HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #48221  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2021, 12:01 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is online now
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 3,750
Got this update from Reilly today:

Quote:

Update on 1045 N. Rush Proposal

Last week, Alderman Reilly announced a new development proposal, located at 1045 North Rush Street, the details of which can be read here.

Current ownership has proposed several versions of new construction for this site over the last decade. Below is a rendering of a proposal from 2018; Alderman Reilly determined that the design and massing was not contextual for the neighborhood and rejected this proposal, challenging the owner to reduce the height and design with greater sensitivity to its neighbors on the block. Although both proposals are within the existing development rights of a DX-7 property, the new project reflects a significant reduction in height, from 180’ down to 100’.

2018 Proposal Rejected by Alderman Reilly


Current Proposal



Although this proposal does not require City Council approval, the developer must obtain Lakefront Protection Application approval from the Chicago Plan Commission to ensure that the building does not impede access to the Chicago Lakefront or inflict harm on the natural lakefront environment.

As part of Alderman Reilly’s transparent community process for new developments, your comments and observations are welcome on this project. Please forward any feedback to development@ward42chicago.com.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48222  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2021, 12:04 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 19,849
Ald Reilly can fuck off
__________________
Loving the sound of turbos
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48223  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2021, 12:41 AM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Ald Reilly can fuck off

seriously...that 2018 version is infinitely better
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48224  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2021, 2:54 AM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 5,453
I like the 2018 version a lot, but it also would stick out like a "sore" thumb (not in an ugly way just..."whoa"). The most recent proposal will too but it fits more in. Honestly they both look good - the newer one from a more traditional sense and the older one from a more out there design that looks interesting.



In other news, the long vacant office building at 839 W 79th St in Auburn Gresham received a permit to renovate it to the tune of $6.1M. This is a project that they're looking to spur more development and revitalization into that commercial stretch. It looks like they'll build a small addition to it too at ground level.


More recently:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/83...9!4d-87.645729

Future state:
http://www.gagdc.org/uploads/gagdc/i...b_expanded.jpg
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48225  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2021, 5:09 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21 View Post
Those guys seem like the only people around putting up condos lately. And they seem to be doing well, which is why I do not understand why there are not more condo projects. I know it is in the West Loop so super hot area but there IS demand for more condos. Not everyone wants to rent.
There’s a few reasons. The “CA” units are large 3 bedroom units that are great for a (relatively wealthy) family, or a couple who both need home offices. They have private stair and elevator access, no corridors required, with outdoor space at the front and rear of the unit.

Also, because they are typically less than 80’ tall they do not trigger high rise building requirements and can be put up relatively cheaply using light gauge steel framing. That makes them more affordable than highrise units.

Lastly the scale of these projects makes them easier to sell and finance. It’s a lot easier to hit 30% presales on 70 units than on 300.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48226  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2021, 2:22 PM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
Got this update from Reilly today:
Reilly absolutely sucks in every capacity of city development...why this city puts the power of one person to determine what is appropriate is beyond me and its a main reason why this cities architecture legacy is being tarnished because we end up with watered down designs...Everything this guy says is always about how its out of scale for the neighborhood, etc...someone should tell him Neighborhoods change! Was the f***ing JHC out of scale for its neighborhood when it was built?...Thank god someone like Reilly wasn't alderman during that time period... we would of never gotten any tall buildings north of Michigan avenue. He panders to some old grumpy rich people who complain about tall buildings because there views get block, traffic, and noise. Reilly is not meant to be a big city alderman especially in the most important wards for high-rise development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48227  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2021, 3:19 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicubs111 View Post
Reilly absolutely sucks in every capacity of city development...why this city puts the power of one person to determine what is appropriate is beyond me and its a main reason why this cities architecture legacy is being tarnished because we end up with watered down designs...Everything this guy says is always about how its out of scale for the neighborhood, etc...someone should tell him Neighborhoods change! Was the f***ing JHC out of scale for its neighborhood when it was built?...Thank god someone like Reilly wasn't alderman during that time period... we would of never gotten any tall buildings north of Michigan avenue. He panders to some old grumpy rich people who complain about tall buildings because there views get block, traffic, and noise. Reilly is not meant to be a big city alderman especially in the most important wards for high-rise development.
you guys really think that original version would have been built as rendered? that's just silly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48228  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2021, 3:29 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
you guys really think that original version would have been built as rendered? that's just silly.
Maybe not - but in no way does that excuse Reilly opposing it iron-fist style

Can this guy ever get beat in an election? Nominating TUP to take a run...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48229  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2021, 3:47 PM
chicubs111 chicubs111 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
you guys really think that original version would have been built as rendered? that's just silly.
and why not?... Spertus institute was built pretty close to its rendering so its not unheard of...were not talking a 400 ft plus building here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48230  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2021, 4:08 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 5,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
you guys really think that original version would have been built as rendered? that's just silly.
And as a former resident of that neighborhood, it wouldn't be built anyway. There are some actually really eccentric people in Gold Coast, but it's kind of on their personal lives and not necessarily with "allowing" something like this to be built. If that was proposed in areas like Pilsen, Logan Square, Wicker Park, West Loop, etc there'd be a much higher probability. Gold Coast? You'll run into some weird 50+ year old rich people at bars/restaurants sometimes but they still won't go for this.

I kind of think of this in terms in Manhattan/Brooklyn. This is something you'll see near Lower East Side or Williamsburg but not in Upper West Side (or UES) even though there's a bunch of artists (visual and music) living there. Like it would rarely happen there but Lower East Side or Williamsburg? Kind of the same, in a way, there too.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing

Last edited by marothisu; Feb 12, 2021 at 4:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48231  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2021, 6:02 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 19,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
you guys really think that original version would have been built as rendered? that's just silly.
Now we'll never know because a one-man show decided he didn't "like" it despite the fact that the original project complied with underlying zoning.
__________________
Loving the sound of turbos
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48232  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2021, 8:56 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Now we'll never know because a one-man show decided he didn't "like" it despite the fact that the original project complied with underlying zoning.
and this is the best point...why even have zoning rights if design can be subjectively deemed inappropriate? if I comply with the rules, then I should be able to build a nice turd if I want to take that risk (correct me if I'm wrong, this location does not fall under any kind of special review)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48233  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2021, 9:35 PM
SteelMonkey's Avatar
SteelMonkey SteelMonkey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 285
Sterling Bay/ADM Mill story

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...6oe-story.html

"The mill was built by the Eckhart & Swan Milling Company in 1897, with additions made in 1910, according to Preservation Chicago research. Grain elevators were added in 1927 and silos in 1948, according to the historic preservation group. Chicago-based ADM bought the plant for $14 million in 1990, according to Cook County property records.

Sterling Bay had planned to keep parts of the structure. It considered incorporating the silos into an office or residential building or using them for recreational activities such as climbing walls inside them, Crown said.

However, engineers determined the buildings couldn’t be saved, Crown said.

“We did a number of studies, but the condition of the buildings didn’t allow us to do it,” Crown said. “The structural integrity was not there. The buildings and silos are holding one another up, basically. It wasn’t practical.”

Sterling Bay now plans a ground-up development that could include some combination of office, residential, hotel and retail space, Crown said. It must secure zoning, and the firm has yet to present plans to city officials.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48234  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2021, 8:26 AM
Bonsai Tree's Avatar
Bonsai Tree Bonsai Tree is offline
Small but Mighty
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelMonkey View Post
Sterling Bay/ADM Mill story

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...6oe-story.html

"The mill was built by the Eckhart & Swan Milling Company in 1897, with additions made in 1910, according to Preservation Chicago research. Grain elevators were added in 1927 and silos in 1948, according to the historic preservation group. Chicago-based ADM bought the plant for $14 million in 1990, according to Cook County property records.

Sterling Bay had planned to keep parts of the structure. It considered incorporating the silos into an office or residential building or using them for recreational activities such as climbing walls inside them, Crown said.

However, engineers determined the buildings couldn’t be saved, Crown said.

“We did a number of studies, but the condition of the buildings didn’t allow us to do it,” Crown said. “The structural integrity was not there. The buildings and silos are holding one another up, basically. It wasn’t practical.”

Sterling Bay now plans a ground-up development that could include some combination of office, residential, hotel and retail space, Crown said. It must secure zoning, and the firm has yet to present plans to city officials.
I'm gonna say it here first. Thats some grade-a bullshit
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48235  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2021, 11:12 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,236
Tribune Tower rehab - 435 N Michigan

Feb 11

__________________
Harry C ---- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48236  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2021, 3:44 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Now we'll never know because a one-man show decided he didn't "like" it despite the fact that the original project complied with underlying zoning.
I guess we won’t get to complain about the design being value-engineered down to the second rendering
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48237  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2021, 11:41 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,650
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48238  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2021, 11:42 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 5,453
Permit was issued yesterday to renovate the Bridgeview Bank building in Uptown on Broadway (& Lawrence) with Cedar St leading the charge. Part of it will be converted to 176 new apartments, and the lobby will become a co-working space. The rooftop will have an amenity deck. Ground floor Starbucks and bank are expected to remain. According to an article from November, they'd most likely start once they have permits - which is now..

Estimated cost on the permit is nearly $15.25M. Cedar St bought the building a few years ago for $19M.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48239  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2021, 12:23 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Permit was issued yesterday to renovate the Bridgeview Bank building in Uptown on Broadway (& Lawrence) with Cedar St leading the charge. Part of it will be converted to 176 new apartments, and the lobby will become a co-working space. The rooftop will have an amenity deck. Ground floor Starbucks and bank are expected to remain. According to an article from November, they'd most likely start once they have permits - which is now..

Estimated cost on the permit is nearly $15.25M. Cedar St bought the building a few years ago for $19M.
This isn't new construction but it's a great TOD... taking a big under-utilized office building and bringing 176 new households to the neighborhood, directly next to a Red Line stop (one that's about to be fully modernized, no less).
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48240  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2021, 12:33 AM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 5,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
This isn't new construction but it's a great TOD... taking a big under-utilized office building and bringing 176 new households to the neighborhood, directly next to a Red Line stop (one that's about to be fully modernized, no less).
Yeah it's definitely great. Once those venues are back in a fuller (maybe not full, but fuller) swing then it would be a great place to live for certain people.

Don't forget about 2 new buildings that are supposed to be built right near there. Have they started construction?
1. 4740 N Winthrop - 84 units with building permits issued in February and March 2020

2. 4806 N Magnolia - 54 unit with retail, with building permits issued in April and June 2020.

If all of these truly complete, then that's 314 new units right near the Lawrence stop.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:22 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.