CHICAGO | General Developments

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Jibba

I'll believe it when I see it. None of these Invest SW (presuming this is a part of that program) have been built yet. Also strange that so many LA firms are part of the RFPs.

Agree, I’m skeptical of seeing this as the actual built product if the project moves forward. Design reality will set in when it’s discovered the life cycle and maintenance of certain facade systems, product availability, additional budget constraints. The design doesn’t look all that enduring of our harsh climate. Once control joints, flashing and drainage make their way into the construction documents, you’ll see the more abstract and interesting features of the design get deleted or value engineered

[SolarWind]

February 14, 2023

[BVictor1]

1501 North Oakley

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/resi...cker-park-sale

February 13, 2023 10:45 AM
The biggest Wicker Park development opportunity in years just opened up
DENNIS RODKIN

A Wicker Park site where a Catholic school has stood since 1890 is for sale, opening the door for what could be one of the biggest new residential developments the hot neighborhood has seen in years.

The roughly 2.82-acre campus of Josephinum Academy of the Sacred Heart at Oakley Boulevard and Le Moyne Street went up for sale last week, represented by Mike Nardini and Nicole Mentone of CBRE. There is no published asking price, but Nardini said the site, the equivalent of 39 standard 25-by-125 lots, was valued at $24 million in a 2018 appraisal.

At a little more than 122,800 square feet, or 39 standard city lots, the Josephinum site could accommodate dozens of new housing units. For comparison:

One concern that might surface at community meetings is that about half the Josephinum site is athletic fields and lawn now. A developer’s proposal that takes all of that away could meet resistance.

https://twitter.com/AldermanLaSpata/...09058237763584




https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F...V3tWg/viewform

[Klippenstein]

One concern that might surface at community meetings is that about half the Josephinum site is athletic fields and lawn now. A developer’s proposal that takes all of that away could meet resistance.

Tear down all of the buildings except for the school and develop half of the land to leave enough for a flexible green space. Seems like it could work.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Tear down all of the buildings except for the school and develop half of the land to leave enough for a flexible green space. Seems like it could work.

39 single family lots, at $600,000 per which is the going rate in this area for 125x25, gets you to a base value of about $23 million. Add some premium for it being continuous and you can easily get to $25 million based on building single family homes. BUT WAIT, it's zoned RT-4 so you can also build 3 flats as of right so the value of the dirt is even higher. Given the current zoning, any community meeting or feedback process is nonsense in this situation and a waste of time.

You start setting aside portions of this land for various nonsense reasons and you have to cut down the price. The catholic church is not going to take a hit on the value of this asset they are cashing out, that's for sure. They have shown this time after time no matter if it's a downtown prime location (their parking lot that is now One Chicago) or various churches they have closed and sold off around areas like Pilsen.

[Toasty Joe]

^Sure but tear down the school too. It's gross from the outside, and I can only imagine the inside. And segregating high schools by gender seems outdated to me anyways. In my experience, it doesn't quite prepare kids for the real world.

[aaron38]

If Chicago wants to buy the baseball field at full market value and turn it into a park it can. But that is not public land today. It is fully fenced off and no one is entitled to land just because there is grass growing on it.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

39 single family lots, at $600,000 per which is the going rate in this area for 125x25, gets you to a base value of about $23 million. Add some premium for it being continuous and you can easily get to $25 million based on building single family homes. BUT WAIT, it's zoned RT-4 so you can also build 3 flats as of right so the value of the dirt is even higher. Given the current zoning, any community meeting or feedback process is nonsense in this situation and a waste of time.

You start setting aside portions of this land for various nonsense reasons and you have to cut down the price. The catholic church is not going to take a hit on the value of this asset they are cashing out, that's for sure. They have shown this time after time no matter if it's a downtown prime location (their parking lot that is now One Chicago) or various churches they have closed and sold off around areas like Pilsen.

Yeah, when I saw RT-4 zoning, it would be easier to develop 39 townhouse units as-of-right across the site. Incorporating the school would probably only be financially practical if combined with additional development, but now you may be over F.A.R and the zoning appeal contingency may require a public park for conditional approval.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Rizzo

Yeah, when I saw RT-4 zoning, it would be easier to develop 39 townhouse units as-of-right across the site. Incorporating the school would probably only be financially practical if combined with additional development, but now you may be over F.A.R and the zoning appeal contingency may require a public park for conditional approval.

the total site zoning allows 39 3-flats for a total of 117 units as of right so you could put some of those into the school structure to reuse it. but I don't think that building is worth saving really at least from an aesthetics perspective.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

39 single family lots, at $600,000 per which is the going rate in this area for 125x25, gets you to a base value of about $23 million. Add some premium for it being continuous and you can easily get to $25 million based on building single family homes. BUT WAIT, it's zoned RT-4 so you can also build 3 flats as of right so the value of the dirt is even higher. Given the current zoning, any community meeting or feedback process is nonsense in this situation and a waste of time.

You start setting aside portions of this land for various nonsense reasons and you have to cut down the price. The catholic church is not going to take a hit on the value of this asset they are cashing out, that's for sure. They have shown this time after time no matter if it's a downtown prime location (their parking lot that is now One Chicago) or various churches they have closed and sold off around areas like Pilsen.

The Archdiocese doesn't control the land like your examples, the Sisters of Christian Charity do and I believe they act independently.

You could build 39 3-flats covering the site, or a 117-unit midrise that preserves some open space and preserves the school. But the midrise option requires a PD, which then requires a planning review process and community meetings. Alternatively, you could strip the school down to its frame and reclad it as a luxury building, but you'd still need the PD for that part of the site if the number of units is higher than 30.

Basically, a buyer looking to build 39 3-flats will be the low bidder. There will be higher bidders, but they will need a PD/zoning change and they will likely ask for a zoning contingency on the sale. If Sisters of Charity want quick cash, they will sell to the 3-flats guy (Noah Properties, North Clybourn Group, etc). If they want top dollar, they will sell to a higher-end developer who wants to do something more complex.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Jibba

I'll believe it when I see it. None of these Invest SW (presuming this is a part of that program) have been built yet. Also strange that so many LA firms are part of the RFPs.

It is odd. I think some of it comes down to the city's DBE preferences though. Chicago's top arch firms are mostly owned by white males. LA's top architecture firms have more diverse ownership (Brooks & Scarpa, Johnston Marklee, Koning Eizenberg all women-owned). These LA architects also work at a scale very similar to Chicago and do it well.

I think there's also a strong desire from DPD for splashy architecture that is symbolic of a "catalyst" in these neighborhoods, and they won't get that from the usual Chicago architects (except JGMA which specializes in splashy neighborhood architecture).

I don't have a problem hiring out-of-towners honestly. Global cities have a diversity of architectural styles. Architects from around the world want to do projects in NYC, London, Paris. Why can't Chicago be on that list?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

the total site zoning allows 39 3-flats for a total of 117 units as of right so you could put some of those into the school structure to reuse it. but I don't think that building is worth saving really at least from an aesthetics perspective.

BTW - if you got 39 3 unit buildings on that parcel with an average of 2 people per unit, then it would have a density of 53K ppsm. Not bad.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It is odd. I think some of it comes down to the city's DBE preferences though. Chicago's top arch firms are mostly owned by white males. LA's top architecture firms have more diverse ownership (Brooks & Scarpa, Johnston Marklee, Koning Eizenberg all women-owned). These LA architects also work at a scale very similar to Chicago and do it well.

I think there's also a strong desire from DPD for splashy architecture that is symbolic of a "catalyst" in these neighborhoods, and they won't get that from the usual Chicago architects (except JGMA which specializes in splashy neighborhood architecture).

I don't have a problem hiring out-of-towners honestly. Global cities have a diversity of architectural styles. Architects from around the world want to do projects in NYC, London, Paris. Why can't Chicago be on that list?

I would think a local firm would trump a minority-inclusive/owned firm that's from out of town. These are effectively local-tax-payer-funded projects (seeded by TIF funds), and I would think there'd therefore be a desire to keep the contracts in the local economy, too. I'm sure there are plenty of local firms eager to do splashy work if given the wherewithal to do so (both in funds and in license -- desire, even -- from the client to do so).

And even if local talent doesn't create "splashy", per se, they'd probably create something in accordance with the modern-day ideological vernacular we have here that puts forth practical, reserved, and -- in the best local work -- quiet sophistication and sensibility that transcends stylistic trends (you can see why I'm a proponent of the Ronan proposal). LA can keep the projects that have the superficial appeal that provides a quick thrill -- it fits right into their culture of appearance . Think of the Jahn projects around the city on State near IIT and on Clybourn in Near North -- great-looking architecture that still has a Chicago sensibility to it.

[ardecila]

All of the LA firms have a local partner/AOR, so it's not like the fees are being totally siphoned out of the Chicago economy.

I guess I just don't have the same disdain for LA... They've really seen some great infill recently across the city. 4+1 buildings and woodframe midrises are pretty awful everywhere, but LA architects have managed to find a way to say something interesting with these buildings.

(Of course, the irony is that they can't build wood frame here...)

[Jibba]

I wouldn't say I have disdain for LA, no. It's that I like the idea of individual cities retaining their personalities (ever more difficult in the age of the Internet and Globalization). Pragmatism and good sense are qualities that can run the risk of verging into creating a backwater, but they also provide solidity and endurance. I get a comfort from (good) plain architecture, and Chicago has an opportunity to be a bastion of that. The more times I visit NYC, for example, the more comical the circus of architectural competition that is Manhattan gets. It's thrilling, sure, but it's also unsettling (and not in a good way to me). I'd rather err towards somewhere like Amsterdam or Copenhagen than LA or NYC; somewhere that's focused on itself and quietly sophisticated architecture follows from that (which we could use more of, certainly).

[UPChicago]

I would suggest that the architecture we see in the neighborhoods, at this scale of density, from local firms is not simply plain but extremely bland and lacking in character for the most part. Yes, there are outliers, but I feel this is generally true. Bringing in outside talent to set examples for good design is a good thing.

[gandalf612]

Finishing up

[marothisu]

Adaptive re-use of the church at 4601 S Ellis in Kenwood finally received a building permit, nearly 2.5 years after zoning got approved for this. It will become 29 housing units and a co-working space:

https://chicagoyimby.com/2020/10/zon...n-kenwood.html

Street view:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8114...7i16384!8i8192

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by JuliusDoaner

This is becoming a really nice intersection. future metra ravenswood station right there, mariano's/LA fitness all in one building, and this new residential coming. Just gotta bulldoze this Chase building and parking lot

The building in question was a Chase building But yes there's another one. I guess half of it getting knocked down and going from 1 floor to 5 with new housing could be much worse.

[cityofneighborhoods]

Originally Posted by JuliusDoaner

Look at these connected greystones

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8115...7i16384!8i8192

the southside is underrated when it comes to architectural beauty

This is also on that block: https://chicagoyimby.com/2023/02/per...h-kenwood.html