CHICAGO | General Developments

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

People who are fighting market rate development of prime real estate just so that a certain ethnic group can remain there and keep the area in a disheveled state in perpetuity while the city is flat broke are nitwits, a menace to society, and should be sidelined from all discourse until they develop more reasonable expectations.

Unironically claiming that this is "prime real estate" while also saying the area is "in a disheveled state".

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Unironically claiming that this is "prime real estate" while also saying the area is "in a disheveled state".

that can be both you know...

[mattshoe]

Spotted a soil testing truck today at 440 N Wabash

http://imgur.com/a/CAtzE

Sorry for linking and not embedding, not sure how to post the image without it being gigantic.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by mattshoe

Spotted a soil testing truck today at 440 N Wabash

http://imgur.com/a/CAtzE

Sorry for linking and not embedding, not sure how to post the image without it being gigantic.

Again? Geez...

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by mattshoe

Spotted a soil testing truck today at 440 N Wabash

http://imgur.com/a/CAtzE

Sorry for linking and not embedding, not sure how to post the image without it being gigantic.

Got ya covered

[maru2501]

just saw this as well, and it did move around. That's thrilling. I hate that lot

is it a mall expansion and a tower in theory?

[KWILLSKYLINE]

United center unveiled.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chica...story,amp.html

[pip]

Originally Posted by maru2501

just saw this as well, and it did move around. That's thrilling. I hate that lot

is it a mall expansion and a tower in theory?

Yeah, what is going here?

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by pip

Yeah, what is going here?

Last time they were drilling on that site in May, the lot was owned by Macerich, a mall developer.

[munchymunch]

Originally Posted by maru2501

is it a mall expansion and a tower in theory?

I believe so, I think the Urban Politician said he saw a model at there office. It would be idiotic if they just made a mall add on. I fully expect a tower.

[chicubs111]

Originally Posted by munchymunch

I believe so, I think the Urban Politician said he saw a model at there office. It would be idiotic if they just made a mall add on. I fully expect a tower.

I don't understand why there would be a need for a shopping mall there...there is already plenty of retail ..who would even anchor a mall of that size?...this spot is so prime for something similar to what was proposed when the realtor building and there owner was planning a large skyscraper and rockerfeller plaza type development.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

What would really make me chuckle would be if a developer finally called one of these Alderman's bluffs by building a small handful of million dollar homes behind a wrought iron gate at one of these sites, thus providing no affordable housing nor requiring any upzoning at all.

Dude, somebody beat you to the punch. Just a few blocks from the CVS site:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/W+...955746!6m1!1e1

It's a residential street so it wouldn't have been a mixed-use TOD, but the developer could have probably made more money building a row of six-flats.

Honestly, though, Proco Joe is one of the most developer-friendly aldermen there i$. He will happily tell the housing advocates to piss off, which is why Bucktown and south Logan has exploded with new developments.

Carlos Rosa, however, is pretty much standing athwart history, yelling stop. He won't prevent the gentrification of north Logan or Avondale, however... he'll only slow it down by forcing developers to do more gut rehabs instead of building new. He asked us to build an affordable unit in an existing three-flat, and I've heard similar stories from other developers.

[Vlajos]

Sad that Rosa doesn't grasp simple maths. Was he offering a subsidy for that 1 affordable until in a 3-flat?

[Kenmore]

will grab a pic later but a small apartment building is going up (replacing a surface lot) on Kenmore between Foster and Berwyn. Always nice to see a surface lot go and the added density (especially in what is already one of the most dense corridors of the city).

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Sad that Rosa doesn't grasp simple maths. Was he offering a subsidy for that 1 affordable until in a 3-flat?

Most affordable housing advocates don't grasp the numbers of running a business (a rental building is a small business) because they either have salaried jobs and never ran a business in their lives, are academic types with little real world experience, are pandering politicians, have no education and don't comprehend math, or just like to see the world in the context of morality without regard to practical matters. Most of them are some combination of the above and should largely be ignored, but there are a few exceptions.

It would be nice if somebody actually asked the real estate community how to create more affordable housing. But like in health care, it is people with ideals and zero experience (and often ulterior motives) who make policy decisions instead of the people who deal with the issues every day (doctors, nurses, and in real estate property owners and developers) and have to pencil in the numbers day in and day out. That's why the world runs so damn inefficiently and everybody is always complaining about the system being "broken".

[Mr Roboto]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Most affordable housing advocates don't grasp the numbers of running a business (a rental building is a small business) because they either have salaried jobs and never ran a business in their lives, are academic types with little real world experience, are pandering politicians, have no education and don't comprehend math, or just like to see the world in the context of morality without regard to practical matters. Most of them are some combination of the above and should largely be ignored, but there are a few exceptions.

It would be nice if somebody actually asked the real estate community how to create more affordable housing. But like in health care, it is people with ideals and zero experience (and often ulterior motives) who make policy decisions instead of the people who deal with the issues every day (doctors, nurses, and in real estate property owners and developers) and have to pencil in the numbers day in and day out. That's why the world runs so damn inefficiently and everybody is always complaining about the system being "broken".

This makes sense to me. I would be careful not to paint all affordable housing advocates with one broad brush though.

Problem is many developers also come across as greedy and would never submit to the idea of providing affordable housing unless forced to. Perhaps if the vast majority of developers already agreed with the concept that some percentage of units of housing needs to be set aside as affordable, while regulatory bodies also recognize the need for the developer to be able to make a decent profit, then the idea overall could actually work in the real world.

[the urban politician]

^ The flaw is already apparent in your post. Affordable housing set asides are not what most people would propose. That is the idea of the bureaucrats and idealists that I described above, not property owners. And it is not about greed. Are you earning a salary for your job? Would you like a promotion and an increase in pay? Is there another job paying more that you are thinking about taking? Does that make you a greedy, bloodthirsty capitalist? No, and neither am I.

[Mr Roboto]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ The flaw is already apparent in your post. Affordable housing set asides are not what most people would propose. That is the idea of the bureaucrats and idealists that I described above, not property owners. And it is not about greed. Are you earning a salary for your job? Would you like a promotion and an increase in pay? Is there another job paying more that you are thinking about taking? Does that make you a greedy, bloodthirsty capitalist? No, and neither am I.

Flaw huh. Flaw for who?

What do developers propose then, as 'experts' in the field?

Do you consider affordable housing an issue at all?

I suppose you think anti-trust laws are stupid too.

[tjp]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ The flaw is already apparent in your post. Affordable housing set asides are not what most people would propose. That is the idea of the bureaucrats and idealists that I described above, not property owners. And it is not about greed. Are you earning a salary for your job? Would you like a promotion and an increase in pay? Is there another job paying more that you are thinking about taking? Does that make you a greedy, bloodthirsty capitalist? No, and neither am I.

Okay, but you're choosing to sell housing, which people need in order to live, and should expect some regulation. It's not like you're selling iPhones ...

[maru2501]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

I don't understand why there would be a need for a shopping mall there...there is already plenty of retail ..who would even anchor a mall of that size?...this spot is so prime for something similar to what was proposed when the realtor building and there owner was planning a large skyscraper and rockerfeller plaza type development.

I thought at some point the idea was it would be connected to Northbridge and an expansion of it (now anchored by Nordstrom). And there was some indication it would have a Block 37-type high rise stuck on it someplace

but I think this was all theoretical. This was around the time they tore the gym down

anyway, it currently lives as one of the very worst surface lots in the central city, and you could throw a rock into it from Michigan Ave