SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=103)
-   -   CHICAGO | North Union (Moody Bible Campus) | 2,680 Residential Units (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=244410)

gebs Dec 10, 2020 7:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 9130116)
The only way I see to increase service on Brown Line is to disentangle it with the Purple Line and take over those slots in the Loop, which means eliminating the Purple stops at Wellington, Diversey and Armitage and sending the Purple Line into the subway.

This will forever fix one big problem with the movie High Fidelity.

ChiPlanner Dec 10, 2020 8:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 9130116)
The only way I see to increase service on Brown Line is to disentangle it with the Purple Line and take over those slots in the Loop, which means eliminating the Purple stops at Wellington, Diversey and Armitage and sending the Purple Line into the subway.


Long story short, if CTA is looking for additional capacity on Brown in order to build the Division stop then we might be waiting a very long time.

Aka whenever they get serious about a circle line again, which likely won't happen till after:
  • Red Line Extension
  • Loop Station rebuilds
  • Maybe even brown line extension to Jeff Park
  • BRT of any kind (Ashland/Western still looking at you)
  • Silver/Grey Line (Metra Electric)

Not to mention the completion of the flyover/RPM in Edgewater/Uptown

Randomguy34 Dec 10, 2020 8:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 9130116)
However, I believe the benefits of Belmont flyover will accrue mainly to Red Line trains. Brown and Purple are limited by the number of slots in the Loop, not necessarily by conflicts at Clark Junction. CTA has obscured this fact, because they have tried to build the strongest possible case for Federal support and because the Lakeview residents impacted by the project are more partial to Brown Line service than Red Line service (Becky: "ew, the Red Line?!") The only way I see to increase service on Brown Line is to disentangle it with the Purple Line and take over those slots in the Loop, which means eliminating the Purple stops at Wellington, Diversey and Armitage and sending the Purple Line into the subway.

Another cost effective option is to make the "Brownage" trains, which travel from Kimball to Midway through the Loop during rush hour, an official CTA line. The Brown Line is already capacity constrained at Kimball Yards, so running additional trains would require either a new multi-million dollar yard and several building demolitions in the vicinity or using the Orange Line's extra capacity at Midway. The NYC subway does something similar with the 5, B, & W train during rush hour

GreatLakesPrintShop Dec 10, 2020 8:53 PM

[QUOTE=ChiPlanner;9130187]Aka whenever they get serious about a circle line again, which likely won't happen till after:

New here...

What is the Circle Line exactly? :help:

IrishIllini Dec 10, 2020 9:09 PM

[QUOTE=GreatLakesPrintShop;9130233]
Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiPlanner (Post 9130187)
Aka whenever they get serious about a circle line again, which likely won't happen till after:

New here...

What is the Circle Line exactly? :help:

An unnecessary outer loop of CTA rail service.

https://www.chicago-l.org/plans/imag...outingPlan.jpg

Bonsai Tree Dec 10, 2020 10:04 PM

[QUOTE=IrishIllini;9130251]
Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatLakesPrintShop (Post 9130233)

An unnecessary outer loop of CTA rail service.

https://www.chicago-l.org/plans/imag...outingPlan.jpg

^^Is that a joke? It's completely necessary and will elevate our transit system to the next level. Even if a circle line is never built a loop connector would work just as well.

IrishIllini Dec 10, 2020 10:32 PM

[QUOTE=Bonsai Tree;9130330]
Quote:

Originally Posted by IrishIllini (Post 9130251)

^^Is that a joke? It's completely necessary and will elevate our transit system to the next level. Even if a circle line is never built a loop connector would work just as well.

The connector would be miles better coupled with BRT on Ashland or rail service on Western.

scruffytraveller Jan 12, 2021 5:49 AM

nice infrastructure built all over the place

Randomguy34 Mar 6, 2021 8:26 PM

Another meeting is planned for March 24th at 6pm. Here's the registration link: https://cityofchicago-org.zoom.us/we...SxeDnx9EjUMrBw

Randomguy34 Mar 19, 2021 8:03 PM

Zoning app is online and there are a bunch of interesting tidbits: https://chicago.legistar.com/Legisla...vanced&Search=

- Unit increase to 2,656 units, parking ratio will be about 50%

- Another 1,372 units will be reserved for future development on the rest of Moody's campus. So, the zoning app is requesting a total of 4,028 units.

- Max building height increased to 695 ft (BVictor1, you got your wish)

- A combination of 491 on/off-site affordable units

left of center Mar 20, 2021 2:30 AM

^ Great info!

Awesome news regarding the height increase of the tallest tower. 4000 units is a ton of density, but no doubt the site can handle it. The site is sandwiched between the red line subway and brown/purple elevated, and a 15 min walk from the largest CBD in the Midwest.

BuildThemTaller Mar 20, 2021 1:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center (Post 9223612)
^ Great info!

Awesome news regarding the height increase of the tallest tower. 4000 units is a ton of density, but no doubt the site can handle it. The site is sandwiched between the red line subway and brown/purple elevated, and a 15 min walk from the largest CBD in the Midwest.

Love the height increase, but the location begs the question: Why so much parking?

Randomguy34 Mar 23, 2021 7:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 9223299)
Zoning app is online and there are a bunch of interesting tidbits: https://chicago.legistar.com/Legisla...vanced&Search=

- Unit increase to 2,656 units, parking ratio will be about 50%

- Another 1,372 units will be reserved for future development on the rest of Moody's campus. So, the zoning app is requesting a total of 4,028 units.

- Max building height increased to 695 ft (BVictor1, you got your wish)

- A combination of 491 on/off-site affordable units

Draft presentation is up. The only thing that's changed from the zoning app is that of the affordable units, 266 units will be for the current development phase: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...draft_pres.pdf

Bonsai Tree Mar 23, 2021 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 9226646)
Draft presentation is up. The only thing that's changed is that of the affordable units, 266 units will be for the current development phase: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...draft_pres.pdf

? There are a bunch of new renderings in there. Unless I'm mistaken and those haven't been shown before.

sentinel Mar 23, 2021 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree (Post 9226901)
? There are a bunch of new renderings in there. Unless I'm mistaken and those haven't been shown before.

Big improvements, all around.

Toasty Joe Mar 24, 2021 1:11 AM

Looks amazing. Typical YIMBY stuff but wish it were taller (especially the southern buildings) and overall less parking, but this will drastically improve the area. Would also be hopeful for a less glassy redesign of the taller towers... or at least eliminate the sections of sheer glass. But I imagine a revision could come between now and 2029 :)

BVictor1 Mar 24, 2021 6:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 9223299)
Zoning app is online and there are a bunch of interesting tidbits: https://chicago.legistar.com/Legisla...vanced&Search=

- Unit increase to 2,656 units, parking ratio will be about 50%

- Another 1,372 units will be reserved for future development on the rest of Moody's campus. So, the zoning app is requesting a total of 4,028 units.

- Max building height increased to 695 ft (BVictor1, you got your wish)

- A combination of 491 on/off-site affordable units


Yes I did, and then some.

I love the density increase and I'm loving the fact it'll be on the east side of Wells. An extended Wells Street canyon to the north with this development.

The height increases on 300 & 310 W. Oak are great! 321 W. Walton saw a height increase, as did 920 N. Wells and 878 N. Wells.

I'm keeping my eye on 205 W. Oak as it shrank, and I don't like the design.


It funny because TUP's comment in the Boom Rundown regarding Fulton Market...

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9226100)
3000 apartments in one neighborhood in 3 years?

Rents are down 10-15% compared to 2019.

Unless we see a sudden, dramatic uptick in demand above and beyond pre-pandemic times, that's just preposterous. I don't see lenders coming out of the woodwork to finance that kind of volume unless and until they see evidence that they will get the kinds of projected returns that they typically expect.



And while 3000 apartment might not be built there in 3 years, I'll bet that's how many will be planned out over there.

Here we're getting about a 68 unit bump with the potential for 1,372 more in "a future phase".

The unit count went up for the Michael Reese proposal by nearly 2000 between application submission and plan commission approval. I love the bullishness...

IrishIllini Mar 24, 2021 5:55 PM

Perhaps a bit of a cynical take, but could be the city thirsting for tax revenue. With the high value parcels to the west being encumbered with affordable/public housing requirements near or above 50% of total units, the city is merely shifting demand for luxury housing (and the "lost" tax revenue) to these parcels. Either way, it's nice to see the bump. Will drastically change this corner of downtown.

BVictor1 Mar 25, 2021 12:30 AM

ZOOM Meeting just concluded.

Not really any new news. The developer stated they'd like to begin phase 1 work later this year.

Plan Commission date is TBD.....

Some townhomes were removed for a 2.5 acre park.

The 1300 units east of Wells is a total future phase and Moody or whomever they chose to develop will have to back before plan commission at that time. Only the bulk density for that Subarea is being approved.

BVictor1 May 1, 2021 12:27 AM

On the May plan commission agenda:

A proposed Residential-Business-Institutional Planned Development, submitted by North Union LLC and The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, for the properties generally located at 142-172 West Chicago Avenue, 800-934 North LaSalle Drive, 132-314 West Walton Street, 801-921 and 828-950 North Wells Street, 201-315 and 230-314 West Oak Street, 859-1037 and 930-1036 North Franklin Street, 210-232 West Chestnut Street, and 200-210 West Institute Place. The applicants are proposing to rezone the site from Institutional Planned Development #477 and C1-3 (Neighborhood Commercial District) to DX-5 (Downtown Mixed-Use District) and then to a Residential-Business-Institutional Planned Development to permit (i) the continued institutional use of the Moody Bible Institute and the future development up to 1,372 dwelling units on the Moody site (Subareas A and D) and (ii) the construction of a multi-building planned development consisting of 2,656 dwelling units and approximately 1 parking space per 2 residential units. A 0.57 FAR (Floor Area Ratio) bonus will be taken and the overall FAR of the planned development will be 5.57.
PD Application

the urban politician May 1, 2021 1:32 AM

^ 1 parking space for 2 residential units...hmmm..

That’s not horrible, but for a dense transit rich area like that, it’s still a fairly high parking ratio

BuildThemTaller May 1, 2021 3:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9266347)
^ 1 parking space for 2 residential units...hmmm..

That’s not horrible, but for a dense transit rich area like that, it’s still a fairly high parking ratio

Did Moody request all that parking? I just can't get over the ratio given the location.

gandalf612 May 1, 2021 4:51 PM

Hopefully they do it like One Chicago where it's convertible later

ardecila May 5, 2021 2:08 AM

Much of the parking is underground (unusual for Chicago) so I don't know what they would convert it to. Only a few buildings have real parking podiums.

BVictor1 May 19, 2021 4:23 AM

Plan Commission Presentation for 05/20/21...100 Pages

west-town-brad May 19, 2021 2:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 9269938)
Much of the parking is underground (unusual for Chicago) so I don't know what they would convert it to. Only a few buildings have real parking podiums.

data centers, last mile ecommerce warehouse, car dealer storage, storm water retention when the ice caps melt

Briguy May 19, 2021 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 9269938)
Much of the parking is underground (unusual for Chicago) so I don't know what they would convert it to. Only a few buildings have real parking podiums.

JDL fresh off their top down one Chicago parking garage has the UNDERGROUND PARKING FEVAH!

One Walton has below grade as well.

Man they really love a lot just west of state

:D

BVictor1 May 20, 2021 5:39 PM

APPROVED BY PLAN COMMISSION

-commissioners praised the project.

-Alderman Tunney bitched about the height of the north towers, but supported the project in the end.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E12OJFEV...jpg&name=large

Briguy May 20, 2021 11:30 PM

This is not Tunney. It's 27 - Burnett. Love that old town gerrymander mess. Tunney is east Lakeview.

left of center May 21, 2021 4:40 AM

Awesome news!

10023 May 21, 2021 9:31 AM

So is this basically the last step before someone steps in to actually re-develop the land west of the Brown Line tracks (ie, Cabrini)? Hopefully all at once so they can fix the street grid too.

ardecila May 21, 2021 7:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9287482)
So is this basically the last step before someone steps in to actually re-develop the land west of the Brown Line tracks (ie, Cabrini)? Hopefully all at once so they can fix the street grid too.

The land along Orleans is privately owned and can be redeveloped.

The CHA is on their own timeline for redevelopment (and they won't tell anyone what that is). More infill around Cabrini will not make them move any faster. But yes, theoretically they will rebuild the street grid:
https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/...ns/page-23-10/

Basically CHA is expecting private developers to do all the work of not only building but financing any new construction, and the whole area is covered by a court-ordered consent decree so building purely market rate is not an option. That means developers are stuck turning to limited funding source like LIHTC that are massively oversubscribed. There's just no resources to subsidize low-income housing.

10023 May 23, 2021 10:10 AM

^ Do micro units count? Can they get zoning to add additional market rate units on top? Can they build the affordable housing elsewhere?

harryc May 23, 2021 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9289179)
^ Do micro units count? Can they get zoning to add additional market rate units on top? Can they build the affordable housing elsewhere?

"Affordable Housing" has such a negative connotation in some circles - let's just call it servants quarters.

The Pimp May 24, 2021 2:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryc (Post 9289201)
"Affordable Housing" has such a negative connotation in some circles - let's just call it servants quarters.

Ouch...

emathias Jun 15, 2021 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryc (Post 9289201)
"Affordable Housing" has such a negative connotation in some circles - let's just call it servants quarters.

Priced right, it could be student housing, and/or housing for workers who aren't in careers that start out paying will, but who still want to live in the thick of things. It doesn't have to be "servants."

ardecila Jun 16, 2021 4:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9289179)
^ Do micro units count? Can they get zoning to add additional market rate units on top? Can they build the affordable housing elsewhere?

The city and the CHA are obligated to provide 1800 public housing units between North, Orleans, Halsted, Chicago, and any new developments on CHA land must contain between 33-40% public housing. The units may not be substantially different from the market rate units, so no micro units and no off site.

Oh, and the kicker - 50% of the developer fee that is supposed to compensate the developers for their efforts must instead go to the Cabrini Green Local Advisory Council, who use the money as a slush fund for personal expenses. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/7/...e-carol-steele

ardecila Jun 16, 2021 2:24 PM

Well, those requirements don't apply to developments outside of CHA land. So there have been several market-rate projects in the Cabrini area on privately-owned land (Xavier, Basecamp townhomes, SL by Belgravia, stuff along Larrabee). The only requirement they faced was a 20% affordable requirement instead of the 10% ARO that applied elsewhere in the city. No public housing requirements for those, although CHA can and has purchased/rented a few units in those buildings at market rate to house their tenants. But now the 20% affordable has been formalized into the ARO citywide, so there is effectively no difference between the Cabrini area and the rest of the city assuming your site is privately-owned.

The gas station at Division/Halsted is on private land so they could have easily done housing or mixed use there, they just didn't want to. The zoning is B3-5 which would have allowed some pretty dense housing.

The requirements here are super complicated and honestly make my head spin sometimes. That said, the CHA land is horrifically screwed up by the consent decree which is basically tailor-made to ensure that the land doesn't get redeveloped.

west-town-brad Jun 16, 2021 5:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 9313273)
Well, those requirements don't apply to developments outside of CHA land. So there have been several market-rate projects in the Cabrini area on privately-owned land (Xavier, Basecamp townhomes, SL by Belgravia, stuff along Larrabee). The only requirement they faced was a 20% affordable requirement instead of the 10% ARO that applied elsewhere in the city. No public housing requirements for those, although CHA can and has purchased/rented a few units in those buildings at market rate to house their tenants. But now the 20% affordable has been formalized into the ARO citywide, so there is effectively no difference between the Cabrini area and the rest of the city assuming your site is privately-owned.

The gas station at Division/Halsted is on private land so they could have easily done housing or mixed use there, they just didn't want to. The zoning is B3-5 which would have allowed some pretty dense housing.

The requirements here are super complicated and honestly make my head spin sometimes. That said, the CHA land is horrifically screwed up by the consent decree which is basically tailor-made to ensure that the land doesn't get redeveloped.

they seem to be pounding out another new building of decent size every year or so on the CHA land

102 units nearing completion now: https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/03/con...orth-side.html

recent article on the topic of CHA and TIF usage: https://www.bettergov.org/news/city-...ransformation/

ardecila Jun 16, 2021 11:56 PM

^ Holsten is still churning away on the ParkSide development that was started 15 years ago and it's still not done. I'm not sure how the dude makes it work but it seems like he is the only developer willing to put up with all the BS.

Officially the Cabrini redevelopment (including all 1800 public housing units) was supposed to be done by 2022... I'm gonna put $10 down that that won't happen...

Handro Sep 28, 2021 3:07 PM

Saw soil testing in progress in the parking lot at 920 N Wells this morning

rivernorthlurker Sep 28, 2021 7:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro (Post 9409364)
Saw soil testing in progress in the parking lot at 920 N Wells this morning

JDL kicking *** and taking names :worship:

the urban politician Sep 28, 2021 8:36 PM

Is there a rendering of the building going up at 920 N Wells yet?

Toasty Joe Sep 28, 2021 9:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9409754)
Is there a rendering of the building going up at 920 N Wells yet?

bottom right of page 10:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 9102898)
Here's the draft presentation for the Thursday: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...aft_111020.pdf


the urban politician Sep 28, 2021 9:26 PM

^ Thanks!

Randomguy34 Sep 28, 2021 10:08 PM

That presentation and rendering is old. Page 33 of this presentation has a more recent rendering: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...2421_final.pdf

920 N Wells looks like the original design for 640 N Wells that I always wanted

left of center Sep 28, 2021 10:46 PM

Looks like 205 W Oak got a haircut, now at 475'. Lost a 500 footer with the newer site plan. But the two taller towers got 10 stories added to each, bumping them up to 620' and 695'. I'll take that trade.

rivernorthlurker Sep 29, 2021 12:49 AM

I didn't realize JDL also did 640 N Wells which is one of my favorite shorter towers to go up recently. I already like 920 N Wells and think it could turn out similarly well.

marothisu Dec 21, 2021 7:43 PM

JDL purchased their first batch of land for this. The first building I'd scheduled to break ground in March

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...ible-site?s=09

r18tdi Dec 21, 2021 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 9483211)
JDL purchased their first batch of land for this. The first building I'd scheduled to break ground in March

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...ible-site?s=09

I'm loving this extra *moody* rendering from the Crain's story...

https://s3-prod.chicagobusiness.com/...letchinger.jpg


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.