HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #43041  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2018, 9:30 PM
Zerton's Avatar
Zerton Zerton is offline
Ω
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen View Post
City proposes financing for $53 million renovation of Mark Twain Hotel (Clark and Division) under SRO preservation ordinance

Does $53M sound really high for renovating that building? I guess it is in really bad shape.
__________________
If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. -Orwell
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43042  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2018, 9:32 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
New Low Density Guidelines from the unelected "Neighbors of the West Loop"

http://neighborsofwestloop.com/neighborhood-plan/

What a joke.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43043  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2018, 11:31 PM
Freefall Freefall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zerton View Post
Does $53M sound really high for renovating that building? I guess it is in really bad shape.
Seemed really high to me too. Over $350k/unit
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43044  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 3:22 AM
Buckman821's Avatar
Buckman821 Buckman821 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freefall View Post
Seemed really high to me too. Over $350k/unit
This is basically what happens on every affordable housing project. They always come in with eye popping figures. Nice to know our tax dollars get used so efficiently...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43045  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 3:40 AM
BonoboZill4's Avatar
BonoboZill4 BonoboZill4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: PingPong
Posts: 1,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
New Low Density Guidelines from the unelected "Neighbors of the West Loop"

http://neighborsofwestloop.com/neighborhood-plan/

I hope the bowing is sarcastic. Their height guidelines are irrational, irrelevant, and have already failed entirely. Hate is a strong word, but I think it may apply to how I feel about a group of people who are so completely out of touch with reality.

Don't live within a mile of one of the biggest CBDs in the world if you don't want to live near big buildings. Pretty easy solution to those thinking of making an investment like that in the future...
__________________
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43046  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 1:28 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 View Post
I hope the bowing is sarcastic. Their height guidelines are irrational, irrelevant, and have already failed entirely. Hate is a strong word, but I think it may apply to how I feel about a group of people who are so completely out of touch with reality.

Don't live within a mile of one of the biggest CBDs in the world if you don't want to live near big buildings. Pretty easy solution to those thinking of making an investment like that in the future...
yes, sarcastic
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43047  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 1:30 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckman821 View Post
This is basically what happens on every affordable housing project. They always come in with eye popping figures. Nice to know our tax dollars get used so efficiently...
New construction 2-bed 2-bath condos are cheaper - the ones marketed as "luxury"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43048  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 2:01 PM
ChiShawn ChiShawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 View Post
I hope the bowing is sarcastic. Their height guidelines are irrational, irrelevant, and have already failed entirely. Hate is a strong word, but I think it may apply to how I feel about a group of people who are so completely out of touch with reality.

Don't live within a mile of one of the biggest CBDs in the world if you don't want to live near big buildings. Pretty easy solution to those thinking of making an investment like that in the future...
According to Block Club, Burnett (27th) and Solis (25th) said they'll consider developments on a case-by-case basis, which sounds like political speak for go pound sand with your height restrictions. Solis also said the parking minimums (1:1) for condos were too high.
__________________
"In the big picture, architecture is the art and science of making sure that our cities and buildings fit with the way we want to live our lives." - Bjarke Ingels

"In a quality city, a person should be able to live their entire life without a car, and not feel deprived." - Paul Bedford
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43049  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 2:04 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
What a joke.
This is the map they created that highlights the height limits by area:



Idiotic.
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43050  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 2:20 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiShawn View Post
According to Block Club, Burnett (27th) and Solis (25th) said they'll consider developments on a case-by-case basis, which sounds like political speak for go pound sand with your height restrictions. Solis also said the parking minimums (1:1) for condos were too high.
Wow, I’m glad Solis is talking this way. As Pilsen’s Alderman, we need more development there. Also, I’m glad more city leaders are getting on board with the move away from excess parking.

I loved reading this:

Quote:
Ald. Walter Burnett (27th), whose ward includes the West Loop, lauded Neighbors of West Loop for their hard work on the plan, but said that he considers proposed developments on a case-by-case basis and will continue to do so in the future.

An outright cap on height could limit development and deter certain projects from coming into the neighborhood and bring needed economic resources to the West Loop and the city of Chicago, Burnett said

“It’s volatile to make any kind of decisions that are going to slow things down,” the veteran alderman said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43051  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 4:31 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
This is the map they created that highlights the height limits by area:
So why the tight limits around the Clinton stop, east of the Expressway? Does that guy who drafted the plan live over there?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43052  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 6:20 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi View Post
So why the tight limits around the Clinton stop, east of the Expressway? Does that guy who drafted the plan live over there?
Yea, that is what stuck out to me. The rest was predictable but the area immediately around Ogilvie? That would seem fertile ground for large towers and there isn't a slew of residents around there now as it is I don't think.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43053  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 7:40 PM
jc5680's Avatar
jc5680 jc5680 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago—West Loop
Posts: 1,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
Yea, that is what stuck out to me. The rest was predictable but the area immediately around Ogilvie? That would seem fertile ground for large towers and there isn't a slew of residents around there now as it is I don't think.
Depends on what you mean by a slew, I suppose - but the area has filled out quite a bit in the last 10 years, primarily with residential/hotel developments. Catalyst, Hyatt place, EMME are in the bounds. A lot of K Station is just outside, but very much part of that neighborhood. Lake continues to fill in with the kind of businesses you see in the neighborhoods (money gun,st Lous, old town barber, fitness boutiques). Oriole is in the box. It's hardly river north, but not exactly as sleepy as a lot of people generally assume.

What is odd to me, within those bounds, there are really only 2 sites prime for development: Jefferson/Fulton and Clinton/Lake. The farthest being only a block and a half from the Clinton stop. Those sites are begging for some density, at the very least within the scale of their immediate ~250 ft neighbors 180/200 N Jefferson. River point is 2 blocks from those sites, there is a case for height in that scale as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43054  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 11:16 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 5,762
The sites around Clinton should be slated for only 750'+ office towers, wtf are these people smoking?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43055  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 11:25 PM
BonoboZill4's Avatar
BonoboZill4 BonoboZill4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: PingPong
Posts: 1,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
The sites around Clinton should be slated for only 750'+ office towers, wtf are these people smoking?
I'm not so surprised seeing this actually when I look at it now. The view from my office shows how many (relatively) short buildings there are near that area, and I'm sure there were enough big names in their NIMBY group living there that they got them to add that into the map.

Like you said though, it's absolutely absurd and asinine.
__________________
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43056  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 11:26 PM
BonoboZill4's Avatar
BonoboZill4 BonoboZill4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: PingPong
Posts: 1,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
yes, sarcastic
__________________
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43057  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2018, 12:05 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoboZill4 View Post
I'm not so surprised seeing this actually when I look at it now. The view from my office shows how many (relatively) short buildings there are near that area, and I'm sure there were enough big names in their NIMBY group living there that they got them to add that into the map.

Like you said though, it's absolutely absurd and asinine.
Well, keeping the area as low-rise will at least make it easier in another 30-40 years when they have to thread more rail tracks through the area because Union Station and the Green/Pink Lines are completely at capacity. They already did an engineering study about digging a tunnel below the midrises at Fulton/Clinton. Any new highrises will have a forest of deep foundations that can't be tunneled through.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43058  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2018, 6:27 PM
PKDickman PKDickman is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 554
I just ran these numbers for a conversation on Reddit, I thought you guys might be interested.

re:ACS 1yr Pop change 2016-17

Someone asked for CCA data and I explained

You need tract level data to compute community areas and that won't be out until Dec.
But you can get data for PUMAs which, for us, are groups of CCAs.
Biggest gains are in the NW bungalow belt. Biggest losses are in the Garfields and Lawndales.
Very respectable gains across the South side

(North)--Edgewater, Uptown & Rogers Park 2474
(North)--Lake View & Lincoln Park -41
(North)--West Ridge, Lincoln Square & North Center 5625
(Northwest)--Irving Park, Albany Park, Forest Glen & North Park -1126
(Northwest)--Portage Park, Dunning & Jefferson Park 7544
(West)--Austin, Belmont Cragin & Montclare 13563
(Northwest)--Logan Square, Avondale & Hermosa -8637
(West)--North & South Lawndale, Humboldt Park, East & West Garfield Park -14582
(West)--West Town, Near West Side & Lower West Side -5384
(Central)--Near North Side, Loop & Near South Side -1570
(Southwest)--Brighton Park, New City, Bridgeport & McKinley Park 4667
(Southwest)--Gage Park, Garfield Ridge & West Lawn -9615
(South)--Chicago Lawn, Englewood/West Englewood & Greater Grand Crossing 974
(South)--South Shore, Hyde Park, Woodlawn, Grand Boulevard & Douglas 2751
(South)--Ashburn, Washington Heights, Morgan Park & Beverly 1727
(South)--Auburn Gresham, Roseland, Chatham, Avalon Park & Burnside 3845
(South)--South Chicago, Pullman, West Pullman, East Side & South Deering 8686

Yeah, these are guestimates and the Margin of error might run 8000-10000 per PUMA. But, of course, so were the 2016 estimates

I also didn't include Edison Pk or O'hare who are lumped in with suburban PUMAs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43059  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2018, 6:33 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 16,894
^ Nice, very Marothisu-esque

With all of the black flight we’ve been hearing about, I wonder where all this population gain on the south side is coming from?

Some of these numbers have to be off, though. There is no way that the Central area lost residents.

Actually, the more I look at these numbers the less they make any sense to me
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43060  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2018, 6:44 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Nice, very Marothisu-esque

With all of the black flight we’ve been hearing about, I wonder where all this population gain on the south side is coming from?

Some of these numbers have to be off, though. There is no way that the Central area lost residents.

Actually, the more I look at these numbers the less they make any sense to me
Yeah, they don't make sense. The central area of the City has gained thousands of rental units that have been leased with net absorption. I don't trust the year to year numbers at this smaller level.
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 10:58 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.