CHICAGO | General Developments

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

I think most of us here? think it is ridiculous to tear down such a building. I know I do. And most other cases that people point out to I usually agree as well. The North Avenue bay Apartments recently springs to mind. If someone else shows disgust first I'm usually inclined to piggyback off their sentiment.

I really really hope that there is a revisit in making many of the turn of the century 3-4 story buildings in River North a landmark district. And even better if that were to be extend the effort to some buildings in Streeterville, Gold Coast, West Loop, and South Loop where there is the huge influx of condo towers.

And what has been said a million times is that it's frustrating when we see so many low-rise crap buildings and empty lots in these hoods but developers sacrifice city heritage and diversity by plowig down these wonderful low rises.

And when you consider the cutthroat competition between cities around the world for talent and resources, to simply toss aside something that differentiates a city in favor of making it just like any other location that was never noted for architecture doesn't seem to make much sense. In addition to losing tourism opportunities and the connection to the past that both visitors and residents appreciate. And if it results in a loss of walkable, enjoyable streets in favor of parking podiums...it makes even less sense.

And I am concerned the FAR changes and expansion of the high-density center will exacerbate problems.

[the urban politician]

^ What makes you think that buildings like the one in question don't already exist in abundance throughout cities in the western world? I certainly also want to see it preserved, but it's far from unique.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ What makes you think that buildings like the one in question don't already exist in abundance throughout cities in the western world? I certainly also want to see it preserved, but it's far from unique.

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to reference a specific building. In relation to an earlier point about saving historic samples of a number of areas, I was making the point of the value of preservation in a competitive environment which I feel is especially pertinent to a city which has historically been identified by architecture. Some of those buildings or areas may be very unique, some less so, some may simply represent a time in Chicago history. But collectively they tell a story of both Chicago's history and a significant portion of American architecture.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I wish there was something in place like TOD which is for retail/commercial in certain areas when you make a building.

You wouldn't build apartments if there was no demand, right? So why force developers to put in retail spaces that won't get filled? That seems like another way to create "shitty dead zones".

Outside of a few bustling entertainment districts, most "commercial" streets actually have fairly low demand for retail. Certainly not enough demand to fill wall-to-wall storefronts for miles on end.

I'd rather have design guidelines that encourage developers to make their buildings engaging the street, rather than a heavy-handed retail requirement. The city already nudges developers toward retail by ruling out some of the other uses. Ground floor residential requires a zoning variance, ground floor parking has to be screened, etc.

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Another issue we are having today is a labor shortage. My contractor is having problems finding labor for certain aspects of some of our projects today. There is so much work out there and not enough labor to go around. This would be a great time to be employed in construction. We need foreign labor more now than ever.

or you could just pay higher wages to attract more and better candidates

labor force participation rate is at 40 year lows, don't give me the "we need more immigrants" bullcrap

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ardecila

You wouldn't build apartments if there was no demand, right? So why force developers to put in retail spaces that won't get filled? That seems like another way to create "shitty dead zones".

Outside of a few bustling entertainment districts, most "commercial" streets actually have fairly low demand for retail. Certainly not enough demand to fill wall-to-wall storefronts for miles on end.

I'd rather have design guidelines that encourage developers to make their buildings engaging the street, rather than a heavy-handed retail requirement. The city already nudges developers toward retail by ruling out some of the other uses. Ground floor residential requires a zoning variance, ground floor parking has to be screened, etc.

First of all, I stated it was commercial/retail - i.e. customer facing business, not necessarily office. i don't know why you insist on just saying retail. Second of all, making an incentive is not forcing. Third of all, even if they couldn't get filled up, what's the difference? One way or another, there's no retail there. The difference is the fact that they can handle it when and if there's demand for it. If you don't have the space for it at all, then even if there's demand, you're going to continue to have a shitty dead zone unless you want to spend a bunch of money to convert some areas of your building to business space, if you can even do it in the first place.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

...
labor force participation rate is at 40 year lows, don't give me the "we need more immigrants" bullcrap

Labor force participation is low primarily because the Baby Boomers are retiring, not because people are staying home refusing to work because they feel undervalued. Yes, *some* of that rate is people who could be working, but even if everyone who wanted a job had one the labor force participation rate would be at historic lows (at least once controlling for the movement of women into the workforce during th 60s and 70s) because of boomer retirements coupled with relatively low birthrates over the past 40 years. The workers-to-retired ratio is only going to get worse (as in more retirees to fewer workers), and immigration helps mitigate that.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

or you could just pay higher wages to attract more and better candidates

labor force participation rate is at 40 year lows, don't give me the "we need more immigrants" bullcrap

I don't pay anybody's wages or hire workers. I contract with companies who hire out workers and subs. It's up to them to determine what they will pay their workers

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by emathias

Labor force participation is low primarily because the Baby Boomers are retiring, not because people are staying home refusing to work because they feel undervalued. Yes, *some* of that rate is people who could be working, but even if everyone who wanted a job had one the labor force participation rate would be at historic lows (at least once controlling for the movement of women into the workforce during th 60s and 70s) because of boomer retirements coupled with relatively low birthrates over the past 40 years. The workers-to-retired ratio is only going to get worse (as in more retirees to fewer workers), and immigration helps mitigate that.

Then why are we still a million construction jobs short of the last boom? http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES20...a_tool=XGtable

thankfully wages have been increasing (if you explore more on that site)

wages are not increasing fast enough mainly because cheap credit is driving up land prices, so employers need to substitute for cheap and bad foreign labor in order to run a profit. If cheap, easy credit was not available, land prices would decrease and allow employers to pay more to willing US workers.

nobody ever should say we need more immigrant labor, when we have 45 million people on food stamps and other welfare, that only continues to drive labor prices downward

Labor shortage is one of the biggest farces out there!

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I don't pay anybody's wages or hire workers. I contract with companies who hire out workers and subs. It's up to them to determine what they will pay their workers

tell them to pay more and you'll have people lining up at their door to fill jobs, its simple economics.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

Then why are we still a million construction jobs short of the last boom? http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES20...a_tool=XGtable

Probably because the last boom was larger than the current one, and if you look, there's 1 million more construction jobs now versus 1/2011. While there's a lot of stuff happening now with construction in the US, it's still not as large as 10 or so years ago.

[maru2501]

didnt have camera but the new Apple project on Michigan has hacked through and now removed a good section of the old archways down along the river level. Looks weird. You can see from the other side of the river

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I don't pay anybody's wages or hire workers. I contract with companies who hire out workers and subs. It's up to them to determine what they will pay their workers

Well, sounds like some of them need to fail.

[harryc]

The ghosts of bologna sandwiches linger on decades later

last year


5/22

[Chi-Sky21]

[QUOTE=harryc;7454734]The ghosts of bologna sandwiches linger on decades later

5/22

/QUOTE]

You trying to spy on me Harry? That is my old balcony.

[the urban politician]

^ Future theatre, right?

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Future theatre, right?

Yep, new childrens theater.

[harryc]

Replaces an abandoned gas station that was used as a surface lot for the last decade or more.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

Then why are we still a million construction jobs short of the last boom? http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES20...a_tool=XGtable

thankfully wages have been increasing (if you explore more on that site)

Don't change the subject from a general economic question to a single industry.

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

wages are not increasing fast enough mainly because cheap credit is driving up land prices, so employers need to substitute for cheap and bad foreign labor in order to run a profit. If cheap, easy credit was not available, land prices would decrease and allow employers to pay more to willing US workers.

nobody ever should say we need more immigrant labor, when we have 45 million people on food stamps and other welfare, that only continues to drive labor prices downward

Labor shortage is one of the biggest farces out there!

First, the amount that most companies pay for real estate is a tiny fraction of what they pay for labor.

Second, if land prices decreased, your average worker would be hurt since the average worker is a homeowner.

Third, when you say that food stamps and welfare drive labor prices *downward* you are obviously not familiar with even the most basic of economic principles so there's no point in continuing.

[mattshoe]

10-Story Rental and Retail Proposal, at 2300 N Clybourn

http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/5/27/...pment-revealed