CHICAGO | General Developments

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The addition of those new storefronts behind the Northwest Tower are a nice added touch.

I'm really eager to see how this development changes the dynamic of the area around it. Already that's a happening intersection, but there is still some unlocked potential there.

I continue to be in favor of more hotels in the neighborhoods. I really hope that the one proposed for North and Ashland comes to fruition.

Agreed – there's also the LG TOD project directly across the street from the hotel, which is pretty far along.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Thanks for the update george. I've been curious about that project.

[ardecila]

I thought the new annex was supposed to be 4-5 stories like the old self storage building?

Sorta disappointing to see that they downgraded it to a 1-story retail building. This is less than a block from a bustling L stop.

Does anyone have news on the old Walgreens at Milwaukee/Wolcott? It's stil open, but it's only two blocks away from the big new flagship at Milwaukee/Damen and business at the old store seems very slow.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I thought the new annex was supposed to be 4-5 stories like the old self storage building?

Sorta disappointing to see that they downgraded it to a 1-story retail building. This is less than a block from a bustling L stop.

The new construction was only going to be two stories with hostel rooms above the stores. They changed their mind on that last summer. I don't know why.

[Busy Bee]

^So how long are we stuck with a 1 story building?

[J_M_Tungsten]

^Seriously, a one story building? What a waste on that prime intersection. I can't believe the stupidity and short sightedness in development in this city.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^So how long are we stuck with a 1 story building?

Probably forever.
As I remember the original plan had pretty much maxed out the FAR for the site and the second floor was only about 5000 sqft.

Chances are, they went over when they got rid of the parking ramp and decided whatever was left, wasn't worth the tsuris.

[spyguy]

One story retail development (sometimes even replacing 2+ story buildings) in that area isn't a new thing:

https://goo.gl/maps/siKGwBvxvSS2
https://goo.gl/maps/nBkWfAxVkrQ2
https://goo.gl/maps/z7NdVLnMnEo

[the urban politician]

I'm not bothered by it. It replaces a vacant lot, and will bring economic activity and tax revenue. And there is always a chance of building denser on that plot in the future.

City building one lot at a time. Can't have it all, I guess...

[LouisVanDerWright]

Yeah, I'm not sure why the redevelopment of Chicago has to be such a hurried process. This intersection is not suffering from a lack of density. The completion of this project will massively increase streetlife as it is. Its not like we have a lack of vacant lots along Milwaukee Ave near L stops. I would much rather the development pressures continue to push NW into much more fallow lands.

The pockholed nature of our urban landscape is historic, but it's not totally unique. At one point in time Constantinople had well over a million inhabitants. The population then dropped to 50,000 over 100-200 years. Today Istanbul has 14 million inhabitants. My point is not that Chicago's population is going to fluctuate that violently, but that cities aren't built in a day. Chicago has been around for a tenth as long as many cities it competes with and is very much "incomplete" to this day. We have a lot of space to fill in and there is no need to rush it and cram all the development into the small portion of the city that is considered highly desirable today. We can't think of this as "great we are stuck with a 1 story building forever", we have to recognize that we are no longer stuck with a vacant lot and instead get to enjoy a perfectly serviceable, urban, 1 story annex to what is one of the more impressive commercial forays into the neighborhoods. Leave this little building for our great great grandchildren to demolish and replace with futuristic sky condos in 2145.

[lu9]

Originally Posted by bcp

Nailed it

Came in to say this.

[PKDickman]

OK, I dug up the original documents and the second floor was only 3000 sqft.

They could have gone a couple of ways on the site.
They had two separate legally non-conforming buildings. They could have kept them that way and built 4 stories on the adjacent lots.

However, they desperately wanted to tie the Tower and the Hollander warehouse building together. The Tower has a very difficult footprint. It was fine for rooms, but made services a problem.

In order to do that, all the parcels had to be brought into compliance.

Including the area of the vacant lot, they were already at 4.35 FAR.
The only way to bring it into conformity was to rezone the entire site to a -5 (the highest zoning you can get outside of the downtown districts).

The store fronts are just there as gravy. They didn't need the space, they needed the land area.

As it stands, assuming no other changes, they have about 5000 buildable feet left in the site. That might allow for a full second floor (with rear setbacks) but never anything more.

[lu9]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

OK, I dug up the original documents and the second floor was only 3000 sqft.

They could have gone a couple of ways on the site.
They had two separate legally non-conforming buildings. They could have kept them that way and built 4 stories on the adjacent lots.

However, they desperately wanted to tie the Tower and the Hollander warehouse building together. The Tower has a very difficult footprint. It was fine for rooms, but made services a problem.

In order to do that, all the parcels had to be brought into compliance.

Including the area of the vacant lot, they were already at 4.35 FAR.
The only way to bring it into conformity was to rezone the entire site to a -5 (the highest zoning you can get outside of the downtown districts).

The store fronts are just there as gravy. They didn't need the space, they needed the land area.

As it stands, assuming no other changes, they have about 5000 buildable feet left in the site. That might allow for a full second floor (with rear setbacks) but never anything more.

Plus they've got massive mechanical situated on top of the 1 story retail, which I assume then reserves all roof space above Hollinger for pool and rooftop. Not saying they couldn't do this on top of a second floor, but just confirming what you mentioned above. This is all tied together and a well thought-out development.

I've lived a block away from this site since 2005. I have NEVER seen the coyote building without scaffolding above the sidewalks on both North and Milwaukee. This tower was falling apart and neglected. I, for one, am completely pumped about this development. One story retail tack on or not.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yeah, I'm not sure why the redevelopment of Chicago has to be such a hurried process. This intersection is not suffering from a lack of density. The completion of this project will massively increase streetlife as it is. Its not like we have a lack of vacant lots along Milwaukee Ave near L stops. I would much rather the development pressures continue to push NW into much more fallow lands.

At least in Wicker Park, there are no vacant lots really. I mean there is that Wendy's near the Division one but whatever. There was another vacant lot near there too - a small one - but there's something like a 6 to 10 unit building almost completed there now.

The pockholed nature of our urban landscape is historic, but it's not totally unique. At one point in time Constantinople had well over a million inhabitants. The population then dropped to 50,000 over 100-200 years. Today Istanbul has 14 million inhabitants.

My point is not that Chicago's population is going to fluctuate that violently, but that cities aren't built in a day. Chicago has been around for a tenth as long as many cities it competes with and is very much "incomplete" to this day. We have a lot of space to fill in and there is no need to rush it and cram all the development into the small portion of the city that is considered highly desirable today. We can't think of this as "great we are stuck with a 1 story building forever", we have to recognize that we are no longer stuck with a vacant lot and instead get to enjoy a perfectly serviceable, urban, 1 story annex to what is one of the more impressive commercial forays into the neighborhoods. Leave this little building for our great great grandchildren to demolish and replace with futuristic sky condos in 2145.

Istanbul is my favorite city in the world. I've been there a handful of times and have friends there so I want to comment on this. First of all, around 14 million is the official count. The unofficial count is actually more like 16-20 million according to my friends who live there or have lived there very recently. The reason is because, as THE city to be in inside of Turkey, there are many people who live there who are originally from small towns elsewhere who normally don't get aid. They still have family there though, so they register in the Census in their hometowns instead of Istanbul so their family can receive more aid. There are also many, many undocumented peoples there from Turkic speaking countries (i.e. Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, etc) in central Asia. For them, Istanbul (and maybe Izmir or elsewhere on the west coast) is about the best they're going to get. It's like the Chicago for small midwest people. I once had an uber driver from Kyrgyzstan who moved to Chicago a few years ago from there. When I told him I was part Turkish, know a little of the language, and have been there a bunch of times he lit up and started to try and converse in the language and how much they all respect Turkish people and love the country. To many of them, it's the place to be and the city has seen a really big influx because of it. There are also many people from some parts of Russia there too - same kind of story.

However, from what I've seen first hand, it's more like earlier NYC immigration situation. You have people living 10 and sometimes even 20 in 1 or 2 bedroom apartments. The people I mentioned above (as well as people from other countries) are going there to find jobs and money. Last time i visited my friends who lived a 20 minute walk to Sultanahmet (old city), I could see into the other buildings' apartments and a few of them I saw 10 people each to a 1 bedroom apartment. Almost no room to do anything (though one of them had a sewing machine being manned all day and night making clothing). Anyway, point being is that it's kind of an unfair comparison. Unless Chicago gets a massive wave of immigration, you can't compare. The thing is though that these immigrants in Istanbul have made a living for themselves. They've opened up shops. They've started businesses of many kinds (i.e. clothes making as I mentioned before). Boy, I wish people could do that in Chicago at a higher rate in some areas.

HOWEVER** I do agree with your assertion that things aren't built in a day or anything. Chicago is not done, and as far as things happening - well it's history. It's hard to say what it'll be like in 20 years. In 1980, do you think the people of Chicago thought there'd be a start of an increase of wealth and education in the city and the city would see a bunch of new shiny towers fill into areas like River North, South Loop, etc? Doubt it.

[the urban politician]

^ That's why I take all these stats about Chicago's performance with a grain of salt. The city is quite new when seen in relative terms.

Not to say Chicago will ever have New York's trajectory, but it is only about 180 years old. That is nothing. New York is a full 2 centuries older. Imagine how much can change in a city over two centuries. And that is nothing in age compared to European or Middle Eastern cities.

For its age Chicago has become quite the behemoth. The automobile age scarred the city, but slowly those wounds can heal.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ That's why I take all these stats about Chicago's performance with a grain of salt. The city is quite new when seen in relative terms.

Not to say Chicago will ever have New York's trajectory, but it is only about 180 years old. That is nothing. New York is a full 2 centuries older. Imagine how much can change in a city over two centuries. And that is nothing in age compared to European or Middle Eastern cities.

For its age Chicago has become quite the behemoth. The automobile age scarred the city, but slowly those wounds can heal.

I know what you mean, but at the same time I think it's different. With the advent of ubiquitous technology which allows us to get information globally at our fingertips and talk to people globally in a second, things have become more intertwined than they were even 40 years ago. Getting information for people who are looking to move for whatever reason is incredibly more available to anybody who wants it now than before. It makes things easier to move along growth wise, which is why I think social media is so important nowadays for cities trying to promote people to move there or just visit. I guarantee you 40 years ago, it was not a common known fact outside of the region that Chicago has beaches, for example. Now, that's pretty easy to get from a variety of different ways.

The speed at which society is moving, at least technologically and in this type of fashion above is way way way faster than it was just a handful of decades ago and before.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by lu9

I've lived a block away from this site since 2005. I have NEVER seen the coyote building without scaffolding above the sidewalks on both North and Milwaukee. This tower was falling apart and neglected. I, for one, am completely pumped about this development. One story retail tack on or not.

You'd have seen it unfettered for a few years.

The building had failed every Highrise inspection since the city started requiring them.

Both Dinko and Karbowski felt that their money was better spent on lawyers than brick masons. It wasn't until it went into receivership that they put up the canopies.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by marothisu

At least in Wicker Park, there are no vacant lots really. I mean there is that Wendy's near the Division one but whatever. There was another vacant lot near there too - a small one - but there's something like a 6 to 10 unit building almost completed there now.

That wasn't even remotely true until the last year or two. Division alone between Damen and the freeway was pockmarked with a dozen large lots many of which have bit or are currently biting the dust. Milwaukee Ave becomes mostly vacant lots and underutilized industrial properties on the other side of the Bloomingdale Trail. The section of Milwaukee just at the end of this block features three blocks straight of re purposed industrial properties with large parking lots and strip malls.

There are PLENTY of places in Wicker Park (and even more just outside of Wicker Park) that need to be redeveloped and can accommodate future demand for dense new housing developments.

Anyway, point being is that it's kind of an unfair comparison. Unless Chicago gets a massive wave of immigration, you can't compare. The thing is though that these immigrants in Istanbul have made a living for themselves. They've opened up shops. They've started businesses of many kinds (i.e. clothes making as I mentioned before). Boy, I wish people could do that in Chicago at a higher rate in some areas

That's why I specified that the swings are obviously not as intense: Chicago also isn't going to see a series of religious crusades that drive the population down to 50,000 any time soon either. The point is that at one point enormous sections of Istanbul fell into ruin and were destroyed. The sporadic loss of historic building stock throughout our neighborhoods and handful of urban renewal slum clearing projects gone awry pales in comparison to the things other cities have gone through. We have a lot less "rebuilding" to do today than the worst just about any other major city (including our own after the great fire) on earth did at their lowest point.

Much of the blight we have today is a result of deindustrialization, not urban renewal clearance, disaster, or war. There simply was nothing appealing in these districts. It went from prairie to smoke belching factories and then back to urban prairies. A wave of development is passing through these areas and creating urban fabric where there really never has been any before. It's not like Istanbul where the Pope sent out a bunch of knights to sack the city. We simply aren't done building yet. I say this all the time but I'm just as often amazed by what wasn't there as I am by what was and was lost. I think we have a tenancy to see a vacant lot and figure a terracotta clad beauty once stood there when it was probably significantly more likely that it was a bow truss building with a loading yard seeping questionable chemicals into the ground.

It's like when I first found out there was once an enormous building on the site of Chase Tower and immediately assumed it was a beauty only to open the wikipedia page to see a hulking atrocity that was probably the ugliest building of that size built in the city before WWII. Chase Tower is a far more appealing building. It replaced something else which probably replaced something before it, but think how many iterations of construction it took for the true landmarks of a city like Istanbul to come about. There were probably 10 generations of buildings on any similar site in central Istanbul.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

For its age Chicago has become quite the behemoth. The automobile age scarred the city, but slowly those wounds can heal.

Not even, Chicago was barely around for long before the age of the automobile. The city was always built with modern forms of transportation in mind. The main roads were almost entirely built in the era of street cars which are basically just gigantic busses that can't leave the main streets. This basically meant that all the major ROW's should have been straight to be efficient for that transport. It was essentially a brief moment in time where perfectly straight roads made total sense, but we hadn't yet invented the automobile making the non-sensical layouts of the suburbs possible. But we are very much built around the automobile because we really only had 30 years of construction (1871-1901) between the fire and the automobile during which infrastructure incompatible with the car could even have been constructed. And that's ignoring the whole point that almost none of the city existed before we started introducing large mechanical, wheeled vehicles (streetcars and cable cars) to the environment.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The main roads were almost entirely built in the era of street cars

Chicago was platted in 1830. The horsecar didn't arrive until 1850, and the electric streetcar not until 1890.

[PKDickman]

Chicago was not laid out for streetcars.
We were laid out in a grid because it was rational, and we were flat enough and big enough that it was feasible.
The nominal 66ft width of our streets was used because it is one surveyers chain and a convenient use of measure.

The nonsensical use of loops and cul-de-sacs in the burbs is actually designed to discourage cars, at least through traffic which would be better accommodated on major thoroughfares.

Don't get me wrong, I think our rational street grid is the greatest invention since movable type, but our system of streets and alleys is extremely wasteful of buildable land. It sidelines nearly 40% into rights of way.

That squiggly sh!t actually uses a lot less of it for roads