HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #48501  
Old Posted May 4, 2021, 6:56 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,605
yeah, despite my modern inclinations, i'll take decently-executed retro over cheap-out modern anytime.

the more photorealistic quality of the rendering for the new design also helps sell it better.






hopefully the design on the left is approved and faithfully executed.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48502  
Old Posted May 4, 2021, 7:48 PM
Ned.B Ned.B is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
yeah exactly. the next door building (basically a big house) was open to the elements and clearly in bad shape, but the main one was well secured and easily could have been an adaptive reuse. in fact, when i saw workers on the site i initially got excited because i thought a reuse would be a no brainer. was gutted to see the back of the budiling being dismantled when i got further down the street. the fact this was marketed as a parking lot opportunity is demoralizing. it was easily one the nicest historic buildings in the immediate vicinity, and they clearly wasted no time between getting the permit and beginning demo work, presumably to get ahead of anyone having a chance to react to it. sadly i dont think it was even orange rated.
Right it was rated green. I know this has been noted before here but it is well past time to reconsider the historic resources survey...if only the city could put the resources toward making it happen. What distinguishes orange and red building beyond their integrity from yellow, yellow-green, green, and purple is that they were determined to have potential significance to the surrounding community (orange) or city or nation, etc (red). Well potential significance is something that is subject to change over time, and there are so many buildings that were rated a lower color in 1995 that could potentially be considered orange if reconsidered today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48503  
Old Posted May 4, 2021, 7:56 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
yeah, despite my modern inclinations, i'll take decently-executed retro over cheap-out modern anytime.

the more photorealistic quality of the rendering for the new design also helps sell it better.


hopefully the design on the left is approved and faithfully executed.
The contemporary design looks to me like it would have had promise -- the variations in the way the bricks are laid is a very pleasant effect to me (see the simple way it's done on these commercial buildings on Granville; it helps to break up the expanse of material). I like the beams at the sill and lintel of the windows, and the simple and clean way it meets the ground looks crisp and unfussy.

The 'contextual' design is OK, I guess. The clock tower, though, looks... silly (to put it charitably). If one is going to incorporate an anachronistic feature like that, I'd prefer something not so artificial.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48504  
Old Posted May 4, 2021, 10:48 PM
woodrow woodrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 939
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgrath618 View Post
Hey all, loving Chicago so far. I have a question:

In Chicago, specifically on the north side, are there laws/regulations/zoning to require developers to use certain materials, namely brick and masonry? I’ve noticed that a lot of the multi-family development being built around places like Belmont are using high quality materials. I’m just used to developers in Philly slapping something together with Aluminum siding and calling it “contemporary.”
Just wait, you will see some of that here as well. Chicago is a masonry town, however. After the 1871 fire codes were changed and eventually implemented. There is no stick construction in the city and where you do find a frame house, it either predates the fire or was built in a "suburb" pre-1889(?) when the city annexed a bunch of townships.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48505  
Old Posted May 5, 2021, 12:53 AM
mcgrath618's Avatar
mcgrath618 mcgrath618 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Clark Park, Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodrow View Post
Just wait, you will see some of that here as well. Chicago is a masonry town, however. After the 1871 fire codes were changed and eventually implemented. There is no stick construction in the city and where you do find a frame house, it either predates the fire or was built in a "suburb" pre-1889(?) when the city annexed a bunch of townships.
Huh, I didn’t realize that it had to do with the fires. Thanks for the answer!
__________________
Philadelphia Transportation Thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=164129
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48506  
Old Posted May 5, 2021, 12:56 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
I do see non-masonry new construction (SFH, townhome) subdivisions getting built in Chicago. Are these somehow able to circumvent those rules?
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48507  
Old Posted May 5, 2021, 2:23 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 r18tdi View Post
This condo development was proposed there before. It was rejected by the alderman after the neighbors complained about it "not fitting in."
The style is a red herring. Compare the two proposals. The alderman rejected a luxury 12-unit condo building on that site and the new proposal is for a 44-unit building. Who cares if we get ho-hum modernism or ho-hum traditionalism, the increased density and reduced parking are the real story here, near major bus and rail lines. And the units in the denser building are likely to be more affordable, at least to middle-class residents, than the 12 uber-luxe condos proposed originally.

This story combined with the similar one a few blocks away at Chicago Joe's really make me appreciate the line Martin is walking here - he is clearly a believer in YIMBY ideas but he's willing to compromise with the NIMBYs on architectural style.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I do see non-masonry new construction (SFH, townhome) subdivisions getting built in Chicago. Are these somehow able to circumvent those rules?
The law used to contain "fire limits" which were a blanket ban on wood frame construction within a given area of the city, before building codes really existed. It was adjusted outward as the city grew, and some neighborhoods gerrymandered themselves out of it. It was a pretty primitive approach to fire prevention that has been replaced with all the complexity of modern building codes. There is still a "fire limits" provision in the code but it's been pruned back to downtown only (inside of Division, Halsted, Roosevelt, LSD). You can see the border pretty clearly by comparing Dearborn Park I north of Roosevelt (all brick) to Dearborn Park II south of Roosevelt (wood framed fake Victorians).

Today wood-frame construction is tightly regulated but certainly allowable in many circumstances for townhome, SFH and even 2/3-flats in some cases.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; May 5, 2021 at 2:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48508  
Old Posted May 5, 2021, 7:01 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
The contemporary design looks to me like it would have had promise -- the variations in the way the bricks are laid is a very pleasant effect to me (see the simple way it's done on these commercial buildings on Granville; it helps to break up the expanse of material). I like the beams at the sill and lintel of the windows, and the simple and clean way it meets the ground looks crisp and unfussy.

The 'contextual' design is OK, I guess. The clock tower, though, looks... silly (to put it charitably). If one is going to incorporate an anachronistic feature like that, I'd prefer something not so artificial.
The modern version has a similar facade down the street at Wolcott and Irving. In reality it came out looking like a medical office building. Not the design language that’s popular with most buyers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48509  
Old Posted May 5, 2021, 10:29 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgrath618 View Post
Hey all, loving Chicago so far.
Glad you're loving Chicago so far! Philly is wonderful and am envious that you all are a proper rowhome city

Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
ADU Pilot is now live:

https://www.chicago.gov/adu
Something I noticed in this pilot is that multi-unit buildings are allowed to increase their unit count by 33%! So someone could have a 100 unit building and add an extra 33 units without needing a zoning change. This might have a major effect on the amount of renovations we see across the pilot zones. This could be a really great way to bring back density on the North and Northwest Side without having to deal with homeowners complaining about traffic
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48510  
Old Posted May 5, 2021, 10:43 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
Something I noticed in this pilot is that multi-unit buildings are allowed to increase their unit count by 33%! So someone could have a 100 unit building and add an extra 33 units without needing a zoning change. This might have a major effect on the amount of renovations we see across the pilot zones. This could be a really great way to bring back density on the North and Northwest Side without having to deal with homeowners complaining about traffic
^ Uhhh..... no.

Unless you can create 33 basement apartments in a 100 unit building, or 33 coach houses in a 100 unit building, nothing even remotely close to that will happen.

This ordinance is meant for smaller single-lot buildings like SFH, 2, 3, 4 flats, etc.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48511  
Old Posted May 5, 2021, 11:27 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Uhhh..... no.

Unless you can create 33 basement apartments in a 100 unit building, or 33 coach houses in a 100 unit building, nothing even remotely close to that will happen.

This ordinance is meant for smaller single-lot buildings like SFH, 2, 3, 4 flats, etc.
The ordinance and website reads that "properties with 5 or more units, coach houses are not permitted, but the property owner can create up to 33 percent more units as conversion units"

Conversion units are defined in Section 17-17-0240.6 as "A dwelling unit that is: (i) either newly constructed or rehabilitated for reuse, and (ii) located within a principal residential buildings that has been in lawful existence for 20 or more years, and (iii) established in accordance with Sections
17-2-0303-C and 17-9-0131."

Sections 17-2-0303-C and 17-9-0131 go on to affirm that any property with +5 units may increase their density by 33% in the case of "repair, remodeling, or alteration of residential buildings that are located in any RS2, RS3, RT or RM zoning districts" Furthermore, they are not subject to restrictions such as minimum lot area per unit, open spaces requirements, or parking minimums, which would otherwise prohibit conversion units. So yes, the example I provided is possible. Obviously there would have to be serious remodeling of a 100 unit building to accommodate an extra 33 units, but it can be done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48512  
Old Posted May 6, 2021, 1:05 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ I never thought of it that way, but realistically I have a hard time seeing a large apartment building doing something like that. It would be ridiculously expensive and you probably won’t even make your building much more profitable, if at all.

This ordinance is meant to benefit owners who want to create living space where it currently doesn’t exist. So a basement, attic, etc. That increases revenue and hence your property’s value.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48513  
Old Posted May 6, 2021, 1:22 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
^ I never thought of it that way, but realistically I have a hard time seeing a large apartment building doing something like that. It would be ridiculously expensive and you probably won’t even make your building much more profitable, if at all.

This ordinance is meant to benefit owners who want to create living space where it currently doesn’t exist. So a basement, attic, etc. That increases revenue and hence your property’s value.
I'm curious to know how one would feasibility add a living unit above an existing garage given the needed water, sewer, and gas line connections... it seems a bit prohibitive but maybe I don't understand. Wouldn't you have to tear up the primary building on the property to make the connections? I guess you could do electric instead of gas but that only solves one of three problems.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48514  
Old Posted May 6, 2021, 3:13 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 west-town-brad View Post
I'm curious to know how one would feasibility add a living unit above an existing garage given the needed water, sewer, and gas line connections... it seems a bit prohibitive but maybe I don't understand. Wouldn't you have to tear up the primary building on the property to make the connections? I guess you could do electric instead of gas but that only solves one of three problems.
You would need to rebuild the garage from the foundation up. Most Chicago garages are shit construction quality anyway. Prefab or panelized construction can bring the costs down a bit, but yes getting water service to the coach house is among the more difficult and expensive challenges you would face.

Any added dwelling units will need a new water service at $20k-25k for the whole property. Expensive, but it does get the lead out (rimshot). The existing sewer tap is likely adequate for an additional unit, assuming it is in good condition (no tree roots, collapsed pipe, etc) and was done correctly to begin with, but there may not be enough slope to drain properly from the rear of the lot so you would need to install an ejector pit in the main building basement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
The ordinance and website reads that "properties with 5 or more units, coach houses are not permitted, but the property owner can create up to 33 percent more units as conversion units"
Very interesting... the only issue I see is that 50% of the new units must be maintained as affordable to 60% AMI. Obviously this would only be a viable redevelopment play under certain very limited circumstances.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48515  
Old Posted May 6, 2021, 3:21 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,352
deleted
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48516  
Old Posted May 6, 2021, 4:14 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
You would need to rebuild the garage from the foundation up. Most Chicago garages are shit construction quality anyway. Prefab or panelized construction can bring the costs down a bit, but yes getting water service to the coach house is among the more difficult and expensive challenges you would face.

Any added dwelling units will need a new water service at $20k-25k for the whole property. Expensive, but it does get the lead out (rimshot). The existing sewer tap is likely adequate for an additional unit, assuming it is in good condition (no tree roots, collapsed pipe, etc) and was done correctly to begin with, but there may not be enough slope to drain properly from the rear of the lot so you would need to install an ejector pit in the main building basement.
new construction SFH might make the most sense to include an ADU so maybe we will see some of those hitting the market
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48517  
Old Posted May 6, 2021, 6:18 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,440
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
yeah exactly. the next door building (basically a big house) was open to the elements and clearly in bad shape, but the main one was well secured and easily could have been an adaptive reuse. in fact, when i saw workers on the site i initially got excited because i thought a reuse would be a no brainer. was gutted to see the back of the budiling being dismantled when i got further down the street. the fact this was marketed as a parking lot opportunity is demoralizing. it was easily one the nicest historic buildings in the immediate vicinity, and they clearly wasted no time between getting the permit and beginning demo work, presumably to get ahead of anyone having a chance to react to it. sadly i dont think it was even orange rated.
This bullshit (along with the whole BLM public conversation, but that's a whole nother story) was the last straw in me deciding to move into North Lawndale. As of this weekend I will officially have an offer in on a large building and some vacant land near the Kedzie Pink Line. Little Village along the Pink Line has run out of the trashed, abandoned buildings that I need to fuel my business model and I've had it with the bullshit racial segregation in Chicago.

Time to anhilate disinvestment in North Lawndale. Ald Scott has done a great job working with Lawndale Christian around Central Park, time for private enterprise to attack all the bullshit vacancy between Central Park, Albany, Douglas Bolevard, and the Metra Tracks.

You all are on notice, I'm officially putting a bounty on the head of any flaming bag of hot garbage bombed out shell you can find me in that area. If anything historic gets torn down in that area for no good reason, it's not on me if y'all don't give me the heads up.
__________________
Real Estate Bubble 2.0 in full effect:

Reddit.com/r/REbubble
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48518  
Old Posted May 6, 2021, 6:22 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
yeah, despite my modern inclinations, i'll take decently-executed retro over cheap-out modern anytime.

the more photorealistic quality of the rendering for the new design also helps sell it better.






hopefully the design on the left is approved and faithfully executed.

Cornice: Check

Multiple Brick Colors: Check

Chunky ass Clocktower holding corner: Check

Real Brick corbeling and insets: Check

Limestone or Caststone storefront base: Check


I don't give a shit if it's ye olde buildinge as long as you are putting forth actual effort. As long as you at least try at the detailing, time will do the rest. Most older buildings don't have perfect massing or details either, but 100 years softens that and gives it character. As long as you put real effort into any style, it will look great in 100 years 99 out 100 times.
__________________
Real Estate Bubble 2.0 in full effect:

Reddit.com/r/REbubble
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48519  
Old Posted May 6, 2021, 7:13 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,260
Well put
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48520  
Old Posted May 6, 2021, 7:46 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
The ubiquitous modern metal or cementitious panel clad buildings don’t age well because the surfaces stain or warp and “oil can” because the thin materials don’t stay pristine in our climate. The better quality cladding is costly and you can definitely tell the difference on more expensive modem designs.

I’ve felt it’s important to design for neglect for decades. Don’t expect landlords or HOA’s to paint metal balconies when they are rusting or clean dirt or grime of the facade. At least a masonry building will stand up to weather and neglect longer and it looks better as it ages
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 2:59 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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