CHICAGO | General Developments

[Baronvonellis]

Wow, 2 story building on Halsted in lincoln park lol. I'm not suprised. But I guess the alternative was the guy could have used those lots for a garden and stuck a high wall on Halsted.

[J_M_Tungsten]

From a couple of days ago.
New Malcolm X College


Also from the area, the Bulls new practice facility is structurally complete. Not able to grab a photo though.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

One the very few remaining empty lots in the heart of Lincoln Park along Halsted is slated for some action. 2 story mixed use with below grade parking. It's that large lot just south of Armitage that abuts what appears to be a castle.

FINALLY. That empty patch has perplexed me for the last 7 years.

[chris08876]

The Proposal For The Future Wicker Park Trader Joe's
--------------------------------------------------

We'd like to extend many thanks to a helpful tipster who has just sent us the proposal for the Wicker Park Trader Joe's (that didn't take long). As stated earlier, the plans call for a three story building, with 14,000 square feet at the ground level for the specialty grocer. Similar to the Lincoln Park Trader Joe's location on Diversey, this store would feature a parking structure on the second and third floors. However, the proposal reveals that the Wicker Park grocery store is planned to be contained within a sleek contemporary glass structure.

=====================================
AJ LaTrace
http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...rader-joes.php

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

No surface parking. Obviously it can be done. This should be the standard for every grocery store and pharmacy that requires parking, end of conversation.

[MegaBass]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Just the required environmental and hydrogeological work. Part of the assessment before projects go up. Don't want to build on something potentially hazardous without first cleaning it up, etc. They also did break ground on the site.
===================

Chicago Bulls break ground on state-of-the-art practice facility

CHICAGO (FOX 32 News) -
The Chicago Bulls broke ground on a new, state-of-the-art practice facility next to the United Center Monday afternoon.

The project is completely funded by the Bulls, and is scheduled to be completed in time to kick off the NBA regular season in 2014.

The Bulls have practiced at the Berto Center in Deerfield since 1992.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel spoke at the groundbreaking ceremony on Monday, citing how the Bulls organization's investments in the Near West Side have developed the area into great center for tourism, local businesses, schools and residents.

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/22...#ixzz2aBaTAqHN

McHugh Construction crew setting the trusses at the Bulls Practice Facility last January. h/t McHugh Construction

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

No surface parking. Obviously it can be done. This should be the standard for every grocery store and pharmacy that requires parking, end of conversation.

The community wouldn't accept a dense residential building and (I'm guessing) Smithfield paid too much for the site to do something low-density. The site wasn't big enough for a solution that included surface parking. Don't generalize too much from this one particular deal.

[george]

Developer Bill Smith/Smithfield Properties had proposed a 36-39 some unit residential with retail/restaurant on 1st floor. The community was on board with that. Now the plan changed under cover of darkness into a 1 story w rooftop parking without any notice. Compound traffic pattern issues impacting LaSalle 2 School and liquor sales comes into play:
'The grocery project faces hurdles before it can move forward. If Trader Joe's is to sell beer, wine and spirits in Wicker Park, Mr. Smith must persuade Ald. Joseph Moreno (1st), who represents the area in the City Council, to lift a moratorium on retail alcohol sales for the south side of Division Street between Wood Street and Honore Avenue.
State law also restricts retail alcohol sales near schools — the Smithfield site is east of Chicago Public Schools' LaSalle II Magnet Elementary School — but the Illinois Liquor Control Commission usually follows municipalities' lead on issuing licenses, a commission spokeswoman said.'
Crain's 2/5/14

[ardecila]

I don't remember the community being on board with the previous proposal. The East Village Association maybe, but the school was not supportive.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Moreso than any of the other various planning issues we discuss on here, I don't understand why liquor moratoriums are a thing. There seems absolutely no justification for arbitrarily limiting where you can get a liquor license. We already limit what zoning is compatible with liquor licenses and have a fairly rigorous application process, so why does the whole liquor moratorium thing exist? It seems people are constantly pushing to have them lifted lately, maybe it's time we just do away with all of them?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The community wouldn't accept a dense residential building and (I'm guessing) Smithfield paid too much for the site to do something low-density. The site wasn't big enough for a solution that included surface parking. Don't generalize too much from this one particular deal.

I wasn't aware of the history of the site. Nevertheless, my comment had to do with the form. If developers deem parking to be a necessary component, it should be put on the roof or underground. I know this isn't possible for far-flung or economically devastated neighborhoods, but it should be a requirement for the rest.

[george]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't remember the community being on board with the previous proposal. The East Village Association maybe, but the school was not supportive.

In fact the school was supportive. There was even a carrot-on-a-stick contribution from the developer to the school discussed. The previous plan was to be very similar to a mixed use project directly across Division St.

LouisVanDerWright, the liquor moratoriums can be a useful tool. They screen out questionable business' like a 4am bar/package goods type dive. On the other hand a community supported, unique micro brew pub proposal can be allowed with maybe an amended ordinance change for incidental use.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by george

LouisVanDerWright, the liquor moratoriums can be a useful tool. They screen out questionable business' like a 4am bar/package goods type dive. On the other hand a community supported, unique micro brew pub proposal can be allowed with maybe an amended ordinance change for incidental use.

Does the city even give out 4AM Licenses anymore? I thought there was only a handful of bars in the city that still hold those licenses? Also, the Aldermen are already very strict about who gets a liquor license. If you haven't donated sufficiently don't even bother going to meet with them, but even if you have, they are still very stingy about it.

Even so, I don't really think that we should be limiting licenses as tightly as we do right now anyhow. I don't really see a 4AM license and a nuisance unless the place is being operated poorly in which case we have the deleterious impact process to deal with those establishments. Then again, the deleterious impact process is also being completely short circuited by a few particularly adventurous alderman like Proco Joe Moron (Sic) who think they should start expanding their prerogative to adjacent wards:

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140...-campaign-cash

If you don't like having functioning businesses in close proximity, then get the hell out of the city. I live here specifically for access to all manner of services at all hours of the day. Some bum drinking out of a brown bag at 2 AM in a parking lot really is not a big deal and isn't doing anything to bother the neighbors. It's funny that there is that huge gentrification debate going on about Spike Lee's comments, yet no one has pointed out that the worst gentrifies are the politicians who squash any business who doesn't donate to them or who they feel is unsavory. Just look at Moreno who is actively going about changing the business fabric of his ward by putting decent small businesses down and considering raising moratoriums so that hipsters can set up businesses in previously off-limits areas.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Does the city even give out 4AM Licenses anymore? I thought there was only a handful of bars in the city that still hold those licenses?

Handful? No, more like 50-100. The process to get them has nothing to do with the willingness of the city to give them out or not. it's basically up to the neighbors. A bar has to get a certain number of signatures of residents around it, or something like that, to get the license. Basically to show that the neighbors are aware something late night is going to be there and they're in support of it. That's the last I remember of the process at least. So the best places to get them are in big high rise areas or areas where not many people live. That way you don't have that much push back. There's a new lounge/bar that opened in River North 2-3 weeks ago that's a 4am/5am bar and also one in Streeterville a few months before that. Almost all the clubs are open this late still and there's a number of bars in other areas too.

Here's a pretty good guide to these, though it's not complete (I know of at least 3-5 late night places not listed on here):
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20131...itys-4-am-bars

[i_am_hydrogen]

Proposed Belmont-Clark Tower Now 10 Stories, With More Units, Less Parking
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140...s-less-parking

I'm glad to see the parking was reduced, especially considering how close this will be to the Belmont station.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Proposed Belmont-Clark Tower Now 10 Stories, With More Units, Less Parking
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140...s-less-parking

I'm glad to see the parking was reduced, especially considering how close this will be to the Belmont station.

It's good they've added more units and reduced parking. I've noticed that the design is a little different. For example on the east side of the building, the top units are different and they added another floor to the south side of the building. I still think they could reduce parking though because it's right near the train line. Reduce it by 20 spaces at least and if you're ambitious you could probably reduce it by 40 spaces.

[the urban politician]

^ More units and less parking is...yes...the way to go.

However, I have to say I like the more pronounced flatiron look of the previous design. All in all, though, I'll take the higher density and less parking.

[gallo]

A agree, the 11th floor added visual prominence to the corner. Oh well, it's certainly getting more TOD'y with added units/less parking. Now I'm interested to know what grocery store they have lined up as the anchor.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^
However, I have to say I like the more pronounced flatiron look of the previous design. All in all, though, I'll take the higher density and less parking.

Agreed. It actually looks a lot shorter because of it.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I wasn't aware of the history of the site. Nevertheless, my comment had to do with the form. If developers deem parking to be a necessary component, it should be put on the roof or underground. I know this isn't possible for far-flung or economically devastated neighborhoods, but it should be a requirement for the rest.

Smith paid $3.2 million for 6 contiguous lots.
On the history of the project...
It was occupied by the Miller Lumber Co.. It was zoned B3-2. This would allow it to be developed with an up to 46000 sq ft building containing businesses and, as many as, 21 dwelling units.
Smithfield acquired an interest in the property and requested a zoning change to B3-5 in order to build an 80000 sq ft building with 54 DU.
A compromise was reached of B3-3 for a 63000 sq ft building with 39 DU. Concessions to the community included widening of narrow alleys off of Honore, parking & loading from the alley and contributions to the the LaSalle school.
They received their zoning change in Jan of last year. It was a Type 1 application which restricts approval to a specific building proposal.
They applied for a building permit in May of last year. It has been denied by Architecture & Fire, Landscape and Fire Prevention revues.
In January of this year they applied for another permit for the TJ proposal.
Because it is substantially different from the original mixed use project, they must go through the rezoning process to retain their B3-3 zoning.
The new proposal would be compliant with the underlying B3-2 only if all parking spaces were restricted to the employees and customers of the commercial occupancies. If any spaces are available to the non-customers or leased to Valet services, the entire parking structure becomes non-accessory and would count towards their floor area. In this case, they would need the -3 zoning to be legal.
Also, the new proposal is missing the widening of the alleys, the parking & loading have been moved to Honore and, I have no idea what the status of the LaSalle contributions have been.

While I agree that rooftop/underground parking is preferred, the idea that a one story occupancy should devote 2x lot area to parking does not seem to be a sustainable urban solution.