CHICAGO | General Developments

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jc5680

Shame to see them disappear. Cost to bring them up to the City's more recent structural code is proving costly though. Our building just took ours down a couple months ago. It was almost 20k to remove it. It was going to upwards of 60k to bring up to code though.

That’s what I’m saying, if I can build a wood deck for $15k on the high end and still make a nice profit, building a (faux) wooden water tower shouldn’t cost 4x as much. The only difference is the elevation - getting materials up there and taking proper safety precautions.

[Jibba]

I wonder what they're building the cement platform for...

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by Jibba

I wonder what they're building the cement platform for...

They need a nice solid surface for the big press conference announcing this location as the selected site for Amazon's HQ2, duh!

[marothisu]

^ LOL! I wish. They're just trying to contain some radioactive section of the field

[ChickeNES]

Originally Posted by marothisu

^ LOL! I wish. They're just trying to contain some radioactive section of the field

Wait really? Any idea why that section is radioactive? I know that Lindsay Light was responsible for the thorium in Streeterville, curious who was responsible here

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ChickeNES

Wait really? Any idea why that section is radioactive? I know that Lindsay Light was responsible for the thorium in Streeterville, curious who was responsible here

LOL didn't think anybody would take my comment seriously...

[ChickeNES]

Originally Posted by marothisu

LOL didn't think anybody would take my comment seriously...

[wchicity]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

They need a nice solid surface for the big press conference announcing this location as the selected site for Amazon's HQ2, duh!

Has Related released any type of full site plan, other than the couple of renderings that have been floating around?

[Fvn]

Groundbreaking soon? IIRC no actual groundbreaking yet just the project announcement

[ardecila]

I have to imagine the pad is for some kind of structure. Maybe a sales center, or some kind of container market like the one Related is doing on Randolph this summer? (No idea how folks would actually get there...)

Based on the hiring of Hollwich Kushner, 3XN and Adrian Smith Gordon Gill, it’s possible we could be looking at the footing for some kind of big installation that will generate hype.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by UpThere

This isn't a function of of fashion. Its a function of the well optimized economics of the day. Unless its a vanity project by a govt or a super high end tower, its built to a profit algorithm.

So that's it? Aside a few instances, quality architecture/design/materials are dead and we should be ok with that?

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by wchicity

Has Related released any type of full site plan, other than the couple of renderings that have been floating around?

No, and only a few weeks ago I was told (by a source who'd know) that Related was still working out what they wanted to do, but had been forced by CDOT to specify intersection locations for the Wells-Wentworth construction that will happen this year. Surveyors' stakes are out on the site for that, and I think also for the Metra track relocation.

I was very surprised to see the slab being poured yesterday morning, though it's only a few inches thick, just sitting on a bed of gravel, and didn't seem to have much if any rebar. So that makes me think it's very temporary, and Related folks have talked about "meanwhile" uses for big parts of the site during buildout. Temporary/lightweight construction would make sense for some kind of container market/food truck thing—though I think that's loony from a retail and marketing standpoint.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by UpThere

Well, see if you can convince the money men to pay a little more for some style. Its not like there was not ton of boring crap buildings built in the past. We just tear most of those down and save the gems.

I'm sure people were complaining about how similar all the bungalows were when built. Now they are protected/landmarked.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I was very surprised to see the slab being poured yesterday morning, though it's only a few inches thick, just sitting on a bed of gravel, and didn't seem to have much if any rebar. So that makes me think it's very temporary, and Related folks have talked about "meanwhile" uses for big parts of the site during buildout. Temporary/lightweight construction would make sense for some kind of container market/food truck thing—though I think that's loony from a retail and marketing standpoint.

I've often wondered if there isn't a more economic way to use these large vacant plots of land until construction starts. I know City Farm Chicago has a model based on farming. I wonder if something else (like a mobile solar farm) would work. What are the hang ups?

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

I'm sure people were complaining about how similar all the bungalows were when built. Now they are protected/landmarked.

What makes you think bungalows are landmarked in Chicago?

My complaint isn't new construction looks the same, my complaint is the majority of buildings going up today are ugly and built with cheap materials. Those bungalows are built like tanks, and look fantastic.

I see it all of the time, buildings that are less than 10 years old already showing significant wear on the front facade, rust streaks, and water intrusion; on top of all of that, they are ugly.

I renovate about 5 or 6 Greystones/Italianate's a year, and the quality of construction and general beauty is second to none in the city, imo. I've seriously seen other developers tear down ~75-100 Greystones/Italianates over the past 8 or so years, and replace them with absolute crap...

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

I've often wondered if there isn't a more economic way to use these large vacant plots of land until construction starts. I know City Farm Chicago has a model based on farming. I wonder if something else (like a mobile solar farm) would work. What are the hang ups?

Someone would have to pay for such gimmicky exhibits.

If we need to grow more produce in our climate, there's plenty of rich farmland in DeKalb or Kankakee County, where you wouldn't have to truck in the soil and brush off the dust coating the plants with heavy metals.

If Northern Illinois were a good place for a solar array, there's plenty of marginal farmland near Dresden or some existing ComEd plant. No need to run expensive transmission lines to an urban site where they'll only be used for 10 years.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

What makes you think bungalows are landmarked in Chicago?

Chicago has 12 Bungalow Historic Districts on the National Register of Historic Places. You are correct that this is not a landmark designation.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Someone would have to pay for such gimmicky exhibits.

If we need to grow more produce in our climate, there's plenty of rich farmland in DeKalb or Kankakee County, where you wouldn't have to truck in the soil and brush off the dust coating the plants with heavy metals.

If Northern Illinois were a good place for a solar array, there's plenty of marginal farmland near Dresden or some existing ComEd plant. No need to run expensive transmission lines to an urban site where they'll only be used for 10 years.

Well City Farms does exist in the city, so that point doesn't really fly. The broader point is we have large plots of land that sit undeveloped for years. Take the land on Franklin and Washington, it has been empty for years and will likely stay that way for a few more years.

I am wondering if there are any opportunities in using that land more economically while the owner waits for the market in order to build. My example, mobile solar farms, could be easily moved to vacant land. Sell the generated electricity back to the grid and the land owner would get a cut (just as wind farms are financed). I doubt the economics of that example work, but I was trying to think of something more viable than food truck/container market in a plot of land with no road access.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by UpThere

That's just business. Renos on old, non conforming, asbestos laden properties is expensive. Tearing it down and building a wood framed 3 unit condo that sells for 500k each, and 750k for the top floor, isnt.

Do you want some regulation?

Absolutely I want regulations. Chicago preservation sucks. I wouldn't mind the shitty new construction, if it was only replacing surface lots and other nondescript buildings that's one thing, but when a large number of our historic building stock is demoed then I have a problem. I understand the business aspect of it (I'm in that business) but I'd also like Chicago to save it's historic building stock and see great new buildings.

[Mr Downtown]

Today some kind of lightweight metal framework is being erected on the slab at Related's Riverside Park site. That makes me think it might be merely a film set, like those little houses they put at Harrison & Wells a few years back for Divergent. Imagine the fire or explosion, with passing Metra trains and the skyline in the background, that Chicago Fire could have as a blockbuster season finale.