CHICAGO | General Developments

[BVictor1]

Sign Up: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/regi...ampaign=buffer

[Toasty Joe]

jesus christ how many meetings do they need to throw some grass down and plant a few trees

[lakeshoredrive]

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

jesus christ how many meetings do they need to throw some grass down and plant a few trees

It's ridiculous at this point

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

jesus christ how many meetings do they need to throw some grass down and plant a few trees

im helping to get an abandoned city-owned lot cleaned up with a community garden. even with aldermanic support, we are now on year 4 of "planning"....

[WestTowner]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

im helping to get an abandoned city-owned lot cleaned up with a community garden. even with aldermanic support, we are now on year 4 of "planning"....

we are only 8.5 years out from the Fulton Metra stop being complete! (Let's not talk about the Damen Green line stop)

[Steely Dan]

new midrise in lincoln square announced:

Mixed-use development proposed at 4640 N. Western
The plan will deliver a 6-story building with 73 units
APRIL 04, 2023, 7:00AMLUKAS KUGLER


A mixed-use development has been proposed at 4640 N. Western. Currently occupied by three existing buildings, the site spans from the CTA Western Brown Line tracks down to W. Eastwood Ave. Proposed by Macon Construction Group, the four-story building will be retained and incorporated into the new construction.

Designed by Hirsch MPG, the proposed rental building would stand six stories tall, measuring 100 feet tall. With 73 units in the building, the unit mix will consist of 8 studios renting at $1,500/month, 26 one-beds renting at $1,700/month, and 39 two-beds renting at $2,700/month. 11 of the units will be set aside as affordable, including one studio and 10 two-beds. While 20% of the units are usually required to be affordable, the number of affordable units can be reduced if the development includes a larger share of bigger units.

Planned as a mixed-use building, the building will hold 4,650 square feet of retail space at the corner of W. Eastwood Ave and N. Western Ave, with two live/work units at the base of the reused building alongside the L. The residential lobby will be accessed from W. Eastwood Ave, with 10 car parking spaces and 73 bike parking spaces off of the alley.


rendering:




buildings it would replace:

source: https://chicago.urbanize.city/post/m...4640-n-western


together with the 51 new units in the affordable housing midrise due to start soon on the block north, that would total 124 new housing units right next to the western brown line stop.

[Randomguy34]

The reoccurring midrise trend of good density but bad design

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

The reoccurring midrise trend of good density but bad design

The majority of the Hirsch neighborhood infill buildings end up satisfactory to me. This one has a nice fenestration pattern that opens up to the corner. My one gripe is the faux stone at the base along Western. I wish the facade materials were consistent all the way down to the earth to make a firm visual connection between the building and the ground. The chunky fake stone bases are forbidding and particularly smack of falseness. I’m continually frustrated that it’s such a persistent and prevalent infill building detail.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

The reoccurring midrise trend of good density but bad design

Lol yeah, I wish we could get a Haussmann-type template design for mid-rises, but something uniquely Chicago and contemporary to our time.

CAC is running a design contest with a similar idea (https://www.architecture.org/exhibit...nfill-housing/), but I think the building typologies are a bit smaller than what I'm thinking of, which is more of a 6-10 story building for main commercial corridors in the neighborhoods.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by ithakas

Lol yeah, I wish we could get a Haussmann-type template design for mid-rises, but something uniquely Chicago and contemporary to our time.

CAC is running a design contest with a similar idea (https://www.architecture.org/exhibit...nfill-housing/), but I think the building typologies are a bit smaller than what I'm thinking of, which is more of a 6-10 story building for main commercial corridors in the neighborhoods.

Brininstool & Lynch, BKL, and Studio Dwell are making some of the best of this type, I think. And the Hanna building going up at Western & Armitage looks really great for locally designed infill -- so far it looks like a nicely honed cube with some great, subtle texture from the brick patterning (and there's no interruption between the building and the street -- no faux stone fortress wall!). I like a good portion of the wholly modern Hanna work, actually.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Brininstool & Lynch, BKL, and Studio Dwell are making some of the best of this type, I think. And the Hanna building going up at Western & Armitage looks really great for locally designed infill -- so far it looks like a nicely honed cube with some great, subtle texture from the brick patterning (and there's no interruption between the building and the street -- no faux stone fortress wall!). I like a good portion of the wholly modern Hanna work, actually.

the building at Armitage and Western couldn't be more cheap, but the density is good

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

the building at Armitage and Western couldn't be more cheap, but the density is good

If it’s cheap, then it’s cheap done well, to me. The massing is simple and taut, the fenestration is in good proportion to the volume, and the materials are used deliberately and intentionally. It’s miles ahead of the likes of this https://maps.app.goo.gl/ubsEZ2yAj1XsXrVSA?g_st=ic, for example.

[SamInTheLoop]

Feel like I took some crazy pills today. WTAF is this nonsense:


https://chicagoyimby.com/2023/03/new...outh-loop.html

[Randomguy34]

^ like I said:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

The reoccurring midrise trend of good density but bad design

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Wasn't even talking about the design. That's another story.

This is a preposterously low-density use of this parcel. Is this even a mid-rise?
Why isn't this bare minimum a 250-300 unit development? Could they not get entitled (by amendment) for something more appropriate here, or did they not even try?

[gebs]

F. The feds are moving forward with the demolition of the Consumers and Century buildings.

Link [Crain's]

[gebs]

Oh wait, kneejerk reaction there. They're just demo'ing the part that unites them. My mistake for hastily reading a headline, posting here, and then actually reading the article.

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

This is a preposterously low-density use of this parcel. Is this even a mid-rise?
Why isn't this bare minimum a 250-300 unit development? Could they not get entitled (by amendment) for something more appropriate here, or did they not even try?

It's cause it's in the same PD subarea as NEMA. All the allowed density is concentrated on Phase 1 and the future Phase 2, so the remaining allowed units were place in the midrise.

The midrise is technically "high-density", even though it's only 100 units. For an average household size of ~2, the midrise by itself will have a density of ~100k ppsm. So this plot of land, despite being 100 units, is denser than much of Manhattan.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Thus my question if they sought an amendment to the PD.

It's not high density for its location. If you take virtually any mid/high-rise resi building in Chicago (perhaps you might have an exception for an ultra luxury, extra large unit, smaller unit count boutiquey bulding), you would be able to say that the parcel has a density that is greater than the island of Manhattan. It's fairly meaningless as a statement. The point is, is this an appropriate density and building scale for this specific location? Answer is a clear no.

That being stated, I don't know the backstory and if they entered into conversation about an amendment and were rebuffed by alderman (perhaps surrounding condo unit owners were vocally coming out against - or if there is a complication regarding other ownership entities within subarea/pd) or just decided it wasn't worth the time and expense given the return they're targeting (wonder what puchase price of parcel was here) and think is achievable for this project.

Regardless, it's a waste.

[moorhosj1]

Irving-Milwaukee-Cicero

Re-development of the old Sears:


New construction for older folks, not quite "assisted living":