HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #47841  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 9:44 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Just the idea that there are potentially hundreds of people out there who would voluntarily spend their time and presumably money watching others play video games is frankly disorienting and makes me want to go for a long walk outside right now.
Here here.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47842  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 9:51 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Just the idea that there are potentially hundreds of people out there who would voluntarily spend their time and presumably money watching others play video games is frankly disorienting and makes me want to go for a long walk outside right now. That stated, agree - definitely welcome the addition and more Koo, please.
No doubt it's weird but certainly has a wide audience. Amazon bought Twitch for close to a billion dollars and it's just people playing video games while others watch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47843  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 9:59 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
welp get used to buildings like LaLuce coming down along 18th street and grey boxes with black window trim getting slapped up because its clear thats all this city knows how to do anymore short of enforceable protections

'urban renewal" back en vogue, now for even stupider and self defeating reasons than the first time!

Oh - I don't doubt it.

Obviously not privy to all of the backroom (or even public for that matter) negotiating re Pilsen Landmark District but what were the efforts to compromise, provide offsetting benefits, ease permitting process/costs, community outreach/buy-in, etc etc - especially since it did not take a professional political tea leaf reader to realize that this Landmark legislation was DOA at least back in the spring/summer if not earlier?
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47844  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 10:30 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Even before landmarking, people were rehabbing existing structures in Pilsen.

Yours truly did it twice (one of which was actually a nice, historic building).

People will still rehab these properties, even without landmarking
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47845  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 11:25 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Even before landmarking, people were rehabbing existing structures in Pilsen.

Yours truly did it twice (one of which was actually a nice, historic building).

People will still rehab these properties, even without landmarking
i mean of course. the point is other significant buildings will be lost, because if it becomes profitable to do so (as we've seen all over the west loop) it will happen without protections in place. the biggest thing i think is Pilsen still has a very cohesive sense sense of place. the untouchables was able to film period shots there without changing a single thing. and you could still do the same there today. once you start punching out teeth along 18th or the side streets (most of which are smaller workers cottages) will immediately open the floodgates to tear downs. its already happening and its only going to accelerate.

if a stunning impeccably maintained victorian cant survive the west loop (complete with fully rentable units in a desireable location, and restaurant/bar location already built into the base) in 2020, i dont have a lot of hope for Pilsens historic housing stock over the next 15 years. the layouts in many of those buildings are already challenging and a lot are going to decide its just easier and more profitable to start from scratch

the only reason those smaller Fulton Market warehouses are still standing is because of...landmark protections. this would have ensured pilsen was protected in a similar way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47846  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 11:45 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,352
This is such a weird surreal debate. It's a proxy for gentrification but the stakes are paltry. The provisions of a landmark district are not that burdensome. There's really not a significant downside for the community for the landmark district. And win or lose, the displacement and gentrification of Pilsen will continue - just in existing buildings instead of new ones.

The city is not legally allowed to do anything (like rent control) that might seriously address displacement in Pilsen. The community has become outraged demanding action from the city that it cannot take without changes to the law in Springfield. Things the city CAN do, like the ARO, only produce affordable housing if you allow large new developments. Sigcho has not allowed any such developments. A demolition moratorium stops teardowns but not rehabs. A moratorium on building permits entirely will be struck down in a court.

Sigcho has even forced nonprofit developers like The Resurrection Project to downsize new buildings (100% affordable) because neighbors complained about height and parking. Doesn't sound like someone who is serious about the housing crisis, but maybe that's me.



Hopefully a reduced form of the landmark district might pass, focused just on 18th and Blue Island without surrounding residential blocks. If the community sees a district that mainly affects commercial property owners, it may be less controversial. And then there's the issue of St Adalbert, for which landmarking is rightly supported by the community.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; Dec 1, 2020 at 11:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47847  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 11:53 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
the only logical argument i MIGHT understand is that having a landmarked building defacto means it cant be torn down and therefore if its more valuable as a teardown then you wont get maximum value. and im sure some homeowners feel that way and they dont care about the inevitablility at this point and just want to retire somewhere warm and sunny so hurry it up already. so if thats your perspective ok sure, at least youre honest about your intentions.

but i agree that listening to the arguments about gentrification (hasnt that ship long ago sailed?), then i cant quite understand how making it easier rather than harder for developers to annihilate the neighborhood with luxury boxes fixes that
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47848  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 12:06 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro View Post
yes the permit was issued yesterday:

3154495
100898589
PERMIT - WRECKING/DEMOLITION
DEMOLITION PERMIT
11/30/2020
11/30/2020
0
1399 W LAKE ST
WRECK AND REMOVE A 4 STORY MASONRY MIXED USE BUILDING
Yeah this is out of left field. Marquette owns the building now, but it's just a single city lot. They could put up a little condo building there, but that doesn't seem any more profitable than just rehabbing the existing... and you'd need to sell condos with terrible train noise.

My guess is that Marquette is just landbanking this and they're either gonna go after the auto shop next door, or they're gonna wait out the billboard lease at Lake/Ogden and combine with that site as the original La Luce owner intended (i.e. the dog park is temporary). They are clearly laser-focused on this corner of West Loop after building one and now two more highrises within spitting distance of each other, so it would not surprise me if they're playing a long game trying to tee up tower #4.

These sites all fall within the TOD radius of the Ashland/Lake station, so in some ways this is confirmation of the success of TOD...
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47849  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 2:49 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro View Post
Sad day. Demo permit was issued for the building that formerly housed LaLuce at 1399 W Lake. Really a shame this couldn’t be saved.
Sad sad day. Ugh. Our city just got a bit less interesting. A shame.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47850  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 3:15 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
These sites all fall within the TOD radius of the Ashland/Lake station, so in some ways this is confirmation of the success of TOD...
TOD, you mean an existing mixed use building with no on-site parking and several rentable units?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47851  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 3:44 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ Exactly, plus maintaining existing building stock is the best way to preserve affordable housing.

All of those 120 year old buildings have awkward, substandard apartment layouts by modern standards. People will pay less rent for them than in a brand new building which will almost certainly charge much higher $$/sf just to recoup the cost of construction.

This is why I always chuckle at local leaders paying lip service to "affordable housing" when most of them are amateur nitwits who just don't have a damn clue what they are talking about.

We are are about to demolish affordable housing right here, and nobody fought to save it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47852  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 3:58 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
My guess is that Marquette is just landbanking this and they're either gonna go after the auto shop next door, or they're gonna wait out the billboard lease at Lake/Ogden and combine with that site as the original La Luce owner intended (i.e. the dog park is temporary).
Based on this morning's Block Club article, it looks like Marquette already sold the La Luce building to Anthony Giannini, who also owns the Midwest Performance Cars building. The tax records still show Marquette as the owner of La Luce, those must be out of date. Looks like Mr. Giannini has already assembled a developable site and is now wiping it clean. Damn.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47853  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 4:09 PM
RedCorsair87 RedCorsair87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 519
Chicago Yimby is doing a 31 Day Countdown to 2021 with the tallest buildings under construction in 2021. It's worth a look.

Here is today's: 330 N Green aka "Big Sexy"

https://chicagoyimby.com/2020/12/20-...elopments.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47854  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 4:25 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Exactly, plus maintaining existing building stock is the best way to preserve affordable housing.

All of those 120 year old buildings have awkward, substandard apartment layouts by modern standards. People will pay less rent for them than in a brand new building which will almost certainly charge much higher $$/sf just to recoup the cost of construction.

This is why I always chuckle at local leaders paying lip service to "affordable housing" when most of them are amateur nitwits who just don't have a damn clue what they are talking about.

We are are about to demolish affordable housing right here, and nobody fought to save it.
Very good points, the alderman love to build "affordable housing" that costs $600k for a one-bedroom unit to construct.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47855  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 5:39 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Based on this morning's Block Club article, it looks like Marquette already sold the La Luce building to Anthony Giannini, who also owns the Midwest Performance Cars building. The tax records still show Marquette as the owner of La Luce, those must be out of date. Looks like Mr. Giannini has already assembled a developable site and is now wiping it clean. Damn.
I hear Bottom Lounge is staying put, so that's a plus.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47856  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 10:29 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
The provisions of a landmark district are not that burdensome.
While that's true, it does introduce a new layer of bureaucracy onto a community that for 50 years mostly hasn't bothered to pull any permits for a lot of the work done there.

I think there's a generational split that makes this a really muddled message from "the community." "No landmark district" is coming from the old couples who bought those two-flats for $5000 back in 1974 and now wouldn't mind selling to a hipster developer for enough money to buy 200 hectares in Michoacán, or enough to comfortably retire near the grandkids in Dallas. They certainly don't want to apply for permits and get architectural drawings to replace the gutters or back porch.

Then there's the young radicals, nursing complaints about student loans and lack of middle-class jobs and worried that gentrification will not only force them out of affordable housing but seriously change the character of Pilsen.

Neither group really understand what's legal under Illinois law and what's possible given Chicago politics. And the way public discussions have had to happen during a pandemic, and in two languages, with people who sometimes want to be invisible to the legal system, has made it no easier. Add in a firebrand greenhorn alderman and a clueless planning commissioner washing his hands of the whole affair and you get the holy mess we saw yesterday, which accomplished absolutely nothing toward saving any aspect of Pilsen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47857  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 11:13 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,352
^ Don't need to tell me, I've lived in Pilsen for almost ten years now.

I don't think there's an increased risk of code enforcement, though. If the oldtimers can get away without pulling permits for a new roof or porch now, they can continue to get away with it after the landmark district. The city isn't gonna perform more roving inspections.

More common, though, is for a contractor to get a quick repair/replace permit approved same day (the contractor often exceeds the scope of work that is allowed for such permits). I don't think that Easy Permit process is available to properties in a landmark district - everything needs to have a plan review by Landmarks staff at the very least.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47858  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 11:30 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
While that's true, it does introduce a new layer of bureaucracy onto a community that for 50 years mostly hasn't bothered to pull any permits for a lot of the work done there.

I think there's a generational split that makes this a really muddled message from "the community." "No landmark district" is coming from the old couples who bought those two-flats for $5000 back in 1974 and now wouldn't mind selling to a hipster developer for enough money to buy 200 hectares in Michoacán, or enough to comfortably retire near the grandkids in Dallas. They certainly don't want to apply for permits and get architectural drawings to replace the gutters or back porch.

Then there's the young radicals, nursing complaints about student loans and lack of middle-class jobs and worried that gentrification will not only force them out of affordable housing but seriously change the character of Pilsen.

Neither group really understand what's legal under Illinois law and what's possible given Chicago politics. And the way public discussions have had to happen during a pandemic, and in two languages, with people who sometimes want to be invisible to the legal system, has made it no easier. Add in a firebrand greenhorn alderman and a clueless planning commissioner washing his hands of the whole affair and you get the holy mess we saw yesterday, which accomplished absolutely nothing toward saving any aspect of Pilsen.

Definitely needed to meet the community where they are in terms of understanding and addressing their situation, concerns, fears, motivations, etc.....which is why I was very curious as to what the actual on-the-ground community outreach/education/discussion really looked like for this 'effort' to pass the landmark district. I'm sure the pandemic made all of that much more challenging - perhaps particularly in a still heavily immigrant based neighborhood. Perhaps this particular version of the district would have been doomed at any rate do to the specific mix of dynamics here.....but that did the Planning Department actually do to try to get it passed? I haven't been following his work closely thus far, but perhaps a.....clue in your "clueless planning commissioner"? Just bad leadership here/lack of direction on this initiative? I mean, it's definitely as much of a political and communication project as anything else, and perhaps those skills/effort/competence just wasn't there??
__________________
It's simple, really - try not to design or build trash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47859  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2020, 1:39 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Yeah, I'm a little concerned that Cox is the outsider who was going to sweep into town and turn things around in terms of equity and investment. It's unexpectedly turned out to be a tough time to try to do that.

Not sure how strong the Landmarks Division will continue to be. Deputy Commissioner Eleanor Gorski's last day was Monday (she's going to UIC). I don't know what role Cox sees for preservation. Is it just an "old white person" thang that's not important in trying to set up a New World Order? I was annoyed that Cox's new DPD hires were done primarily on the basis of skin color—even to the point of readvertising the positions when the first group of applicants weren't the right color. And then yesterday he just threw the longtime Landmarks staff under the bus, suggesting that he was just putting on the table a district he didn't believe in for council to do whatever they like with.

As far as permits, Landmarks does take pride in doing most applications in landmark districts as Easy Permits. But the horror stories of having to hire expediters had already circulated in the community.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47860  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2020, 3:11 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
1399 W. Lake (La Lucé building) is still standing. Demo permit revoked; a new 90-day demo hold in place.

Petition, for whatever that's worth.
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 2:35 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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