CHICAGO | General Developments

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by aaron38

The Barrington proposal is on the SW corner of Main and Hough.

100 South Hough Street, roughly. I assume each retailer will get its own address, since the building fills the block.

I've been talking with some guys from Hummel Group about the retailers lined up. They're looking for a major bookstore as an anchor tenant.

Borders doesn't have any nearby locations, so they've been approached (I believe) but the square footage is a little small for them without sprawling onto 3 floors like the one at Randolph/State. This adds major costs of elevators and escalators that might only be worth it in a high-traffic location like downtown. Then again, Deerfield, Naperville, and even Lincolnshire have built 2-story Barnes & Nobles, so it's possible.

I think Barbara's has also been approached.

[pip]

.

[Eventually...Chicago]

I had this theory kicking around in my head for a little while and i figured i would run it through the gauntlet of fire and see what everyone thought.

I was trying to figure out a way to justify places like the BP and Wabash and Roosevelt or like the office depot on orleans and grand(?) and why they might not be too terrible. I was thinking that perhaps these national chains building crap buildings actually serve a purpose of "reserving" sites for future development. For instance, because there is are so many other sites that have potential for development its fine if a few are gobbled up with one story walgreens or branch banks. Take these two scenarios:

#1
a - neighborhood is seeing incredible redevelopment, retailers and residents are flocking to the area
b - while other high profile projects are being built, national chains compete for the best locations
c - boom cools down, national chain stores ebb and flow, some leave some stay
d - as parcels become available, already in good locations, with a singular title holder, new high quality development replaces lower quality chain development

#2
a - neighborhood is seeing incredible redevelopment, retailers and residents are flocking to the area
b - national chains do not build in the area, instead smaller 2,3,4... story buildings get built. Let's say they're condos or perhaps retail and office.
c - when the next boom comes, this site is passed over due to the fragmentary nature of ownership of the site. High quality development looks to other sites.

So i guess that is all i have right now (it was more day dreaming on the EL rather than good hardcore theorizing). My best example of this happening is the BP at halstead, north and clybourn. If this parcel were made up of strip retail, condos or apartments, even, who knows if they would be getting the high quality retail and (presumably) higher quality building.

Rolling it all into one sentence...
If you can't get a quality building which would be the highest, densest and best use for the site, then you are best off with a singular, national, retail use to simplify ownership transfer and ease of building for future projects.

Have away guys!

[VivaLFuego]

Those suburban developments look decent....Barrington and Crystal Lake are pretty far out there and conservative, I hope for the success of these with many more to follow around every Metra station up that way.

[Chicago Shawn]

Wow on the Crystal Lake proposal. When I lived up there in the mid 90's a developer was laughed out of city hall when he proposed a six story building on the Hines Lumberyard, about 2 blocks from the Metra Station. Glad and suprised to see the change of hart regarding the much needed density. This will be the tallest resdiential building in town.



Good form overall, with the right materials it could come out really nice, but with cheap stuff it wil be another Pomo trainwreck.

[Marcu]

^ Not really sure about the Crystal Lake project being in good form. The roof and the balconies are a little over the top. If the same project was proposed anywhere in Chicago, we'd blast it as pomo garbage. Why the double standard?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I wouldn't blast that if it were proposed here assuming they use real masonry and all. There is tons of that stuff in the Lincoln Park area, you can even see some of it from the Red Line. But it is acceptable because it uses real brick and stone accents and fits right in with all the 3 flats and apartment buildings.

I actually think Pomo infill on the north side is generally very well done and really helps fill out a lot of popular neighborhoods that would otherwise be left with random open lots and parking lots breaking up the rows of three flats.

Also, has anyone else here noticed the sweet new three story building on Belmont just east of the Red Line? With the curvy stainless steel facade? It looks really sweet, I think more infill should have designs like that.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Marcu

^ Not really sure about the Crystal Lake project being in good form. The roof and the balconies are a little over the top. If the same project was proposed anywhere in Chicago, we'd blast it as pomo garbage. Why the double standard?

Touche, from the aesthetic perspective, but I'd still applaud the density if that were going up near the Metra stations in, say, Edison Park, Edgebrook, etc.

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Those suburban developments look decent....Barrington and Crystal Lake are pretty far out there and conservative, I hope for the success of these with many more to follow around every Metra station up that way.

Interesting to note Viva is that the only Chicagoland outlet for Air America is WCPT 820AM in Crystal Lake. Also Crystal Lake hosted the Gay Games rowing events. All of Chicago media showed up for the city council meeting anticipating outraged residents, etc. The vote to host the event sailed through the Council unopposed and without dissent from the public. Lets give the suburbs some credit for progressive thinking if not architecture.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

Interesting to note Viva is that the only Chicagoland outlet for Air America is WCPT 820AM in Crystal Lake. Also Crystal Lake hosted the Gay Games rowing events. All of Chicago media showed up for the city council meeting anticipating outraged residents, etc. The vote to host the event sailed through the Council unopposed and without dissent from the public. Lets give the suburbs some credit for progressive thinking if not architecture.

From Wikipedia:

Controversy erupted in the community in February 2006, when it was announced that the Gay Games, which were scheduled to begin July 15, 2006 in Chicago were seeking to hold the rowing events on Crystal Lake. The lake is uniquely suitable to hold such events because of its considerable length and width, and shape. However, Crystal Lake, situated in strongly conservative McHenry County, is home to many conservative Christians, who were opposed to the events on moral grounds. On March 2, 2006, the Crystal Lake Park District voted to reject the Gay Games' application to use the lake for their rowing events, after a tense meeting where over one hundred residents spoke before the board, the majority in opposition. The vote was 2-2, as Crystal Lake Park District President Jerry Sullivan was absent. The deadlocked issue was considered dead. The Gay Games indicated they may seek legal action against the city and the Park District, citing a recently passed Illinois law which prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The controversy continued and of course the event was eventually allowed, but it seems more like a few right-headed leaders are responsible, not the average Crystal Lake-ian. And a municipality doesn't really have any say over the political angle of radio signals broadcast from within their boundaries, unless I'm misinterpreting the first amendment (obviously the FCC has had some issues with this before, but....at least that's legally within their general purview).

[Mr Downtown]

Um, you're forgetting that the previous month 300 people showed up at the Crystal Lake park board to protest having "those people" come to town.

And the "unopposed" city council vote was 6-1.

[wrab]

Some shots from inside at today's open house at the new Spertus annex:

9-10F






View from the 2F cafe(teria)

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Those suburban developments look decent....Barrington and Crystal Lake are pretty far out there and conservative, I hope for the success of these with many more to follow around every Metra station up that way.

The community seems cautiously optimistic so far here in Barrington. The corner used to be occupied by a locally-owned 76 station, but it closed about 2 years ago. Now it is temporary parking for village employees. Except for the Chase branch, all other businesses on the site have closed (a framing shop, a linens shop, a portrait studio, and a menswear store).

Hummel's proposal is huge (for this town at least), much larger than that rendering would indicate. Three buildings of three stories are proposed, and two of them have retail. All three buildings have below-grade parking, and a small lot between the buildings serves for retail customers.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ You know, there has been a hell of a lot of TOD around Metra stations in Chicago's suburbs. Why hasn't the same taken place in the city itself?

I can only think of the Metra station in Beverly, which has recently gotten a mixed condo/townhome with retail development across the street; Solstice on the Park could be another example (if all goes well). Perhaps there has been a small scattering of others, but nothing really significant that I can think of. Can anybody else?

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You know, there has been a hell of a lot of TOD around Metra stations in Chicago's suburbs. Why hasn't the same taken place in the city itself?

Aldermen.

[the urban politician]

^ Perhaps, but there's a lot of NIMBYism in the suburbs as well, with their own town puppet councils. Yet still they are getting these projects.

[BorisMolotov]

Yea, but even some really conservative places like Bartlett (whose residents are opposing a 100 ft cell phone tower in the middle of the woods allowed several 4 story buildings right next to our metra station

[VivaLFuego]

I disagree. If those suburbs had an aldermanic system with wards, thereby diffusing responsibility among many and creating a disconnect between those responsible for revenue/budget-making and those responsible for development, then they would be just as NIMBY as Chicago. The development decisions in the suburbs are made by the same people responsible for the budget, and they know not to frivolously throw away development investment and its resultant tax revenue (property and/or sales). If anything, popular opinion in the burbs is even more anti-development than Chicago (at least in the established burbs), but their power structure is such that one right-headed individual can overcome mob mentality (Crystal Lake, for example). Such accountability and responsibility is so far removed from the individual aldermen in Chicago that they can get away with not giving two shits about the city as a whole and just focus on their vocal NIMBY constituents.

Of course, reforming the aldermanic system would require approval from exactly the people who would have their power reduced by such reform, so it'll never happen. That's why, grudgingly, we pro-development folk need to support the corruption-prone programs such as TIFs, the Planned Development process, and asset privatization, because they at least provide a little power (money, jobs) to City Hall to wield against the Aldermanic tyrants; while the Aldercreatures still have a hand in those programs, of course, City Hall does too, which on the margin could be at least a modest improvement over the status quo.

[Nowhereman1280]

One of my friends is planning on running to be the alderman of the 49th ward in the next few years. He is going to run on a position of fighting back against LUC buying up all the the productive, tax generating, properties and then no longer paying taxes on them (because they are Non-profit) while kicking existing residents out. I have a feeling that idea will become very popular in Rogers Park where people are tired of getting kicked around by the university.

Also, he is pro gentrification while also being pro-mix income housing and development. He says the problem with Rogers Park is that it is something like 65% subsidized housing and that creates huge problems of segregation and ghettoization, especially north of Howard. I'm voting for him when he does run...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I disagree. If those suburbs had an aldermanic system with wards, thereby diffusing responsibility among many and creating a disconnect between those responsible for revenue/budget-making and those responsible for development, then they would be just as NIMBY as Chicago. The development decisions in the suburbs are made by the same people responsible for the budget, and they know not to frivolously throw away development investment and its resultant tax revenue (property and/or sales). If anything, popular opinion in the burbs is even more anti-development than Chicago (at least in the established burbs), but their power structure is such that one right-headed individual can overcome mob mentality (Crystal Lake, for example). Such accountability and responsibility is so far removed from the individual aldermen in Chicago that they can get away with not giving two shits about the city as a whole and just focus on their vocal NIMBY constituents.

Of course, reforming the aldermanic system would require approval from exactly the people who would have their power reduced by such reform, so it'll never happen. That's why, grudgingly, we pro-development folk need to support the corruption-prone programs such as TIFs, the Planned Development process, and asset privatization, because they at least provide a little power (money, jobs) to City Hall to wield against the Aldermanic tyrants; while the Aldercreatures still have a hand in those programs, of course, City Hall does too, which on the margin could be at least a modest improvement over the status quo.

^ Great explanation. I guess perhaps this largely explains why there is such a divide between the immense density of downtown verses the relative low density of Chicago's neighborhoods? City Hall probably has a LOT more influence on downtown development then, say Portage Park. Would that be an accurate assessment?