SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   CHICAGO | The 78 Site (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=233449)

marothisu Nov 15, 2018 8:19 PM

This is affordable housing in bold or any type?

Quote:

The plan allows 10,000 residential units, with a 20% #ARO requirement
- 500 units must be built on site
- 1,000 units must be built off-site in the Pilsen-Little Village Pilot Area

ardecila Nov 16, 2018 12:29 AM

^ Yes. The normal requirement is 10% affordable, but Related is using TIF money for infrastructure so their requirement goes up to 20%. 1/4 of the requirement (5%) needs to be built on-site, and 1/4(another 5%) will be "bought out" with fees paid back to the city.

Sounds like they negotiated with Ald. Solis to get the remaining 10% of affordable housing built off-site in the Pilsen/Little Village pilot area... but that pilot area actually stretches up through University Village to Harrison Street and includes much of the Roosevelt Square development, where Related Midwest was gonna build affordable housing anyway under their agreement with the CHA. It also includes Related's highrise at 1035 W Van Buren. The boundaries are kinda funky there, so I can't tell if Related's empty Roosevelt Square land actually falls in the pilot area. If not, then they have to go searching for large sites elsewhere in the Pilsen/LV pilot area. Or potentially they could take existing market-rate units in Roosevelt Square and 1035 W Van Buren and put a covenant on them restricting the rents to affordable levels. Either way, seems like a shrewd deal cut between Related and Ald. Solis.... the boundaries of the pilot area are most definitely gerrymandered to help Related in some way.


Also, very disappointing that the Plan Commission presentation included no mention of a new Red Line stop. I understand why Related doesn't want to be on the hook for building a subway station, but without their influence I doubt it will get built at all.

the urban politician Nov 16, 2018 3:53 PM

Let's remember that politics is about perceptions, not facts.

Truth is, there really is no reason why the affordable housing needs to be planted in masse in Pilsen and LV. They are already affordable.

UV and sites closer to downtown, where rents are already high, make more sense if you are going to do this kind of stuff

Baronvonellis Nov 16, 2018 4:32 PM

Not to mention the whole "affordable" thing is silly. The whole southside is very "affordable". I'm curious if "affordable" housing is ever built like this in Naperville, Vernon Hills, Lake Forest ect or is this only a Chicago thing. Seems like people would want to be able to live in the burbs as well.

marothisu Nov 16, 2018 4:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis (Post 8381609)
Not to mention the whole "affordable" thing is silly. The whole southside is very "affordable". I'm curious if "affordable" housing is ever built like this in Naperville, Vernon Hills, Lake Forest ect or is this only a Chicago thing. Seems like people would want to be able to live in the burbs as well.

I think "affordable" is only really used for areas that have rent whether median or average above normal (or it SHOULD be used that way). With that, I agree mostly with what TUP says about how LV and Pilsen are already affordable, although I'd have to say that it probably depends on where in Pilsen these days but that's another story.

ardecila Nov 16, 2018 7:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8381555)
Let's remember that politics is about perceptions, not facts.

Truth is, there really is no reason why the affordable housing needs to be planted in masse in Pilsen and LV. They are already affordable.

UV and sites closer to downtown, where rents are already high, make more sense if you are going to do this kind of stuff

I disagree, University Village/Little Italy (stretching from the Circle Interchange down to Ashland/15th) already has too much non-market housing, most of it tied up in large suburban-style CHA and nonprofit developments. If anything that area needs more market rate housing to balance things out. Pilsen on the other hand may still have relatively low rents at “market rate” but those are climbing fast. There’s very little non-market housing south of 15th, just a couple of scattered sites run by Resurrection Project and other nonprofits.

In an ideal world we’d have so much new construction that “market rate” would be affordable to most Chicagoans, but under the system we have now, it’s important to avoid concentrating too much low-income housing in one area where it can strain public services and in some cases create social breakdown like we saw in the old CHA projects.

BVictor1 Nov 20, 2018 4:52 AM

By the numbers...

https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten...-cpc-final.pdf

SIGSEGV Nov 20, 2018 5:07 AM

So the first stage would be along Lower Well's? Will there be any way to access by foot from Roosevelt?

emathias Nov 20, 2018 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8381084)
...
Also, very disappointing that the Plan Commission presentation included no mention of a new Red Line stop. I understand why Related doesn't want to be on the hook for building a subway station, but without their influence I doubt it will get built at all.

The City should be leaning on them to do the station, offering them pretty much whatever zoning they want, in return, and contributing if they need to. It seems like they should be able to construct it for around $250 million, which amounts to less than 5% of their $7 billion plans. If the City promises half, it'd drop to closer to 2% for the developer. Considering that a station would increase their property value, and probably their rents, it seems like money well spent. Someone must have studied the impact of Morgan on the West Loop if they want more evidence.

ardecila Nov 20, 2018 11:31 PM

^ I don't think it's Related cheaping out, I think it's everybody kowtowing to the NIMBYs. I'm not sure the station is dead, but definitely seems like it's been backburnered. The gentle residents of Dearborn Park II don't want a Red Line stop right next to their prize park, I've heard they have already started complaining to the alderman.

https://frinkiac.com/video/S07E23/MM...UffJf5neI=.gif
src

the urban politician Nov 21, 2018 3:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8385701)
^ I don't think it's Related cheaping out, I think it's everybody kowtowing to the NIMBYs. I'm not sure the station is dead, but definitely seems like it's been backburnered. The gentle residents of Dearborn Park II don't want a Red Line stop right next to their prize park, I've heard they have already started complaining to the alderman.

https://frinkiac.com/video/S07E23/MM...UffJf5neI=.gif
src

Meh, the station could get built later.

The nice thing is, as the South Loop gets more crowded those Dearborn Park city-haters' voices will gradually get drowned out by other people's' needs.

I foresee a time in the future when their obstructionism becomes so intolerable that those asshats get gerrymandered into another ward.

SIGSEGV Nov 21, 2018 5:55 AM

When do we get to ram some roads through DP1 and DP2?

BVictor1 Nov 21, 2018 6:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8381084)

Also, very disappointing that the Plan Commission presentation included no mention of a new Red Line stop. I understand why Related doesn't want to be on the hook for building a subway station, but without their influence I doubt it will get built at all.

It was mentioned at plan commission, but it hasn't been designed and there's no specific timeframe or images.

BonoboZill4 Nov 21, 2018 10:22 PM

So even by their projections, they don't expect to be doing anything other than infrastructure work until summer 2021... oof this thing might not see any buildings built until 2030 if the market crashes in the next few years. :(

lakeshoredrive Nov 21, 2018 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 (Post 8386897)
So even by their projections, they don't expect to be doing anything other than infrastructure work until summer 2021... oof this thing might not see any buildings built until 2030 if the market crashes in the next few years. :(

Honestly, this type of development takes time to build. But if the Discovery Institute or whatever it’s called can get off the ground, it’ll be a good start to the the 78 project. I mean, look at Lakeshore East, it’s been around for about a decade or so and it’s not even finished. It’ll all work out in the end. There’s no reason to rush. As long as they can get the infrastructure stuff done, it’ll be in good shape.

k1052 Nov 22, 2018 2:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 (Post 8386897)
So even by their projections, they don't expect to be doing anything other than infrastructure work until summer 2021... oof this thing might not see any buildings built until 2030 if the market crashes in the next few years. :(

This does not bother me much. It will give the remaining sites between Roosevelt and Congress some more time to fill in.

Suiram Dec 13, 2018 9:45 PM

Tend to agree with TUP that large-scale master-developer type developments wind up being bad urban form even if they are profitable and safe for the developers.

But this seems like a somewhat better option as its generally forced to integrate into the street grid.

Where I disagree with TUP is the idea that this is a binary project like a high rise where itll happen or not happen. It "happening" will likely involve 20+ years of development with multiple design revisions and multiple other developers coming in or partnering on specific towers. If they really are aiming to do more than just a bunch of apartments, it will be slower, but once they've established some of the amenities and infrastructure along with a few starter towers, they should be able to extract quite a bit of a value from other developers and spread their risk.

emathias Dec 14, 2018 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8385874)
Meh, the station could get built later.

The nice thing is, as the South Loop gets more crowded those Dearborn Park city-haters' voices will gradually get drowned out by other people's' needs.

I foresee a time in the future when their obstructionism becomes so intolerable that those asshats get gerrymandered into another ward.

Obviously it can't be built overnight, but the later it's built, the more residents who will not be transit-oriented in their way of life, meaning a lost opportunity. The sooner it's built, the more likely it is that occupants, whether residential or commercial, will be transit-oriented and make full use of it.

Zapatan Dec 14, 2018 1:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 (Post 8386897)
So even by their projections, they don't expect to be doing anything other than infrastructure work until summer 2021... oof this thing might not see any buildings built until 2030 if the market crashes in the next few years. :(

No one can predict the future but just think about how long the Hudson Yards in NY took to come about.

The buildings in this development look really small though, unless they're placeholders. The larger the buildings the more risky/time consuming I'd imagine.

the urban politician Dec 14, 2018 1:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 8408117)
Obviously it can't be built overnight, but the later it's built, the more residents who will not be transit-oriented in their way of life, meaning a lost opportunity. The sooner it's built, the more likely it is that occupants, whether residential or commercial, will be transit-oriented and make full use of it.

I’m not sure about this. A subway here will pretty much only take you into the Loop and Cubs games, etc.

I’m willing to bet that even without a subway stop, this district will have a huge car-free population. Having a subway stop will only make commuting that much easier


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.