SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   CHICAGO | NEMA Chicago | 896 FT | 81 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=218570)

BVictor1 Apr 8, 2016 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiHi (Post 7398861)
Looks like some neighborhood group that I've never heard of started a petition about the project. Like most NIMBY groups I'm sure their lack of good points is made up for with lots of passion. Other than the parking count I'm pretty much on board with the tower.

http://southloop.webs.com/

Funny thing is, the same people will complain about the lack of parking in the neighborhood. You go to these meetings and they bitch and moan bout inadequate parking in the area with so places for when friends and family come to visit.

Fine, lower the number of spaces and reduce the back base height from 17 floors to 13 or 14 floors. You know they'll find something else to complain about.

They want underground parking in an area that's virtually landfill. Are they planning on paying for the expense?

Kumdogmillionaire Apr 8, 2016 9:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 7400560)
1,200 parking spaces 2 blocks from a major subway and 'L' combo station, next to all the buses of Michigan Avenue, and walking distance to most necessities and parkland, is simply unnecessary and motivates car owners to live there and drive places as opposed to people dedicated (or resigned) to living car-free and supporting the walkability of the immediate neighborhood.

It's not stupid if you think of who their customer base is. While I never see myself needing a car, especially if I'm living close to public transit, the +40 population likes having 2+ cars, and that's just reality

jc5680 Apr 9, 2016 1:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire (Post 7400922)
It's not stupid if you think of who their customer base is. While I never see myself needing a car, especially if I'm living close to public transit, the +40 population likes having 2+ cars, and that's just reality

It is not just reality. Continual proclamation of annectdotal observations as facts does not make them so.

Kumdogmillionaire Apr 9, 2016 7:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc5680 (Post 7401245)
It is not just reality. Continual proclamation of annectdotal observations as facts does not make them so.

You literally could have made that sentence, "you didn't back your claims with data", no need to try way too hard to sound smart. Also, I don't understand how my claim is wrong? Would less parking spaces be preferable? Yeah, but again as I said, the place isn't going to be attracting that many car free 20-30 year old buyers. That's just not the price market we are looking at here.

the urban politician Apr 9, 2016 1:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire (Post 7401457)
You literally could have made that sentence, "you didn't back your claims with data", no need to try way too hard to sound smart. Also, I don't understand how my claim is wrong? Would less parking spaces be preferable? Yeah, but again as I said, the place isn't going to be attracting that many car free 20-30 year old buyers. That's just not the price market we are looking at here.

But this has been studied. And it has been found that too much parking is being built within the city. It's even been published.

This particular site does deserve a lower parking ratio.

BVictor1 Apr 9, 2016 3:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 7401538)
But this has been studied. And it has been found that too much parking is being built within the city. It's even been published.

This particular site does deserve a lower parking ratio.

Maybe when the west tower is designed, it can have less parking, especially as they'll have a sense as to how much parking in this particular tower is being used.

skyscraper Apr 9, 2016 6:13 PM

the zoning for this area requires .55 parking spaces per residential unit.

brian_b Apr 9, 2016 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiHi (Post 7398861)
Looks like some neighborhood group that I've never heard of started a petition about the project. Like most NIMBY groups I'm sure their lack of good points is made up for with lots of passion. Other than the parking count I'm pretty much on board with the tower.

http://southloop.webs.com/

These are the same NIMBYs that were ready to destroy PDNA and forced Dowell to replace the planned fix for overcrowding at South Loop Elementary with a school plan that was so toxic it never saw the light of day (anyone remember the public meetings for this building last year when she said she was hoping to unveil a school plan by November/December?). She's lucky city hall leaked it to people that could talk to her in private and bring her to her senses. Hopefully she's learned not to listen to this NIMBY group again.

ardecila Apr 11, 2016 4:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 7401538)
But this has been studied. And it has been found that too much parking is being built within the city. It's even been published.

This particular site does deserve a lower parking ratio.

http://www.cnt.org/publications/stal...-affordability

It doesn't quite say what you're implying. The study only looked at rental buildings, for one - condo buyers generally prefer to have a parking space, because even if they don't personally drive, the space increases the resale value of the unit and adds to the pool of potential buyers.

Also, the study didn't attempt to measure rents, either, so we can't say for sure whether more expensive units have greater utilization of parking.

There probably is a significant unmet demand for units without parking, but it's worth noting that Chicagoans without cars can already opt out of parking and reap the savings by living in a vintage building, many of which are renovated and offer a standard of living similar or equal to new construction.

SamInTheLoop Apr 11, 2016 3:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian_b (Post 7401978)
These are the same NIMBYs that were ready to destroy PDNA and forced Dowell to replace the planned fix for overcrowding at South Loop Elementary with a school plan that was so toxic it never saw the light of day (anyone remember the public meetings for this building last year when she said she was hoping to unveil a school plan by November/December?). She's lucky city hall leaked it to people that could talk to her in private and bring her to her senses. Hopefully she's learned not to listen to this NIMBY group again.


You have my attention now.....sounds fascinating.....don't want to veer off-topic here, but would love to know more of this story......I just wonder what that group proposed, and how they were able to convince the alderman of something that apparently should have been obvious to her as a non-starter..........it's a little scary how some of these wacky nimby groups can catapult form the woodwork seemingly overnight and unleash their crazy views onto some poor alderslob who's only too happy to entertain their views for pander opportunities.......(this is not to say that I disagree with all the points this one laid out - I don't actually.....however my understanding is this is now fully entitled - having just completed the process, and all that's left now would appear to be permits - so the time is past for them)........for another example, I'm thinking of that newish nimby splinter group that popped up in the West Loop - the real militant one that was holding up - and ridiculously forced changes to (through the alderslob) the 111 S Peoria project, now being entitled in changed form......

SamInTheLoop May 25, 2016 4:06 PM

I'd be watching for permits and activity down this way. Person I know who lives adjacent to site mentioned recently that notices went out early this month that stated something like (iirc) construction will be beginning in the next several weeks, as early as (I think) the end of May. While I don't think that will be achieved, June would seem to be fully in play for at least major site prep to begin.....

My guess would be that this one starts construction officially before Vista does....(maybe by a few weeks-1.5 months or so?).....

nice May 26, 2016 6:42 PM

This one should start before Wanda. I bet caissons start sometime around Sep/Oct.

Kngkyle May 26, 2016 7:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nice (Post 7454278)
This one should start before Wanda. I bet caissons start sometime around Sep/Oct.

Wanda should start in June or July I believe.

emathias May 26, 2016 8:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire (Post 7400922)
It's not stupid if you think of who their customer base is. While I never see myself needing a car, especially if I'm living close to public transit, the +40 population likes having 2+ cars, and that's just reality

I'm 40+ and married and have zero cars and am a downtown homeowner. That's just reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire (Post 7401457)
You literally could have made that sentence, "you didn't back your claims with data", no need to try way too hard to sound smart. Also, I don't understand how my claim is wrong? Would less parking spaces be preferable? Yeah, but again as I said, the place isn't going to be attracting that many car free 20-30 year old buyers. That's just not the price market we are looking at here.

Perhaps not early-20s, but you might be surprised how many late-20s and 30-somethings who have both the money for and the interest in a development like this one. As long as we're throwing around anecdotes, it was a 26-year-old who bought the $800,000 unfinished condo next to me and poured another half-million into making it his own. I think that's probably well within the price point of this development.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraper (Post 7401776)
the zoning for this area requires .55 parking spaces per residential unit.

It's a PD, is it not? A PD can negotiate that, can it not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7402948)
...
There probably is a significant unmet demand for units without parking, but it's worth noting that Chicagoans without cars can already opt out of parking and reap the savings by living in a vintage building, many of which are renovated and offer a standard of living similar or equal to new construction.

It's also worth noting that the City has put hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in investments into the area immediately surrounding that, a good chunk of that investment is targeted toward reducing driving. When a city invests in allowing, even encouraging, a car-free or car-light lifestyle, it is a waste of public money to then require parking and not irrational to even actively limit it. The price paid almost doesn't matter, since at all price points there will be some people who don't need or want a car, and they should not have to both subsidize investment in car-free areas AND also pay additional money for a place that can accommodate a car the do not want. I'm not necessarily against letting developers make market-oriented decisions about parking, but I'm also definitely not against it if the City were to actively discourage parking at sites that can support car-free living.

maru2501 May 26, 2016 8:34 PM

this is an exciting one.. skyline booster

marothisu May 26, 2016 9:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 7454394)
Perhaps not early-20s, but you might be surprised how many late-20s and 30-somethings who have both the money for and the interest in a development like this one. As long as we're throwing around anecdotes, it was a 26-year-old who bought the $800,000 unfinished condo next to me and poured another half-million into making it his own. I think that's probably well within the price point of this development.

Yeah, actually there's a bunch of people in their 20s and 30s in the city with a lot more money than you'd expect. Mostly traders. Some of the people buying units in 4 E Elm, which is minimum of $2.5M are in their late 20s and early 30s working for firms like Jump.

rlw777 Jun 29, 2016 3:09 PM

Anyone have some info on when this one is supposed to start?

SamInTheLoop Jun 29, 2016 3:34 PM

^ I'd been expecting it to be before the end of this month.......so, that's not going to happen apparently. Would definitely expect groundbreaking in July.....

SamInTheLoop Jul 22, 2016 1:54 PM

Has any site work begun over here yet?

Perhaps pushed back to August now (as Vista)?......

ChiHi Jul 22, 2016 2:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 7509879)
Has any site work begun over here yet?

Perhaps pushed back to August now (as Vista)?......

I walk past this site every day and haven't seen any movement at all.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.