in Chicago. You didn't need to live 1500 feet within an El stop because the CSL was all over the damn place. Then when that was dismantled, Chicago (as well as many other cities) experienced depopulation as a whole and it hasn't really recovered since. The whole use public transit thing, be near it, etc is something that's come up in what, the last 10-15 years in the US outside of NYC?