CHICAGO | General Developments

[the urban politician]

^ Seriously, the rate at which that part of town is transforming is simply staggering (pardon my overuse of the word 'staggering' lately, the other occasion being when I found out that over 1 quadrillion dollars were traded by CME group last year ).

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Marcu

Serious TOD in the burbs may actually lead to a short-term decline for Chicago (untl it's able to adjust). If Chicago ever loses its urban setting monopoly in the region, it will no longer be able to maintain its relatively high tax structure, schools that are viewed as "bad", and government with serious special-interest capture issues. Most people work in the burbs already, and I'm sure we all know quite a few people that live in Chicago and reverse commute just to be able to live in an urban setting. They, as most Chicagoans, constantly comment on the high taxes, bad schools, etc (whether justified or not). Once we start to see some serious TOD in the burbs beyond a stretch of condos behind a strip mall as we're seeing now, many people from urbanized north side neighborhoods will make the move. We've already seen how successful urbanized suburbs like Evanston have become partially selling themselves as an alternative to Chicago.

Imagine if people have the option of living in some random city in Will County that resembles an urbanized Chicago neighborhood like Lakeview but is also lower taxed, has cheaper housing, better schools, less percieved corruption, and is closer to the office park.

^ On second look at this comment, I think the silly debacle taking place with Evanston's Fountain Square proposal pretty much answers why suburbs will never offer the same level of urbanity that the Chicago center city will. If arguably Chicago's most urban, intense suburb can't even get itself to allow a tower of (compared to Chicago) mediocre height, there's really not a lot of hope for the kind of density which you've described

[Marcu]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

And this is a bad thing? I dream of the day when Chicagoland's 300 municipalities are competing with eachother to be the most urban and dense!

Certainly not a bad thing. But for thse that are primarily concerned with Chicago's prominence in the region, this may not be such a good thing.

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

In regards to basic city infrastructure services, you're right. There are other issues at play of course. In the suburbs, usually 75-90% of property tax goes to education, in contrast to about 50% of our property tax bills in Chicago. Additionally, we pay higher overall higher county tax, largely on account of Cook County having the second largest public health system in the country (hospitals/health are well over a third of the county budget I believe).

Where I disagree with you is that I believe suburban taxes are artificially low because they are free riders on the services that we Cook/Chicago residents pay for. These include, for example:
1. Our property taxes to support the parks/museums that help maintain Chicago as a tourist destination
2. Our public health system that generally improves regional public health by treating infectious disease etc.
3. Transit system subsidy, reducing congestion and air pollution

These are all public goods that suburbanites benefit from via property values, quality of life, etc. but don't pay taxes for. If people did flee Chicago to get their urban fix in the suburbs, they would gradually increase their tax burden to support those amenities.

They are indeed public goods. But let's break the ones you lsited one by one.

Parks/museums are funded in part through fees (eg the museum of science and industry is now $20 for gen ad w/ omnimax). The revenue coming in from the hotel tax (i think now over 15%), rental car tax, airport landing fees, and disproportionate share of restaurant tax revenue should more than sufficiently fund the rest.

Public health gets a huge chunk of their cash from the feds and the state (medicaid - state provides matching funds). In any case, many people in the region, the same ones I references above as willing to move out, don't view Cook County hospital as a public benefit. Without some data showing this region has a more than a marginally higher level of "public health" than regions w/o a large public health system, I tend to agree.

I agree on transit. But funding sources should likely shift with changes in the type of development in the burbs as use goes up.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ On second look at this comment, I think the silly debacle taking place with Evanston's Fountain Square proposal pretty much answers why suburbs will never offer the same level of urbanity that the Chicago center city will. If arguably Chicago's most urban, intense suburb can't even get itself to allow a tower of (compared to Chicago) mediocre height, there's really not a lot of hope for the kind of density which you've described

Good point. I guess if something significant does happen, it will likely be in an entierly new area and not a mature suburb.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

Awesome

[honte]

This Barney's building, does anyone even know what it's supposed to look like?

[bnk]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

looks like they are starting to clear some floor space for the proposed hotel.

Some interesting facts on the Hotel

Originally Posted by wrabbit
Luxury hotel planned for portion of former IBM Building
By Robert Manor | Tribune reporter
March 19, 2008
-----
Designed as an office tower by acclaimed architect Mies van der Rohe, the former IBM Building is about to get a major update, complete with bellhops and bathtubs.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel...,6877950.story



The hotel is expected to offer 335 rooms, with the standard guest room offering 525 square feet, large by Chicago standards. The hotel also will offer suites, some as large as 2,350 square feet.

Rutledge said work on the hotel will begin almost immediately, and it should open some time in 2010.

It also may be possible to check in by boat. The property is on the river walk, and boats can dock there. Rutledge said the hotel will look into a water-borne check-in.

[Abner]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ On second look at this comment, I think the silly debacle taking place with Evanston's Fountain Square proposal pretty much answers why suburbs will never offer the same level of urbanity that the Chicago center city will. If arguably Chicago's most urban, intense suburb can't even get itself to allow a tower of (compared to Chicago) mediocre height, there's really not a lot of hope for the kind of density which you've described

This is a little overstated. It's a false dichotomy. Evanston isn't going to be the Loop, but the idea that only 50-story buildings can provide a sufficient level of density is just kind of weird. Not that many people, in the scheme of things, are interested in living in skyscraper-dominated areas. (I'm probably more radically pro-urban than most of the people here, but I would never live in River North.) That doesn't mean they wouldn't live in dense areas; of course, there are plenty of neighborhoods in San Francisco and many European cities with few highrises that nonetheless are denser than all but a few neighborhoods in Chicago. I'd rather not turn people off of urbanism by suggesting that they need to embrace such a polarizing type of built environment. Maybe Evanston would be better served by five ten-story buildings than one fifty-story one.

[the urban politician]

^ When you've got high parking requirements and very high unit size requirements, most 5-6 story buildings simply don't cut it.

Everybody demands that these new developments have fewer 1-bedrooms & studios, and more 2-3 bedrooms units, which I'm sure will mostly end up being wasted space.

[Abner]

Then why not try criticizing these silly requirements rather than increasing the heights of buildings? I think parking requirements in particular can diminish the actual density of a neighborhood more than we even acknowledge. My concern is that parking paranoia will continue to spiral into madness as neighborhoods become more dense and more short of street parking--which is, of course, what everybody actually wants when they demand off-street parking for other people.

[honte]

^ Why build short buildings when you can have 1) fewer teardowns, 2) equal or greater density, 3) a skyline, 4) light, air, and visual complexity, 5) different options for different lifestyles? All factors point toward high-rise construction in my opinion, so long as it's handled tastefully and skillfully.

[SolarWind]

Originally Posted by honte

This Barney's building, does anyone even know what it's supposed to look like?

[honte]

^ Excellent, thank you. (But I am sorry I asked!)

[the urban politician]

Last updated: March 25, 2008 11:18pm
$19M Seed Jump-Starts Condo, Retail Project
By Gina Kenny

CHICAGO-A joint venture between JFJ Development Co. and Dionysus Enterprises LLC have received an $18.9-million pre-development loan for a residential and retail development in Chicago's Lakeview neighborhood.
Dennis Nyren, a principal with Chicago-based MJ Partners Capital Services, says the development at 3030 N. Broadway St. will be constructed in two phases. The estimated cost for the 150,000-sf phase one is about $50 million, he tells GlobeSt.com.
http://www.globest.com/news/1122_112.../169374-1.html

[the urban politician]

^ And I believe that is this project:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Looks like the residential development on the Dominick's Broadway site will be called Broadway 3030:

[the urban politician]

March 26, 2008

Centrum switches to apartments for Lakeview project
By Alby Gallun

(Crain’s) — Another condominium developer has taken down the “For Sale” sign and put a “For Rent” sign in its place.

Adjusting to the shifting residential market, Centrum Properties has decided to build luxury apartments instead of condos in the Lofts at Lakeview Collection, a proposed $100-million mixed-used development at the intersection of Belmont, Ashland and Lincoln avenues.
http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.co...ws.pl?id=28706

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ When you've got high parking requirements and very high unit size requirements, most 5-6 story buildings simply don't cut it.

Everybody demands that these new developments have fewer 1-bedrooms & studios, and more 2-3 bedrooms units, which I'm sure will mostly end up being wasted space.

Perfectly put. Modern/contemporary demands dictate off-street parking, high minimum unit sizes, setbacks, and open space. The only way to acheive these while still having a vibrant, truly 'urban' neighborhood are with high-rises. See "Vancouver." You can't do it without the kind of unit density provided by high-rises. There simply won't be a critical mass of residents to support a vibrant retail strip. See "West Loop Desolation."

Most of Chicago's vibrant low-rise neighborhoods are basically a sea of non-conforming uses with either too little open space, too many units per acre, too small an average unit size, no off-street parking, or some combination thereof. As these neighborhoods are gradually renovated, redeveloped etc, their unit density and population density (also a function of declining average household size) continue to decrease.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ And I believe that is this project:

What a disappointing render! Given this development's focus on street level retail, it would be nice to see how the site would be actively used at ground level as well as how the building fits into the Broadway streetwall.

From that render, I'm not terribly hopeful about how this project will come out. At least it will be an improvement from that surface lot previously and currently occupying that space.

Taft

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Taft

What a disappointing render! Given this development's focus on street level retail, it would be nice to see how the site would be actively used at ground level as well as how the building fits into the Broadway streetwall.

From that render, I'm not terribly hopeful about how this project will come out. At least it will be an improvement from that surface lot previously and currently occupying that space.

Taft

Looks ok to me so far and the store is to be at ground level. Dominick's usually does a decent job when part of larger/existing structures . Then again it would be a shame to do away with the crappy lot and the double wide bank trailer that inhabits the site....

[honte]

I think it looks great.

[Marcu]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Perfectly put. Modern/contemporary demands dictate off-street parking, high minimum unit sizes, setbacks, and open space. The only way to acheive these while still having a vibrant, truly 'urban' neighborhood are with high-rises. See "Vancouver." You can't do it without the kind of unit density provided by high-rises. There simply won't be a critical mass of residents to support a vibrant retail strip. See "West Loop Desolation."

Most of Chicago's vibrant low-rise neighborhoods are basically a sea of non-conforming uses with either too little open space, too many units per acre, too small an average unit size, no off-street parking, or some combination thereof. As these neighborhoods are gradually renovated, redeveloped etc, their unit density and population density (also a function of declining average household size) continue to decrease.

Great points. But since this discussion started with the reference to Fountain Square in Evanston possibly decreasing to 30 or 35 stories from 49, I'd like to note that while a row of 2 or 3 flats can no longer provide the type of density we are looking for, a building with 12 stories can. Let alone a 35 story highrise.

Also, we have to look at the situation within context. Yes units now must be bigger, have off-street parking, etc. making it difficult to maintain vibrant retail strips. But as wages, disposable income, and in turn consumption rates rise, it's possible to support the same number of retail options wih fewer people. Of course it will be very difficult to keep consumption rates steady with the highest big city sales tax in the country.