CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 675

the urban politician · #**13481** Posted **Sep 22, 2011, 2:57 AM**

Great news about the proposed Ashland/Division development as well as the redesign of the Weed/Fremont shopping center

lawfin · #**13482** Posted **Sep 22, 2011, 7:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

These images were posted some time ago:

Site C:

******

After visiting the developer's website, I am pleased to report that some positive changes have been made:
1) Only Site A will contain surface parking. The parking for Sites B and C will be located above the buildings.
2) Plans for Site C include a high-rise.

Photos and additional info here:
http://www.crmproperties.com/futureProjects.html

Maybe I am mssing soemthing; but are you guys basing the improvement of the plan on the flash animation because a quick peek at the pdf doesn;t appear to appear much different.

I agree the flash looks much better....I was just biking down clybourn this evening coming from DT around 830 and all I could think off was how shitty that area used to be and how suburban shitty it is now...a lost or more optimistically delayed opportunity for a large scale retail / commercial urban corridor.....the flash is still pretty lifestyle center for my taste but it certainly beats the earlier

OrdoSeclorum · #**13483** Posted **Sep 22, 2011, 3:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

If the parking lots are gone then what is wrong with 3 square blocks of 3 story retail buildings?

Well, the renderings seem to match the standard for North Avenue in that area, which is cheap construction that won't last 40 years and facades that wouldn't look out of place in suburban Houston. I'm happy that the buildings will abut the sidewalk and have a little more intensity of use. It's not ideal.

Buckman821 · #**13484** Posted **Sep 22, 2011, 5:40 PM**

I heard a rumor today that an office building is going to be built above the Gino's east on Wells in River North. I can't really speak for the source so I'm not sure what to make of it. However I did see some surveying going on at the site this afternoon. There is a squat 6 story office building in relatively close proximity to the east on the same block.

Baronvonellis · #**13485** Posted **Sep 22, 2011, 7:14 PM**

How can they have no parking at the Division/ Ashland site? I thought there was a mandatory minimum parking requirement for buildings in Chicago? I'm not for more parking just curious how they can do that. I thought people here have been advocating to let the market decide the amount of parking in buildings, instead of a mandatory minimum.

the urban politician · #**13486** Posted **Sep 22, 2011, 8:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawfin

Maybe I am mssing soemthing; but are you guys basing the improvement of the plan on the flash animation because a quick peek at the pdf doesn;t appear to appear much different.

^ Interesting, the pdf of the Weed St development continues to contain the old, horrific suburbanized site plan.

I'm wondering if they changed the design but haven't changed the description on the pdf? I hope so, the newer layout seems much more palatable

PKDickman · #**13487** Posted **Sep 22, 2011, 9:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

How can they have no parking at the Division/ Ashland site? I thought there was a mandatory minimum parking requirement for buildings in Chicago? I'm not for more parking just curious how they can do that. I thought people here have been advocating to let the market decide the amount of parking in buildings, instead of a mandatory minimum.

Technically, they do have some parking in the plans. Through a longstanding contract with the adjacent parcel (Wendy's), they have to provide a small number of parking spaces and maintain a right of way to the wendy's parcel and they get the use of an additional number of spaces in the wendy's parking lot.

The total number however is much lower than the project would normally require. They are hoping to get the parking reduction (and other considerations) by building the project as a "Planned Development".

They have not finalized any planned development agreement, so right now the project is still pretty fluid.

VivaLFuego · #**13488** Posted **Sep 22, 2011, 10:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

How can they have no parking at the Division/ Ashland site? I thought there was a mandatory minimum parking requirement for buildings in Chicago? I'm not for more parking just curious how they can do that. I thought people here have been advocating to let the market decide the amount of parking in buildings, instead of a mandatory minimum.

The code generally specifies parking minima, but by going the Planned Development route (which I believe is required on any site with greater than 75 continuous feet of street frontage) basically every zoning requirement is up for negotiation and variance.

Rizzo · #**13489** Posted **Sep 22, 2011, 10:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckman821

I heard a rumor today that an office building is going to be built above the Gino's east on Wells in River North. I can't really speak for the source so I'm not sure what to make of it. However I did see some surveying going on at the site this afternoon. There is a squat 6 story office building in relatively close proximity to the east on the same block.

I believe it. There was some recent discussion here about the lease being up on that building and the property being marketed.

george · #**13490** Posted **Sep 23, 2011, 2:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

The code generally specifies parking minima, but by going the Planned Development route (which I believe is required on any site with greater than 75 continuous feet of street frontage) basically every zoning requirement is up for negotiation and variance.

The plan presented at the EVA meeting did show some parking. Roughly 5 spaces directly behind the building, west side. Then another 10 spaces along the west side property line. An alley running down the middle of the parking becomes a drive thru leading to the PNC auto tellers. Also, Wendy's will give the developement 20 spots from there lot. All said the rentals units are banking on tenants without cars. The Blue Line transit hub nearby is the key.

ardecila · #**13491** Posted **Sep 23, 2011, 4:33 PM**

This is a good trend. The site is small enough that including parking would dramatically change the equation. They'd need a parking podium, which would cut the number of units in half without reducing the total cost of the building. That means each unit would need to be a luxury product, which is a tough sell right now.

Eliminating the parking totally turns the math around and allow the site to be developed densely.

Mr Downtown · #**13492** Posted **Sep 24, 2011, 5:58 PM**

I think it's going to be a rare bird. It instantly limits the market to a certain demographic, and I don't think many developers would go out on that limb, and I don't think many neighborhoods will think it's a good idea. Incidentally, I speak as a resident of a 250-unit highrise built (in 1979) with no parking.

ardecila · #**13493** Posted **Sep 24, 2011, 6:58 PM**

I don't necessarily see why it's limiting. Buildings without parking appeal to both the very young and older end of the market, and while that might breed some conflict in itself, the prices of the units should be lower to reflect the lack of parking. That's why 4+1s sprouted like weeds in Rogers Park and Edgewater - developers could build for less money because they didn't need a space for every unit, and buyers accepted the deal because many of them had little use for a parking space in a transit-rich neighborhood.

That intersection sits atop a subway station and it has several pharmacies and a full-service supermarket within a one-block radius. Expanding that radius an additional block, you get several ethnic supermarkets and even more basic necessities. So why do ANY of the buildings in this area need parking? I understand that a large segment of Chicagoans want parking, but there's an equally large area of the city that ISN'T right on top of a transit station.

I'm not boneheaded, either - why enact any rules to discourage development around the south Green Line? If developers want to build parking and they can do it in a reasonably urban manner, that's fine. But at Milwaukee/Ashland?

J_M_Tungsten · #**13494** Posted **Sep 24, 2011, 7:41 PM**

What's going on over at larrabee and Lincoln?

Segun · #**13495** Posted **Sep 24, 2011, 8:05 PM**

The Weed/Fremont center is interesting, but they're going to have to do something about traffic, both pedestrian and automobile. Its bad enough walking those 3 feet wide sidewalks on North, but with this, its going to be horrible. The near North side is an interesting neighborhood, the North/Clybourn area is becoming just like the Beverly Center/Grove in Los Angeles; which is a stark contrast to the NY-like Gold Coast.

J_M_Tungsten · #**13496** Posted **Sep 24, 2011, 9:50 PM**

For all those who don't know what the fremont design looks like, click here: http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...provements.php

denizen467 · #**13497** Posted **Sep 24, 2011, 10:03 PM**

^ Hey, that Curbed article lists this thread as a further-reading resource! Everyone be on your best behavior.

The article is from Wednesday, after we started discussing this. I suppose the editors crowd-source some of their stories from places like us. The Interwebs are a wondrous ecosystem indeed.

J_M_Tungsten · #**13498** Posted **Sep 24, 2011, 10:04 PM**

[IMG]

[/IMG]
Anyone know anything about this one 519 S Clinton?
Image from: http://www.hparchitecture.com/?page_id=60&pid=116

Rizzo · #**13499** Posted **Sep 24, 2011, 11:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

What's going on over at larrabee and Lincoln?

That would be this:
http://yochicago.com/a-new-look-for-...ospital/17531/

A project that plowed its way through a lot opposition

J_M_Tungsten · #**13500** Posted **Sep 25, 2011, 1:52 AM**

I didn't know they were building Des Plaines in Lincoln Park?