CHICAGO | General Discussions

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

I think with so many people working from home for months it will have a lasting impact that will cause office demand to stay down for a long, long time - even after all restrictions are lifted. Hopefully a lot of these buildings pivot and convert to residential or hotel.

In Chicago, office and residential growth are related. The massive growth in office workers in the central business district over the past decade was driving demand for residential space. While Chicago's population as a whole was stagnant or even fell slightly, the population of the Loop, the West Loop, South Loop, West Town, River North, etc. was exploding. These were some fo the fastest growing neighborhoods in the entire country. If the pipeline feeding demand for new office space runs dry, you can bet that the demand for downtown residential space - condos and apartments - is going to dry up as well. And it's not like you can easily flip an office building into a residential use. That requires a lot of hoops and major modifications to the infrastructure of the building itself.

The important thing to keep in mind is that no one knows anything. No one knows how this will or will not affect demand for office space in 2, 5, or 10 years. This could all be a temporary thing that lasts another 6 or 18 months and then life returns to normal when treatments and hopefully a vaccine becomes widely available. Or it could permanently alter the way we live and work. Open office concepts will die and people will demand apartments with a home office or den so they can work from home 2 or 3 days a weeks. Or maybe something else happens. I don't know. And I don't think anyone that claims to know really does (or is trying to sell you something). We want to know, but we'll just have to wait and see.

[Skyguy_7]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^..snip..
As soon as the pandemic seems to be under control, we need a local leadership that will vigorously defend the local economy. We will need to make the case for Chicago. Why it’s so valuable. Why the core is still the place to work and thrive. I’m not sure if that mentality is there with some of the people in charge.
..snip..

That mentality is not there. For the first time in this nation's history, it's become not PC to defend basic economics, with regard to the response to the "pandemic".

[skysoar]

I think once there is a vaccine you will see a whole different dynamic of commercial activity and continued development in downtown Chicago. Cities like N.Y and Chicago need worldwide activity..travel and commerce related to thrive because they are global cities. These two dynamics feed conventions, office expansions, hotel developments, and huge tourism related entities like museums and Navy Pier, Millenium Park,and the Riverwalk etc..At this stage things are beginning to slowly perk up business wise but with so many variations of pandemic success and regress both nationwide and worldwide,people are just beginning to put their foot in the water and not diving in head first if i can use that analogy.

[uaarkson]

Originally Posted by sentinel

https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/com...ease_in_covid/



Hoping this holds, but looks like Illinois did it right *fingers-crossed*

America really is two different countries.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It could be worse than that. As soon as people realize that companies can be effective with a mostly at-home workforce, you may see people working remotely from places far away. I’m talking low cost locales not just outside of Chicago, but even out of State.

As soon as the pandemic seems to be under control, we need a local leadership that will vigorously defend the local economy. We will need to make the case for Chicago. Why it’s so valuable. Why the core is still the place to work and thrive. I’m not sure if that mentality is there with some of the people in charge.

But seeing any substantial highrise development for a long time—the whole reason most of us even gravitated to this forum—depends on it.

Yawn, I remember when they said this in the 1990s when my Dad worked at IBM and was one of the first wave of workers to go work from home. I remember going downtown Milwaukee to the 411 Building when IBM was emptying out floors of office space that he used to work in and stacking the furniture in the loading dock for the employees to pick over and take home. We crammed the minivan full of steelcase office furniture and he headed home never to work from the office again to this day.

Everyone said the era of downtown office was over.

Then I remember again after 9/11 when everyone said "the skyscraper is dead, businesses will never want to locate in tall buildings again!" Which seemed logical enough until the subsequent cycle unleashed the biggest skyscraper boom since the post war period.

Then I remember 2008 and working at a commercial brokerage where everyone said "Millenials can never afford inner city real estate, they will all move to the suburbs when they buy their first home"

Then it was "the Millenials will all move to the suburbs when they get married"

Then it was "they will all move when they have kids"

It still hasn't happened yet, yes more Millenials live in the suburbs now than 2008, but less of them remain in the city than any generation since the era of white flight.

Then I remember the conversations with office brokers about how "open concept will kill demand for office space" in the 2010's.

Then 5 700'+ office towers got built along the river...

Originally Posted by uaarkson

America really is two different countries.

Yeah the country of the Midwest plus some great lakes states and Mississippi, but not New Hampshire. The other America of course being the West Coast and Rockies and the South, except Mississippi, that's part od the north...


I know you are not from here, but this is not really split along classic political lines.

[Bonsai Tree]

^^ I hate to be that guy but that's Vermont not New Hampshire.

[ardecila]

We are patting ourselves on the back but California had an earlier exposure (probably the first clusters in the US) and took the same measures that Illinois did. We may just be hitting the trough between peaks.

Arizona, though.... I was just there for my dad's wedding and it's pretty clear that culturally they have just decided to accept the deaths rather than change their lifestyle.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by ardecila

We are patting ourselves on the back but California had an earlier exposure (probably the first clusters in the US) and took the same measures that Illinois did. We may just be hitting the trough between peaks.

Arizona, though.... I was just there for my dad's wedding and it's pretty clear that culturally they have just decided to accept the deaths rather than change their lifestyle.

California did not have universal masking until recently, and I think there are still big regional variations within California. Depending on how proactive people/workplaces are, I'm hopeful we can avoid a second wave.

I've heard that, for example, UChicago hospital has had zero cases of transmission between patients/staff after universal masking was initiated. I don't know if this can be confirmed or not, but at the very least, it sounds like universal masking has a big mitigating effect on transmission (as expected!).

UChicago is slowly starting to reopen (25% capacity, all work that can be done remotely should still be done remotely) but with very strict masking policies and limits to the number of people in a lab, depending on square footage (the research group I work in has a big enough lab for 2 people at a time). If two people are to spend time close to each other (e.g. lifting something that requires two people), then face shields will also be required. If one has any symptoms whatsoever, they won't be allowed to go to campus (and... we're supposed to report it if we see anyone with any symptoms!). We'll see how it goes... I'll probably start going in once a week or so.

I hope other workplaces are taking this as seriously. On the other hand, some people in my building still don't wear masks in the elevator (and the management seems to not be willing to require that).

[Chi-Sky21]

Good luck filling major buildings if it is 4 people to an elevator tops......

[the urban politician]

Tribune editorial board:

Stop the terror, Mayor Lightfoot

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chi...tputType%3Damp

[Handro]

Originally Posted by RedCorsair87

Hopefully dead. Chicago can do so much better.

I'm not so sure Chicago can. We like to hang onto this romanticized version of Daniel Burnhams boomtown Chicago, but that was 100+ years ago. The fact is the city is bleeding residents and those who remain are culturally conservative and elect leaders who reflect that. Chicago is the capital of Midwestern NIMBYism. Basic, 21st century urban planning/development theories are eschewed for more parking and more lanes and more "open space" (i.e. keeping density down).

Would Chicago in 1900 have trouble building a few miles of BRT on Ashland? Would builders with money to burn get push back against building a massive tower at a spot like 400 LSD? Would a giant hole in the ground at a major neighborhood intersection like Milwaukee/Irving collect stagnant water for years rather than build a measly 5 story residential building and a grocery store?

Meanwhile cities all over the country are developing billion dollar heavy transit or game changing skyscrapers. I'm getting pretty fed up with the atmosphere of stagnation/decline that hangs over Chicago. Some leaders are going to need to get bold to save this city from falling further from it's former glory as the nation's second city.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Handro

I'm not so sure Chicago can. We like to hang onto this romanticized version of Daniel Burnhams boomtown Chicago, but that was 100+ years ago. The fact is the city is bleeding residents and those who remain are culturally conservative and elect leaders who reflect that. Chicago is the capital of Midwestern NIMBYism. Basic, 21st century urban planning/development theories are eschewed for more parking and more lanes and more "open space" (i.e. keeping density down).

Would Chicago in 1900 have trouble building a few miles of BRT on Ashland? Would builders with money to burn get push back against building a massive tower at a spot like 400 LSD? Would a giant hole in the ground at a major neighborhood intersection like Milwaukee/Irving collect stagnant water for years rather than build a measly 5 story residential building and a grocery store?

Meanwhile cities all over the country are developing billion dollar heavy transit or game changing skyscrapers. I'm getting pretty fed up with the atmosphere of stagnation/decline that hangs over Chicago. Some leaders are going to need to get bold to save this city from falling further from it's former glory as the nation's second city.

Pretty bad take actually. Chicago is not anywhere near declining. It is losing a small amount of population, but it's economy when adjusted for population is doing quite well. Job growth until COVID was strong. You really think there are a lot of US cities building amazing architecture everywhere? Most US cities look pretty bland compared to Chicago. Most transit systems are a joke in the US. CTA is better than 99% of US city transit systems.

[ardecila]

^ Most US cities face this problem, not just Chicago. We over-corrected from the urban renewal era by giving every community an insane veto power over everything. San Francisco wanted to do BRT on Van Ness, similar to Ashland, and it was held up for over a decade by politics. You should see the fights they have in SF over a tiny 8-unit apartment building, or something.

If anything, I think Chicago is pretty laissez-faire when it comes to development, which has kept our city relatively affordable compared to the coasts. Neighborhoods allow missing middle, 3-flats and 6-flats as-of-right. Even in downtown areas like West Loop or South Loop, pretty much everything gets approved with minimal changes. We're not Houston, but we also don't have the same parking requirements so we can actually build dense infill. We also have the resource of vast land available for development - empty land from the urban renewal era, empty land in dis-invested neighborhoods, and under-utilized land left after the city de-industrialized. So from a development standpoint I think we're in a pretty good place relative to other cities.

Expanding transit is an issue - thank goodness we have such a big legacy system that is serving our system well, but I think the biggest problem is just the extreme cost of construction. Our city AND state are in miserable financial shape, so we can't afford anything in the way of transit or infrastructure without calling in some serious favors in Springfield or DC and having someone else pick up the tab. I don't think Rahm folded on Ashland BRT because of community opposition, I think (secretly) he folded on it because he realized the city couldn't afford it, and he didn't want to use up the limited bargaining chips in DC for that particular project.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Handro

. Chicago is the capital of Midwestern NIMBYism.

I honestly have no idea what universe you're living in cause it clearly ain't the one the rest of us are living in.

During this current building boom, Chicago will have built 6 new towers over 800', with a possible 7th hinging upon how 1000M plays out.

To put that into perspective:

1. That's more towers over 800' than Chicago has ever built in a single building boom in the city's entire history.

2. No US city (other than Chicago and new york) even has more than four 800+ footers to begin with!!!


But yes, let's all lament the death of Chicago's ability to build big. Soon, even Des Moines and Decatur will have bigger skylines.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Tribune editorial board:

Stop the terror, Mayor Lightfoot

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chi...tputType%3Damp

This piece is complete bullshit, Chicago will NEVER address its violent crime problem without first addressing the ineffectiveness of the Chicago Police Department, a department with abysmal clearance rates across the board. Police officers on the street WILL NOT reduce violence, they never have. There is a fundamental misconception that the presences of police reduce violence. Police don't reduce violence, they respond to it and the Chicago Police Department has a failing track record. What incentives do violent offenders have to stop committing crimes when 70% of the time they will not be caught? The editorial board says well "it'll take generations to heal...but we don't have time" and many well-meaning people will attribute the Chicago Police Department failing to "no snitching". The members of the communities most affected by violence DO NOT trust the Chicago Police Department to keep them safe when they report a crime. Additionally, these communities have been over-policed and often abused by the Chicago Police Department. It's a vicious cycle that begins and ends with the Chicago Police Department. It is the responsibility of the government leaders to establish trust in these communities not the other way around.

The writers of this article do not give a fuck about the folks being killed, this article is just doing the bidding of the police union. What this article is advocating for is the status quo. It is advocating continuing to waste taxpayers' money on a dysfunctional and ineffective police department instead of making the necessary reforms needed to make the City safer. This approach has not led to a reduction in violence in the past why would anyone expect it would now? If the Chicago Police Department needs more staff its detectives not officers.

[the urban politician]

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

The real issue behind the violence and poverty is single parent households.

Before the Civil Rights Act, only 24% of Black children were living with single parents.

Now, the rate is 75%.

The current system disincentivizes marriage by giving single parents larger welfare benefits. Instead, larger benefits should be given to those who have two parent households.

Fathers impact children more than any government program.

That's total B.S. It's just not that simple. Single parent households is a symptom of multiple other systemic issues. To lay the blame on just one frickin issue is so typical. Grow up!

[ardecila]

Maybe blame the system that denies Black men the jobs and opportunity to support a family financially, rather than the government programs that throw Black single mothers a crucial lifeline.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

This piece is complete bullshit, Chicago will NEVER address its violent crime problem without first addressing the ineffectiveness of the Chicago Police Department, a department with abysmal clearance rates across the board. Police officers on the street WILL NOT reduce violence, they never have. There is a fundamental misconception that the presences of police reduce violence. Police don't reduce violence, they respond to it and the Chicago Police Department has a failing track record. What incentives do violent offenders have to stop committing crimes when 70% of the time they will not be caught? The editorial board says well "it'll take generations to heal...but we don't have time" and many well-meaning people will attribute the Chicago Police Department failing to "no snitching". The members of the communities most affected by violence DO NOT trust the Chicago Police Department to keep them safe when they report a crime. Additionally, these communities have been over-policed and often abused by the Chicago Police Department. It's a vicious cycle that begins and ends with the Chicago Police Department. It is the responsibility of the government leaders to establish trust in these communities not the other way around.

The writers of this article do not give a fuck about the folks being killed, this article is just doing the bidding of the police union. What this article is advocating for is the status quo. It is advocating continuing to waste taxpayers' money on a dysfunctional and ineffective police department instead of making the necessary reforms needed to make the City safer. This approach has not led to a reduction in violence in the past why would anyone expect it would now? If the Chicago Police Department needs more staff its detectives not officers.

If indeed the "Blue Flu" is related to the spike in violence (I don't know... gang warfare has complicated dynamics obviously... maybe they switched from selling drugs to fireworks), then all it shows is that the CPD doesn't give a shit about public safety.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

If indeed the "Blue Flu" is related to the spike in violence (I don't know... gang warfare has complicated dynamics obviously... maybe they switched from selling drugs to fireworks), then all it shows is that the CPD doesn't give a shit about public safety.

You're right CPD doesn't give a shit about public safety.