HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #421  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2019, 3:42 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,553
cursed.. but someone may have to take a billion profit instead of a trillion
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #422  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2019, 3:53 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by maru2501 View Post
cursed.. but someone may have to take a billion profit instead of a trillion
Or wait till the neighboring sites get built on and just fill the whole thing with high end 2 story townhomes on cul-du-sacs. Minimal infrastructure needed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #423  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2019, 6:03 PM
Goose Island Guru Goose Island Guru is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
Or wait till the neighboring sites get built on and just fill the whole thing with high end 2 story townhomes on cul-du-sacs. Minimal infrastructure needed.
Not sure what Related paid for the lot, but I doubt that level of infill would cover the cost of the land. Not to mention that would be a horrendous use of river front acreage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #424  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2019, 7:19 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goose Island Guru View Post
Not sure what Related paid for the lot, but I doubt that level of infill would cover the cost of the land. Not to mention that would be a horrendous use of river front acreage.
It would depend on what they could cram onto the site and at what price points but I'd think they could do rather well. Riverfront townhomes, no mater how petite would likely command a major premium.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #425  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2019, 10:31 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,920
The game's not over yet. This is a major part of Rahm's legacy, I don't think he would let it just slip though his fingers.

I'm sure David Reifman will be up late tonight and tomorrow night trying to get more public benefit out of the two megaprojects. Or Sterling Bay and Related already have some concessions ready to go that can be unveiled tomorrow. There's still a chance it could get approved by Wednesday.

Right now the vote is only delayed until Wednesday morning before the full City Council meets, so it could still pass if a deal is cut.

Failing that, it would be great to be a fly on the wall in that conversation between Lightfoot and Emanuel. So far it appears Lightfoot is pro-development but wants to make sure everything is squeaky clean with these two projects given the involvement of Danny Solis and Ed Burke. Ideally pay-to-play gets replaced with play-all-you-want-for-free.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #426  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2019, 4:22 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,808
Ordinances for TIF passed. Done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #427  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2019, 4:23 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,553
full council voting RIGHT NOW
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #428  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2019, 4:50 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
I'm assuming "approved"?

Why does this project get far less fanfare than Lincoln Yards?
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #429  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2019, 4:51 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I'm assuming "approved"?

Why does this project get far less fanfare than Lincoln Yards?
Yes.

Because it's not sandwiched between wealthy north side neighborhoods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #430  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2019, 5:05 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is online now
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 10,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I'm assuming "approved"?

Why does this project get far less fanfare than Lincoln Yards?
Yes


And to me the 78 is way more important imo

This



vs



A rendering of The 78, a mixed-use development slated for a vacant 62-acre riverfront site between Chicago’s South Loop and Chinatown. Related Midwest


https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/4/10...e-city-council




City Council approves $2B in TIF money for Lincoln Yards, The 78
The votes represent the final legislative hurdle for the transformative megadevelopments



By Jay Koziarz Apr 10, 2019, 11:47am CDT


On Wednesday morning City Hall approved up to $2 billion in tax increment financing (TIF) to support the massive Lincoln Yards and The 78 megadevelopments.



..


The TIF measures would essentially freeze real estate taxes for both vacant sites at their current levels and reimburse the developers for fronting the costs of infrastructure improvements with the incremental tax revenue generated by the completed projects over the next two decades.

Developer Sterling Bay’s Lincoln Yards plan calls for as much as for $1.3 billion in TIF spending to cover the cost of new bridges over the Chicago River, an extension of the 606 trail, and a realignment of the Elston-Armitage-Ashland intersection. Related Midwest’s The 78 is seeking $700 million to relocate Metra rail tracks, build new roads, and construct a new CTA Red Line subway station.

When complete, the 14.5 million-square-foot Lincoln Yards development would bring new office towers, 6,000 residential units, and 21 acres of parkspace to 55 acres of formerly industrial riverfront land between Lincoln Park and Bucktown. On the river’s south branch, The 78 calls for 13 million square feet of buildings supporting 10,000 residential units, 24,000 on-site jobs, and a university-affiliated innovation center.

...
__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #431  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2019, 5:30 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
^ I agree that the 78 is more important. Plus I'm thrilled about a new red line station.

I actually think that 78 will be a sleeper hit.
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #432  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2019, 6:54 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
Yes.

Because it's not sandwiched between wealthy north side neighborhoods.
Not just that, there are significant differences between the two projects that have been discussed in this thread previously.

The 78 was always going to have a big mixed-use development on it, back in the Rezko days, back with Goldberg's master plan for River City in the 1970s, and even in the 1920s when the river was being straightened this site was supposed to be an extension of downtown. The 78 is just the culmination of something decades in the making. Even Dearborn Park residents have always known that something big would eventually go here once the planets aligned.

Also, the 78's site is "out of sight, out of mind" - to Dearborn Parkers, Chinatown residents, and South Loop residents, this site exists on the other side of big infrastructural walls. It's not part of their neighborhoods.

Finally, and this is something that only matters to urban planners and us forumers: The 78 is just a better-planned development. It will have a proper connective street grid, a CTA subway station and probably water taxis and new bus routes to link it into downtown, which is directly adjacent (only a mile to Union Station). Given the design and location, it could actually function as a true transit-oriented neighborhood, so it will not cause the traffic armageddon that Lincoln Yards will.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #433  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2019, 7:10 PM
Baronvonellis Baronvonellis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 872
Yes!! Build baby, Build!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #434  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2019, 7:29 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,553
agree, ardecila

once it gets going it could have a lot of gravitational pull and attract a lot of the residential need and office overflow

lincoln yards always seems out of place up there
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #435  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2019, 11:27 PM
BonoboZill4's Avatar
BonoboZill4 BonoboZill4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: PingPong
Posts: 1,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Not just that, there are significant differences between the two projects that have been discussed in this thread previously.

The 78 was always going to have a big mixed-use development on it, back in the Rezko days, back with Goldberg's master plan for River City in the 1970s, and even in the 1920s when the river was being straightened this site was supposed to be an extension of downtown. The 78 is just the culmination of something decades in the making. Even Dearborn Park residents have always known that something big would eventually go here once the planets aligned.

Also, the 78's site is "out of sight, out of mind" - to Dearborn Parkers, Chinatown residents, and South Loop residents, this site exists on the other side of big infrastructural walls. It's not part of their neighborhoods.

Finally, and this is something that only matters to urban planners and us forumers: The 78 is just a better-planned development. It will have a proper connective street grid, a CTA subway station and probably water taxis and new bus routes to link it into downtown, which is directly adjacent (only a mile to Union Station). Given the design and location, it could actually function as a true transit-oriented neighborhood, so it will not cause the traffic armageddon that Lincoln Yards will.
Exactly, the 78 has all the ingredients to succeed in financial, political, and on an urban planning perspectives alike. Lincoln Yards has all the ingredients to flop (other than getting undeserved TIF dollars). It'll be cool to compare how both projects look in 10-15 years, and see if my guess is accurate
__________________
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #436  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2019, 1:26 AM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Forest Park / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,701
Are these the final building designs or just general massings?
__________________
1. 111 W 57 - Manhattan, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. 9 Dekalb Ave - Brooklyn, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #437  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2019, 2:04 AM
lakeshoredrive lakeshoredrive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 101
is it possible for a supertall to be built in the 78? it would definitely balance the skyline. i am not sure what the zoning is for this site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #438  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2019, 2:05 AM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is online now
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 10,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
Are these the final building designs or just general massings?


Just general massings
__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #439  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2019, 2:12 AM
RedCorsair87 RedCorsair87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 375
Last I read, The 78 is zoned to 950'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #440  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2019, 2:13 AM
BonoboZill4's Avatar
BonoboZill4 BonoboZill4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: PingPong
Posts: 1,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakeshoredrive View Post
is it possible for a supertall to be built in the 78? it would definitely balance the skyline. i am not sure what the zoning is for this site.
Possible? Yeah, anything is technically possible for a project of this scale, but right now it isn't zoned for such height... Wouldn't be terribly surprising if they decided they wanted one big trophy tower though at the end, kind of like how LSE got Vista Tower so close to its culmination.
__________________
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
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 5:29 PM.

     

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