HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #43201  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 4:49 PM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
my question is, what is the difference between this


why is one deserving of being land-marked for "contributing" to the Fulton landmark district, and the other dosent (even while the second of which literally serves as the focal eastern entry point)? sorry, but that strikes me as a fail. these buildings equally express the same historic warehouse style, in the same exact district, and preserving that continuity is the exact purpose of the district in the first place.
First, don't put a lot of stock in the term "contributing", It doesn't refer to architectural excellence. It applies only to districts and basically means, built during the period of significance and not altered beyond all recognition. Had the Fulton and Halsted property been included in the district, it would have been contributing as well.

Second, the Randolph property is in the middle of the district, Fulton and Halsted at the fringe.
The borders of a landmark district get a lot of scrutiny. You can't landmark every old building and a district has to stop somewhere. I'm sure arguments were made for its inclusion, but that it was a peninsular extension at an outside corner, surrounded on three sides by new construction probably trumped them.

Finally, the borders of a landmark district are not about placemaking, they are about a defensible grouping of historic stock. The fact that the gateway to the Fulton Market Innovation District would be placed around the historic district didn't enter into the equation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43202  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 4:57 PM
Suburban Shadow's Avatar
Suburban Shadow Suburban Shadow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Da 'Burbs - Chicago
Posts: 42
Just so everyone knows.

These 2 buildings that Thor is going to tear down were in the preliminary Fulton-Market Historic District dated April 2014.

https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten...Prelim_Sum.pdf

But, money and politics talk.

The 2 building were not in the final report from May 2015.

https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten...ion_Report.pdf
__________________
Girder & Panel Construction Set - Circa 1975

Last edited by Suburban Shadow; Oct 10, 2018 at 4:58 PM. Reason: Added Links
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43203  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 4:58 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburban Shadow View Post
Just so everyone knows.

These 2 buildings that Thor is going to tear down were in the preliminary Fulton-Market Historic District dated April 2014.

https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten...Prelim_Sum.pdf

But, money and politics talk.

The 2 building were not in the final report from May 2015.

https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten...ion_Report.pdf
i rest my case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43204  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 5:06 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,560
I'd say any ordinance that put Prentice on the chopping block is pretty hollow and subject to the whims of influence.
__________________
Donate to take back the Senate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43205  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 5:17 PM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
I'd say any ordinance that put Prentice on the chopping block is pretty hollow and subject to the whims of influence.
I've been rewatching the Starz series "BOSS," and there's an episode where the owner of a local paper (cast similarly to the Tribune) agrees to a relatively favorable editorial in exchange for "his landmarked tower" being re-evaluated so that he can make alterations to it ...

I was really disappointed when that show was cancelled after two seasons with a number of loose ends still in play.
__________________
I like travel and photography - check out my Flickr page.
My current active camera gear: Nikon D750, Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 zoom, Nikon 85mm f1.8G, Nikon 50mm f1.4D, Nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6, Nikkor 135mm f3.5 manual focus, Nikkor 55mm f3.5 manual focus, Nikon PB-4 Bellows. Collectible gear: Nikon F4s, Nikon D1, Nikon N4004s (my very first SLR)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43206  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 5:22 PM
Notyrview's Avatar
Notyrview Notyrview is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
I've been rewatching the Starz series "BOSS," and there's an episode where the owner of a local paper (cast similarly to the Tribune) agrees to a relatively favorable editorial in exchange for "his landmarked tower" being re-evaluated so that he can make alterations to it ...

I was really disappointed when that show was cancelled after two seasons with a number of loose ends still in play.
I know and totally underrated. My boyfriend, who really knew nothing about Chicago but had a vague idea that its politics were pretty iconic, was totally fascinated by it. I don't know how it couldn't find an audience.
__________________
Donate to take back the Senate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43207  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 5:36 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ While of course you make an interesting argument here, in the end I don't think that Thor's demolition of the existing buildings and replacement with a 20 story office tower is diminishing any of the neighbors' property values. Quite to the contrary, in fact
That's a very NIMBY understanding of economics. No, massive upzoning does NOT raise property values in the long run. There is a finite amount of demand for space, the more supply you add, the lower prices go. So actually Sterling Bay, who owns sites not already occupied by large, dense, historic brick stock, is going to lose land value if Thor is gifted more density. There is no such thing as induced demand, that phenomenon is an illusion created by the fact that A. economies expand in cycles punctuated by recessions and B. the fact that cities arise out of economies of agglomeration.

You yourself just observed A to be true when you mentioned a downturn is near. B accounts for that fact that yes, some areas will always be growing faster for other reasons like proximity to transportation or natural features or commerce. The West Loop is not expensive because they are building skyscrapers, they are building skyscrapers because the land under them has become increasingly sought after and more expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
i rest my case.
You shouldn't even have to rest your case, this is obvious to any observer who spends even a casual amount of time following construction or urban planning in Chicago. Money talks and historic buildings get razed...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
I'd say any ordinance that put Prentice on the chopping block is pretty hollow and subject to the whims of influence.
Exactly, I was actually the last person in line to speak at that second sham hearing where they reversed the earlier landmark recommendation. Everyone there called NW and the city out on what they were doing, it was obvious, but they just didn't care, the die was already cast. They were parading around pictures of minor spawling on the exterior and had an engineer by like "as you can see the building is collapsing and will have to be fixed". I called them out specifically on that, it's routine maintainence like you see ongoing on literally dozens of buildings around the city at any given point at time. It was a litany of deceitful bullshit fed through this bizarre kabuki theater of "city government".



THIS is how you treat historic stock:







----



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43208  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 5:45 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 15,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
That's a very NIMBY understanding of economics. No, massive upzoning does NOT raise property values in the long run. There is a finite amount of demand for space, the more supply you add, the lower prices go. So actually Sterling Bay, who owns sites not already occupied by large, dense, historic brick stock, is going to lose land value if Thor is gifted more density. There is no such thing as induced demand, that phenomenon is an illusion created by the fact that A. economies expand in cycles punctuated by recessions and B. the fact that cities arise out of economies of agglomeration.

You yourself just observed A to be true when you mentioned a downturn is near. B accounts for that fact that yes, some areas will always be growing faster for other reasons like proximity to transportation or natural features or commerce. The West Loop is not expensive because they are building skyscrapers, they are building skyscrapers because the land under them has become increasingly sought after and more expensive.
^ I don't think it's that simple. A neighborhood's development is a complex system that few people can predict. Demolishing that building stock may also improve the value of the existing, preserved building stock, especially the ones that are landmarked.

Replacing low slung buildings with a 20 story tower full of a thousand office workers will for sure raise property values around it. If we put all aesthetic concerns aside, lets pretend that this block was full of shitty cinderblock suburban style crap of relatively similar density. Would you be upset about a loss of property values if a 20 story building were proposed to replace the same?

The sheer volume of workers are going to add even more foot traffic to patronize nearby businesses, and I can't imagine a scenario where developments like this LOWER surrounding property values. The only way that can happen, perhaps, is if you demo, upzone, and the lot remains fallow for 20 years.

And how is my perspective NIMBY? I'm the one who supports the higher density zoning. Many of you are the ones who oppose it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43209  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 8:04 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,534
^^^ But again, there is a finite demand for office space. There is a finite demand for retail space. There is no such thing as "build it and they will come". If Thor gets this built instead of Spectre or Gr333n or a similar development, then yes, the value of other office properties drops. Sure, more office in an area means more retail in an area, but that's not to say that you are increasing land values. The value already increased which is why they are building office buildings, it doesn't go the other way around. So all things equal in this corner of the city, yes demolishing historic stock reduces the land values around it.

This isn't the same for cinderblock crap like Harpo or H20. Those buildings did not have intrinsic value beyond their use as industrial or semi industrial sites. Historic brick buildings next to downtown are what made the West Loop increase in value, not the fact that people built happy brick bullshit 6 flats nearby. Every historic warehouse you remove reduces that effect. There is no shortage of other sites for office, so there is no downside to preservation in the area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43210  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 8:37 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spaceship Earth
Posts: 5,287
edit
__________________
You slip me the cash and I'll slip you the wiener. <><><><><><>IMPEACHMENT NOW!

For me it can be reduced to this: For every personal freedom we gained from the automobile, we lost in social cohesion.

Last edited by Busy Bee; Oct 10, 2018 at 9:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43211  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 8:43 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
I think one could make the argument that those pressed steel replacement doors are a travesty. Compare to originals. This is what passes for historic preservation?
Really? I'm sure, this is not a Federal Historic Tax Credit deal with National Park Service involvement. Doors are easy to replace if you need a fancy new wood door. Maybe you can chip in?

This is a rental I'm sure. That building was saved and looks beautiful compared to what it was. Thanks to LVDW.

I live in a 100+ year old home. We did some extensive rehab and looked at replacing an exterior door with a replica. The price was $10K FOR A DOOR. We didn't do it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43212  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 9:20 PM
ChickeNES's Avatar
ChickeNES ChickeNES is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
my question is, what is the difference between this



and this



why is one deserving of being land-marked for "contributing" to the Fulton landmark district, and the other dosent (even while the second of which literally serves as the focal eastern entry point)? sorry, but that strikes me as a fail. these buildings equally express the same historic warehouse style, in the same exact district, and preserving that continuity is the exact purpose of the district in the first place.
Why not compromise? The western face is nice, as is the facade of the building to the east. Do a facadectomy, construct a clone of the west facade to replace the fairly blank and drab existing wall, and then build the office tower on top.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43213  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 11:38 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
I've been rewatching the Starz series "BOSS," and there's an episode where the owner of a local paper (cast similarly to the Tribune) agrees to a relatively favorable editorial in exchange for "his landmarked tower" being re-evaluated so that he can make alterations to it ...

I was really disappointed when that show was cancelled after two seasons with a number of loose ends still in play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notyrview View Post
I know and totally underrated. My boyfriend, who really knew nothing about Chicago but had a vague idea that its politics were pretty iconic, was totally fascinated by it. I don't know how it couldn't find an audience.
No one was more disappointed than me... not only was it an awesome series, but they used my home for filming of one of the main characters home... they filmed for a few days for the first season and came back for a few more for the second season... and get this, they paid me 12,000 a day! plus other incidentals, like putting us up in the Four Seasons if we wanted, etc...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43214  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 2:15 AM
BonoboZill4's Avatar
BonoboZill4 BonoboZill4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: PingPong
Posts: 385
What are people's thoughts on a facadectomy for the buildings(plus a face lift) and reintegration into the new building. Sort of like what they did with the Legacy, one building in Toronto I can't remember the name of, and that blue high rise on top of the old stock building in the loop at I think Lasalle and Madison?

Also, that Rascal Flats picture... how did frosted tips every become a thing?
__________________
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43215  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 3:00 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos View Post
Really? I'm sure, this is not a Federal Historic Tax Credit deal with National Park Service involvement. Doors are easy to replace if you need a fancy new wood door. Maybe you can chip in?

This is a rental I'm sure. That building was saved and looks beautiful compared to what it was. Thanks to LVDW.

I live in a 100+ year old home. We did some extensive rehab and looked at replacing an exterior door with a replica. The price was $10K FOR A DOOR. We didn't do it.
Yeah, the old doors were literally see-through on that one. I mean you could literally see the light through them, they were basically cheesecloth. I saved the doors on the building to the left myself, personally scrapped 130 years of paint off of them. The steel doors were used because I didn't have an extra two grand in the budget to get new wood replicas built. I spent that money restoring the two art-glass windows next door which cost me $4800. I did spend $1500 on a sold wood 8'x 36" three inch thick solid wood door on my other building down the block though.

Here's the glass before and after:





----







The before pictures are difficult to see, but both of these windows were budging outwards as the lead failed and the smaller one was literally falling apart because the fire had gotten hot enough to melt the lead. We literally just put plywood on both sides of the frame to form something of a box and took it to the restoration shop in pieces. Both were totally rebuilt and we only had to replace 6 pieces of glass out of a total of over 100. Sorry if my preservation isn't good enough for y'all...




PS I also salvaged as much of the original trim 3 piece Victorian trim as possible and used up almost all the scrap wood we got from demolition doing things like making salvage wood shelves or even ripping down old 1x6 underlayment into baseboard. We bought almost no trim for this entire project because we reused or salvaged all of it. My goal on these projects is 100% efficiency of waste, anything that is usable I use. I even sell the old 2x4's or other scrap wood I don't have a use for to people for restaurant build outs. If you've ever been to Paulie Gee's in Logan Square, about 80% of the salvaged wood used for the table, chairs, bar, benches, walls, etc. came from one of my buildings. Even the lathe is sometimes reused like at Paulie Gee's where the contractor used it to create a cool "weave" style wainscoating in the bathrooms. Pretty much the only thing that comes out of my buildings that doesn't get "preserved" in some capacity is the random garbage and horsehair plaster.

Edit: Here's the doors I did save in their 95% complete state. I saved the door jamb, the transom, the brick mould around the windows, I even had custom unibody window assemblies made with the exact dimensions of the original Chicago style wood windows (fixed center pane with a double hung on each side). This building was stripped of the old dental moulding and brackets which I am going to be recreating over this winter at a friend's woodshop. So next spring those pressed metal doors will literally be the only thing on the front of these two buildings that isn't original or an exact replica of an original. Busy Bee can call me when he has paid for the restoration of even one piece of art glass like those.

Last edited by LouisVanDerWright; Oct 11, 2018 at 3:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43216  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 4:39 AM
Khantilever Khantilever is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
That's a very NIMBY understanding of economics. No, massive upzoning does NOT raise property values in the long run. There is a finite amount of demand for space, the more supply you add, the lower prices go. So actually Sterling Bay, who owns sites not already occupied by large, dense, historic brick stock, is going to lose land value if Thor is gifted more density. There is no such thing as induced demand, that phenomenon is an illusion created by the fact that A. economies expand in cycles punctuated by recessions and B. the fact that cities arise out of economies of agglomeration.

Quote:
The sheer volume of workers are going to add even more foot traffic to patronize nearby businesses, and I can't imagine a scenario where developments like this LOWER surrounding property values. The only way that can happen, perhaps, is if you demo, upzone, and the lot remains fallow for 20 years.

You guys are literally debating my research agenda, so I'm really enjoying your discussion. I don't have a clear opinion one way or another on whether we can expect nearby property values to increase or decrease based on this upzoning--we don't yet have a good idea of the effects at such a local level, but this is a gap I'm hoping to personally fill. Just my two cents on why I don't think it's obvious, and why both you and TUP are right in some sense:

There are two, basic effects of an infusion of floor space: 1) the first-order price effect of increased supply, reducing land and floor prices; and 2) the second-order effect of increased demand for floor space, and thus land, as a result of those agglomeration externalities you mentioned (i.e., a thousand more workers demanding housing and retail, and then other workers also being induced to come to the neighborhood).

The first effect decreases land and floor prices, while the second increases them. Which effect dominates? Generally, the first is much larger, so I'd generally agree with you there. But the second effect is much more concentrated than the latter; some good estimates of the productivity externality say that the spillovers from a given increase in worker density decay at such a rapid rate with distance that they are effectively zero past a 9-minute travel radius (i.e., the neighborhood). Meanwhile, the [first] price effect is likely much more diffuse, especially in the West Loop since firms in need of large amounts of office space are looking over a relatively large area.

So I wouldn't be surprised if this upzoning increases property values locally and reduces them at a larger scale, but it's impossible to make a strong conclusion about the net effect at such a small scale in such an idiosyncratic case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43217  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 4:44 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,534
^^^ Interesting, what are you researching for? Are you in grad school or something? Econ PHD candidate?

See I think the localized effects of more businesses or the growth or "hot" areas are illusions that create the appearance of induced demand when really, if you could graph a 10 year moving average over a census tract sized area, you wouldn't see an effect beyond what would occur from demographic and economic growth trends alone. In other words, yes the West Loop looks hot right now and as if property values are being induced to rise, but if you smooth that growth out over multiple economic cycles and back out what is being added by businesses relocating there (i.e. how much would the West Loop have grown if existing businesses like Google and MCD didn't choose to relocate there) there wouldn't be much of a change. You also have to remember than Google relocating from somewhere else made that area slightly less desirable and obviously Oak Brook has lost luster with MCD now moving to West Loop. Those are examples of finite demand simply shifting from one locale to another, it's not as if the West Loop caused MCD to suddenly become a F500 company because people upzoned it. No, they upzoned that site because they realized a F500 company would move there if they did. So the upzoning didn't cause the value to change as much as MCD decided they wanted to move there which caused the value to change and caused a developer to find a site to upzone for them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43218  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 12:16 PM
Skyguy_7's Avatar
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,829
Excellent result on the restorations, LVDW. Quite ballsy of you to choose the area you did. I'm sure the neighborhood is appreciative of your work. Make no little plans!

Last edited by Skyguy_7; Oct 11, 2018 at 5:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43219  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 4:16 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 15,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
You guys are literally debating my research agenda, so I'm really enjoying your discussion. I don't have a clear opinion one way or another on whether we can expect nearby property values to increase or decrease based on this upzoning--we don't yet have a good idea of the effects at such a local level, but this is a gap I'm hoping to personally fill. Just my two cents on why I don't think it's obvious, and why both you and TUP are right in some sense:

There are two, basic effects of an infusion of floor space: 1) the first-order price effect of increased supply, reducing land and floor prices; and 2) the second-order effect of increased demand for floor space, and thus land, as a result of those agglomeration externalities you mentioned (i.e., a thousand more workers demanding housing and retail, and then other workers also being induced to come to the neighborhood).

The first effect decreases land and floor prices, while the second increases them. Which effect dominates? Generally, the first is much larger, so I'd generally agree with you there. But the second effect is much more concentrated than the latter; some good estimates of the productivity externality say that the spillovers from a given increase in worker density decay at such a rapid rate with distance that they are effectively zero past a 9-minute travel radius (i.e., the neighborhood). Meanwhile, the [first] price effect is likely much more diffuse, especially in the West Loop since firms in need of large amounts of office space are looking over a relatively large area.

So I wouldn't be surprised if this upzoning increases property values locally and reduces them at a larger scale, but it's impossible to make a strong conclusion about the net effect at such a small scale in such an idiosyncratic case.
^ I never said that upzoning is the primary reason that the West Loop is seeing higher property values. There are many reasons that the West Loop's property values are increasing.

I am simply saying that, in this particular case, the upzoning with the development to follow will lead to a rise, not to a decline, in nearby property values. Yes, it's competition for Sterling Bay and, well, sucks for them. Perhaps they may not get a project or two off the ground because of this, but so be it. It's not like Sterling Bay isn't pulling the same crap on everyone else with their whole Lincoln Yards proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43220  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 4:38 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
what about my property rights? What about the fact that by defacing the historic nature of our district they are devaluing my properties? What about the fact that I gain value by having beautiful historic properties and part of that value lies in having a whole neighborhood of historic properties?
You're confusing property rights with property values.
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 1:40 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.