HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #37861  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 6:50 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ Whats really sad is that if this were LA, the Bay Area, Massachusetts, NY, or countless other regions it would be a no brainer to develop these sites. But in Chicago we have this screwed up tradition of completely disregarding one side of the city. We are so lopsided that its obscene, just outright ridiculous. Look at that land--if it were on the north side people would be clamoring to buy property there. Where else will you be able to get such prime lakefront real estate?

I wish these developers well, but something has to change in the mentality of this region, perhaps they will pull it off? I'm not betting on it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37862  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 6:51 PM
SteelMonkey SteelMonkey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKDickman View Post
Assuming an average unit mix that would be 52,000 additional people. In an area with virtually no supporting businesses
Even weighting it to 1br units it would still be at least 30,000.
The urban politician is right, this has pipe dream written all over it.
The kind've pipe dream akin to a reality TV personality becoming leader of the free world?

Maybe it happens maybe it doesnt but after 25 years of sitting vacant whats the downside for the city?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37863  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 6:55 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ There is no downside, you're right. It's already vacant.

If you want a new meaning for the term "Second City" it should be the south side. Chicago has a veritable second city just waiting to be built. We could easily add 1 million people to the tax rolls if more people were willing to move there.

The one hope I do have is this Barcelona company. They and perhaps their financing partners may not come to the table with the same biases that an American company would. Maybe they will try something new, take some risks? Build some affordable housing en masse, could perhaps attract buyers?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37864  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 7:57 PM
Mr Roboto Mr Roboto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chi 60616
Posts: 3,577
Well, ahem, as Daniel Burnham once said "...", ugh, er, I forget what he said actually. Nevermind, probably not applicable in this city in this day and age anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37865  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 8:59 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
hey, its their money, if they and their investors are willing to take a leap of faith and the taxpayers are not on the hook in any way, i say go for it.

would still love to see the numbers theyre working with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37866  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 9:09 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 2,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Whats really sad is that if this were LA, the Bay Area, Massachusetts, NY, or countless other regions it would be a no brainer to develop these sites. But in Chicago we have this screwed up tradition of completely disregarding one side of the city. We are so lopsided that its obscene, just outright ridiculous. Look at that land--if it were on the north side people would be clamoring to buy property there. Where else will you be able to get such prime lakefront real estate?

I wish these developers well, but something has to change in the mentality of this region, perhaps they will pull it off? I'm not betting on it.
People want amenities, plain and simple. Especially if its to buy a home where an entire lifetime's worth of savings goes on the down payment. Living in the city means being able to walk to the grocery store, having restaurants and a vibrant night life a stone throw's away, etc. The lake is definitely a draw, but if you have to drive out of the neighborhood for all of life's necessities and luxuries, no one is going to be breaking down doors to sign on the dotted line.

I think the developers can get residents down here, but its going to be slow. They will attract people who want to be near the lake for cheap in the first phase, and as a resident population is established, retail will follow, which may then attract more residents. It's going to take years, but I could see it getting done, especially if lakefront amenities like a marina, parks and beaches are established. The nearby Metra Electric stop definitely helps.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37867  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 9:26 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
well its going to take billions and billions of dollars to actually execute this vision as currently laid out, not sure how else they conceivably plan on making their money back
The Barcelona company is based on a new, partially manufactured housing construction methodology. It cuts costs considerably, and dramatically reduces timelines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
i dont understand this at all.

who are these theoretical 20,000 additional people clamoring to live off 85th street at presumably luxury prices? is everyone just getting drunk off the Obama library?

didnt they originally propose 12k housing units? hell, since we're going through the trouble might as well just double it!
There's no hard number on the sales price of the land, but the high estimate was $80 million. With 20,000 units, that's only $4,000 per unit. In a lot of smaller developments around the city the land-cost per unit is closer to $40,000, so if it really is $80 million and $4,000 per unit, that's a big cost savings right there. For a development in the U.K., Barcelona Housing Systems is part of a venture reportedly budgeted at £1.1 billion for 8,000 homes. If that's accurate reporting, that's $187,500 per home at today's exchange rate. Even at exchange rates closer to pre-Brexit numbers that's about $200,000 per home, which a developer could add a profit to and it could still be considered affordable. I would think that construction costs in the U.K. and in the U.S. can't be that far apart, so hopefully that's a reasonable comparison. Adding to the affordability of the technique is that the homes are designed to be highly energy efficient, making them less expensive to live in.

In the press release it also mentions different a £2.5 billion, 25,000 unit plan in the U.K., which yields an average per-unit cost of under $150,000. They seem to know what they're doing. Guarded optimism is what I have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ There is no downside, you're right. It's already vacant.

If you want a new meaning for the term "Second City" it should be the south side. Chicago has a veritable second city just waiting to be built. We could easily add 1 million people to the tax rolls if more people were willing to move there.

The one hope I do have is this Barcelona company. They and perhaps their financing partners may not come to the table with the same biases that an American company would. Maybe they will try something new, take some risks? Build some affordable housing en masse, could perhaps attract buyers?
I like everything I read about the Barcelona company. Previous reports also indicated that they are planning to build some of their manufacturing capacity for the homes here in Chicago, presumably on or near the US Steel site. If they do that and it creates enough jobs, this could fall into the "if you build it, they will come" category. Especially if they start doing more of these types of developments and can keep the Chicago part of the manufacturing going long-term.
__________________
[SIZE="1"]I like travel and photography - check out my [URL="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericmathiasen/"]Flickr page[/URL].
CURRENT GEAR: Nikon Z6, Nikon Z 14-30mm f4 S, Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S, Nikon 50mm f1.4G
STOLEN GEAR: (during riots of 5/30/2020) Nikon D750, Nikon 14-24mm F2.8G, Nikon 85mm f1.8G, Nikon 50mm f1.4D
[/SIZE]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37868  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 9:39 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
i do like the idea that the area would potentially be integrated with the factory that builds it in the first place, and could serve as almost a model village for what they can do. assuming this actually gets off the ground though, i think it remains to be seen how high the quality of the design will be. the renderings look nice, but at the same time id be more afraid this is more akin to what we'd wind up with

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37869  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2017, 11:55 PM
LaSalle.St.Station's Avatar
LaSalle.St.Station LaSalle.St.Station is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 335
US Steel should have donated the land to the city to continue adding on to Chicago's lake front park system. Maybe the National Park system can take over once this sits for another 10 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37870  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 12:27 AM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,877
Kind of funny related to this site, but I have a friend on facebook who posted an article calling this development "massive gentrification." I have to wonder, what are they gentrifying? It's literally a 400+ acre piece of land with nothing currently occupying it at all. Apparently everything counts as "gentrification."

The area north of there in South Shore along the lake is not bad though. If you wanted a cheap place near the lake in a high rise and didn't care about the surrounding area having a bunch of restaurants and whatever...and no city trains near (though Metra is near), then it's actually not terrible.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37871  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 12:50 AM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Kind of funny related to this site, but I have a friend on facebook who posted an article calling this development "massive gentrification." I have to wonder, what are they gentrifying? It's literally a 400+ acre piece of land with nothing currently occupying it at all. Apparently everything counts as "gentrification."

The area north of there in South Shore along the lake is not bad though. If you wanted a cheap place near the lake in a high rise and didn't care about the surrounding area having a bunch of restaurants and whatever...and no city trains near (though Metra is near), then it's actually not terrible.
south shore is great, i like it a lot. wouldnt mind living there at all. feels like a south side version of Edgewater essentially
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37872  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 2:17 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Hyde Park is the real draw for that area. And that neighborhood is only getting better with the new high rises, hotels, and added retail
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37873  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 2:51 AM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Whats really sad is that if this were LA, the Bay Area, Massachusetts, NY, or countless other regions it would be a no brainer to develop these sites. But in Chicago we have this screwed up tradition of completely disregarding one side of the city. We are so lopsided that its obscene, just outright ridiculous. ....
Endless cheap and accessible land, no restrictions on unfettered sprawl and generally slow growth helped enable this degree of disinvestment. Unfortunate, but not unheard of in similar situations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37874  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 2:51 AM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,989
Apple on the river

July 14
Location







July 31
Location




__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37875  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 3:41 AM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by VKChaz View Post
Endless cheap and accessible land, no restrictions on unfettered sprawl and generally slow growth helped enable this degree of disinvestment. Unfortunate, but not unheard of in similar situations.
mix in a century of institutional (as well as personal) racism as well
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37876  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 3:54 AM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,136
How are they going to keep birds from shitting all over the top of that Applestore. I've already seen seagulls and pigeons chilling up there in the evenings the last couple weeks. Seems like it'll be a nightmare to keep clean. In fact even in one of those pictures it looks like you can see bird crap all over the roof!
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37877  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 3:55 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station View Post
US Steel should have donated the land to the city to continue adding on to Chicago's lake front park system.
Thanks to Friends of the Parks, a 400-foot strip along the lake edge are already under the control of the Park District.

Unfortunately, because the land is made from slag, it can't easily be dredged for lagoons or plantings needing deep roots. And because it's a 10-foot drop into 40-foot-deep water, it won't easily be turned into bathing beaches, either. Maybe that's where Tiger Woods should put his new golf course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37878  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 4:19 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,440
^^^ Thanks for FOTP? Or do you mean "thanks to the fact that there is no way in hell the city would approve any new use for this land without reasonable lakefront park/access concessions"?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37879  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 6:51 AM
Mister Uptempo's Avatar
Mister Uptempo Mister Uptempo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
i do like the idea that the area would potentially be integrated with the factory that builds it in the first place, and could serve as almost a model village for what they can do. assuming this actually gets off the ground though, i think it remains to be seen how high the quality of the design will be. the renderings look nice, but at the same time id be more afraid this is more akin to what we'd wind up with

A time-lapse video of the construction of that building can be found here. It wouldn't embed in the post.

I'm curious as to the foundation system used on these buildings. It consists of a series of 6 - 7 foot micropiles(?) that are driven into the ground. A steel grid frame is fastened onto the micropiles and that serves as the foundation.

Has this been done in Chicago before?


img src - barcelonahousingsystems.com

One of the micropiles - looks like an overgrown deck screw...


The back side of the building, showing the frame that the building rests upon...

img src - facebook.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37880  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2017, 12:24 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
^^^ Thanks for FOTP? Or do you mean "thanks to the fact that there is no way in hell the city would approve any new use for this land without reasonable lakefront park/access concessions"?
Thanks to FotP, it's 400 feet rather than 250 (IIRC), and owned by the Park District for a decade now rather than a vague promise to maybe do something in the future—like we got in the North Branch plan.
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 4:07 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.