HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 5:11 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,610
CHICAGO | North Union (Moody Bible Campus) |587', 512', 500'|2,680 Residential Units

Seems like a project of this scale deserves its own thread...






https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...orth-side-site

October 26, 2020 05:19 PM UPDATED 5 HOURS AGO

Nearly 2,700 homes planned for Near North Side site
The project would be one of the biggest residential developments in Chicago in decades, and the largest for its builder, JDL Development.




ALBY GALLUN

Quote:
JDL Development plans nearly 2,700 homes on Near North Side property it would buy from the Moody Bible Institute, one of the biggest residential developments in Chicago in decades.

The Chicago-based developer will unveil its proposal for the 8.1-acre site at a Nov. 12 community meeting, according to emails from the Department of Planning and Development and Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd). The emails were short on specifics, but did include a key, previously unreported detail: The project northwest of Moody’s campus would encompass about 2,680 residential units.

Quote:
Called North Union, the development on the Moody property would be bounded roughly by CTA Brown and Purple Line tracks, Oak, Chestnut and Wells streets. It would include a mix of low-, mid- and high-rise buildings, 30,000 square feet of commercial space and about 1.3 acres of public open space, according to the emails. Two towers, one 600 feet tall, would rise on the northwest corner of the site, said JDL President Jim Letchinger.
__________________
titanic1

Last edited by BVictor1; Oct 27, 2020 at 3:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 5:28 AM
rgarri4's Avatar
rgarri4 rgarri4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 625
Man this is awesome.
__________________
Renderings, Animations, VR
https://vizfire.net/
My 3d model of Chicago:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...wpost&t=230331
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 1:00 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,098
Great news for Chicago!!

Will there be NIMBY opposition?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 1:19 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 19,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by C. View Post
Will there be NIMBY opposition?
^ The question is never whether there will be NIMBY opposition. It is rather how much there will be....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 2:04 PM
BuildThemTaller BuildThemTaller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Long Island City, NY
Posts: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ The question is never whether there will be NIMBY opposition. It is rather how much there will be....
How much could there be? The immediate neighbors are Onni, the city (Walter Payton Prep), and Moody, the group that sold the land to be developed. I suppose there are people in Old Town that will gripe, but it's not like anyone that stands to lose views of downtown would object to placing towers there.

I suppose it's best to assume a "concerned citizen and taxpayer" will kick up a fuss.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 2:21 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 1,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ The question is never whether there will be NIMBY opposition. It is rather how much there will be....
JDL shared with the Tribune last month that neighbors were surprisingly receptive of the plan, even with the 50-story towers.

It also helps that almost everything east of Wells is outside Burnett's ward, so he'll likely ignore any NIMBYs outside his ward
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 2:39 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,448
The Trib has a story with a gallery of renderings:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 2:51 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,191
I really REALLY wish developers would hire design architects from outside of Chicago - I mean, keep the local talent as AOR, but get some better designers. I think this development has promise, but it could be much more interesting.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 3:00 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,427
This is kind of backwards, they should be concentrating the density closest to the Chicago Brown Line stop, no? That way they could step down in scale toward the school. Maybe even put their park/playground at that end so they get some synergy with Payton's athletic fields.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller View Post
How much could there be? The immediate neighbors are Onni, the city (Walter Payton Prep), and Moody, the group that sold the land to be developed. I suppose there are people in Old Town that will gripe, but it's not like anyone that stands to lose views of downtown would object to placing towers there.

I suppose it's best to assume a "concerned citizen and taxpayer" will kick up a fuss.
I assume the Walter Payton community will raise a fuss, the dropoffs there do create a fair bit of traffic and JDL is proposing its tallest building directly next to the school.

Parc Chestnut has 286 units, that's a lot of neighbors. 45 units at Sedgwick/Locust, and various smaller condo buildings scattered throughout etc. There are other big buildings on Orleans but those are mostly rentals.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 3:18 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,610
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 3:21 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
This is kind of backwards, they should be concentrating the density closest to the Chicago Brown Line stop, no? That way they could step down in scale toward the school. Maybe even put their park/playground at that end so they get some synergy with Payton's athletic fields.
I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps JDL believes that putting most of the density near Division will further force the city's hand to back a CTA station there?

Quote:
I assume the Walter Payton community will raise a fuss, the dropoffs there do create a fair bit of traffic and JDL is proposing its tallest building directly next to the school.
Yes, and directly in line with the tallest tower of OTP... which seems very odd from a view consideration, unless they think the southern views will make up for it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 3:24 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,427
I don't think the Division Brown Line stop is a factor. Atrium Village/OTP was the excuse to build that, but the new entrance to the Red Line made it less important.

There's really a lot of redundancy between the coverage areas of Brown/Purple and Red, I can see why this isn't a huge priority for CTA. The real benefit is for the people who live further west in the Cabrini area.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 4:12 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,191

Bigger image from the Tribune article (source: Trib/JDL Development)
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.

Last edited by sentinel; Oct 27, 2020 at 4:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 4:49 PM
Barrelfish Barrelfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 136
Going against what someone said in another thread, I think this could be great for Wells Street. Wells has tons going on north of Division and south of Chicago. Good planning on this development could connect those two stretches.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 5:22 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,191
Four thousand years ago when I was in grad school, I remember reading a book about urban design/planning in Chicago (the book was from the mid or late 90s), and how even though the City population had declined from 3.6 million to 2.8 million, it could actually comfortably accommodate a population of 1 million or more on top of the original peak population, within its current borders. Obviously, this is based on best-case scenarios in terms of urban planning, and I'm sure a lot has changed since the 90s when the book was written. But I look at developments like this, as well as other mega-developments that have been proposed over the past 10 years (the 78, Lincoln Yards, The Michael Reece site, SouthWorks/U.S. Steel), and not to mention smaller, but more numerous TOD developments peppered throughout the rest of the City outside of the greater CBD, and it's definitely possible...although demand is a different story, especially when Chicago is still shedding lower and middle-income residents.

I wish I could remember the book, so much from that time in my life is lost in the aether of my brain :/
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 6:53 PM
mark0 mark0 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 94
"I'm sure a lot has changed since the 90s when the book was written"

It sure has. Chicago did a great job keeping itself relevant in the new economic order however the region and especially the state of Illinois have floundered and sadly it's bringing Chicago down with it. A lot of factors to discuss but business competitiveness, lack of natural features and lousy weather really hurt Illinois in an era where sunshine, natural beauty and low taxes are prime drivers. The options / futures industry is also changing, central banks now trade and control the volatility making meaning the "market makers" are gone and with them a huge blow to our financial center standing despite the exchanges being headquartered here. In addition we no longer have a single money center bank. We have no national media. No major tech platform. A lot has gone wrong in the last 20 years and our political class has no ideas while we hemorrhage people and talent. If you think its bad in the Chicago area go down state, it's stagnant and shrinking. I really think we need to shore up Illinois going forward and Chicago will naturally go along with it. The Downstaters are correct when they complain about Chicago soaking up the resources of the state.

Edit: Dont mean to be a downer but we shouldn't be subsidizing these private mega projects in Chicago. If they cant happen on their own then they cant happen. We are in emergency survival mode here trying to stay above stall speed. I personally think every dollar the city and state takes in should go towards stabilizing the debts (reform is another topic). Once the state and city officially go broke and can no longer borrow the decline can take decades to recover from if ever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 7:24 PM
Bonsai Tree's Avatar
Bonsai Tree Bonsai Tree is online now
Small but Mighty
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark0 View Post
"I'm sure a lot has changed since the 90s when the book was written"

It sure has. Chicago did a great job keeping itself relevant in the new economic order however the region and especially the state of Illinois have floundered and sadly it's bringing Chicago down with it. A lot of factors to discuss but business competitiveness, lack of natural features and lousy weather really hurt Illinois in an era where sunshine, natural beauty and low taxes are prime drivers. The options / futures industry is also changing, central banks now trade and control the volatility making meaning the "market makers" are gone and with them a huge blow to our financial center standing despite the exchanges being headquartered here. In addition we no longer have a single money center bank. We have no national media. No major tech platform. A lot has gone wrong in the last 20 years and our political class has no ideas while we hemorrhage people and talent. If you think its bad in the Chicago area go down state, it's stagnant and shrinking. I really think we need to shore up Illinois going forward and Chicago will naturally go along with it. The Downstaters are correct when they complain about Chicago soaking up the resources of the state.

Edit: Dont mean to be a downer but we shouldn't be subsidizing these private mega projects in Chicago. If they cant happen on their own then they cant happen. We are in emergency survival mode here trying to stay above stall speed. I personally think every dollar the city and state takes in should go towards stabilizing the debts (reform is another topic). Once the state and city officially go broke and can no longer borrow the decline can take decades to recover from if ever.
I hate to say this, but Chicago is fundamentally different than downstate. We operate in two completely different spheres and I'm perfectly ok with that. Chicagoland doesn't owe anything to downstate.

Also, we're not subsidizing these megaprojects in the traditional sense. You seem to be under the common misconception of how TIFs for megadevelopments operate. The city isn't giving sterling bay $1.3 billion dollars and saying "have fun". Sterling Bay and Related Midwest are going out of their own pockets to pay for infrastructure within the megadevelopments. In exchange, part of the added tax revenue from those developments will pay off the developer. It's a way to improve the city's infrastructure while keeping our deficit down. By your own metric, you should be in favor of this. And I'm not sure what that has to do with North Union since I don't think any sort of Tif has been discussed yet.

As to your "we have no strengths" thing. I think that we'll hopefully find that our abundant water, lack of natural disasters, and inexpensive cost of living may attract more people in the future. I know many on the West Coast who are considering a move somewhere else in the country because it is unlivable out there. Your entire argument about sunshine, taxes, etc. may ring true to some extent, but I'd also like to remind you that Chicago is the capital of the Midwest. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Indiana have all had steadily increasing populations (even despite their bad weather). When the Midwest does better, we'll do better as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 8:29 PM
mark0 mark0 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 94
I understand TIF perfectly, I think you may not. TIFs were supposed to be for blighted property, property that could not be redeveloped "but for" the proposed allocation. This property fails the "but for" test. Would it be as dense without the TIF? Probably not, but it would still be developed. Mega projects like this utilizing TIF distort the marketplace and starve development from marginal areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 9:37 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,427
It is unlikely that JDL will ask for TIF money at North Union, especially since the project does not seem to include any new public infrastructure and barely provides the required 10% of affordable units.

It's possible the city might use TIF money to advance the Brown Line stop at Division, but that's been talked about for years and is a separate project. If that happens, I think everyone involved will be very careful to keep that project separate from North Union so that activists do not conflate the two.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 9:52 PM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark0 View Post
I understand TIF perfectly, I think you may not. TIFs were supposed to be for blighted property, property that could not be redeveloped "but for" the proposed allocation. This property fails the "but for" test. Would it be as dense without the TIF? Probably not, but it would still be developed. Mega projects like this utilizing TIF distort the marketplace and starve development from marginal areas.
I largely agree, although I think it benefits the city to do things to maximize density in the core where infrastructure supporting density already exists. Anything south of North Ave, and certainly south of Division, should be developed to international levels of density, which this is. Some of the CHA's proposals for the Cabrini area are laughable in their lack of density. The Core needs to be dense because density is where you get the best bang for your urban buck, and its what people who want urban lifestyles want. People who don't want high density have so many other parts of Chicago to consider, from Hyde Park to Rogers Park, so in the Central Area, I think the highest density needs to occur and I don't have a problem with at least some of the projects getting an extra push to make that happen.

I live two blocks south of Chicago Ave, by Wells and Huron, and look forward to this. The area around me has been under near-constant construction since I moved in in 2004, with the only pause being due to the Financial Crisis. Since I moved in there have been two new hotels, plus 2 renovations existing hotels, eleven buildings of 12 or more stories and three buildings under 10 stories built within 3 short blocks of me (not 3 standard 1/8-mile blocks, but 3 actual River North blocks). And if I go further than that, I could keep adding buildings. But I'm still looking forward to this project. Like someone else said, it will help tie Wells north of Division to Wells south of Chicago. I also think that putting the densest part near Oak helps drive any traffic it creates to be even split between Division and Chicago Ave. Oak is the only street between Division and Chicago that goes from Michigan Avenue to Larrabee. It's still only a 5 minute walk to the Brown Line at Chicago and not much more than 5 minutes to the Red Line at Division. I would like to see a Brown Line station at Division. But I'd also like to see a Red Line station at around Cleveland, especially if the City isn't going to be making a Clinton Street subway splitting from the existing subway at Larrabee anytime soon. A subway station at Cleveland would be far more useable for people in the northern parts of the ex-Cabrini area than even a Division Brown Line station would be. When the idea of a Circle Line was being bounced around, I liked the idea of turning North/Clyborn area into a superstation with the Red Line interfacing with the Circle Line and the Brown Line dipping into a subway for transfers and making the station a massive transfer station. But the Circle Line seems to not be on anyone's radar anymore.
__________________
I like travel and photography - check out my Flickr page.
CURRENT GEAR: Nikon Z6, Nikon Z 14-30mm f4 S, Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S, Nikon 50mm f1.4G
STOLEN GEAR: (during riots of 5/30/2020) Nikon D750, Nikon 14-24mm F2.8G, Nikon 85mm f1.8G, Nikon 50mm f1.4D
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 3:17 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.