CHICAGO | General Developments

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by j_m_tungsten

is there a proposed completion date for burberry?

2013

[the urban politician]

^ That's a long time for a 5 story building!

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by lawfin

the old CJ ames and ZFrank lots on both sides of western could be developed into nice density near transit

What transit?

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

OK, so we are talking at least 75 sales under 100k in the past 12 months which is actually a lot of product considering the low overall volumes in the market right now. Not to mention the fact that those are only MLS listed sales that exclude the true low end of the market which is REO's that are dumped on the market by wholesalers.

Are you kidding me? 23 sales on the ENTIRE North Side is considered a high volume? In the same exact boundaries where those 23 sub 100K sales happened there were over 600 100K+ multi family sales in the past year. How is less than 4% of the market share considered a lot of product?

While the far South and West sides commonly see wholesale REO dumps, they are rare if not non existent on the North side. If the structure is garbage (which sub 100K always is in prime areas) you are typically paying for the land value as a tear down.

[Chicagoguy]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

2013

I thought it was only suppose to take a year to build? Originally when I talked to people I knew from Burberry there were only planning to be in the temporary space for a year. Maybe things have changed?

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Are you kidding me? 23 sales on the ENTIRE North Side is considered a high volume? In the same exact boundaries where those 23 sub 100K sales happened there were over 600 100K+ multi family sales in the past year. How is less than 4% of the market share considered a lot of product?

While the far South and West sides commonly see wholesale REO dumps, they are rare if not non existent on the North side. If the structure is garbage (which sub 100K always is in prime areas) you are typically paying for the land value as a tear down.

If you'll kindly read what I actually said, I cited the 75 sales total on the entire north side, not just the Lakeshore corridor that you seem to think constitutes the entirety of the direction "north". That's not even including sales in decidedly "northern" parts of the city such as Portage Park, Jefferson Park, and the likes.

If you think that multi family's aren't being sold via auction or through wholesale you are crazy. I know people who buy them and I've bought some myself. I'm not going to waste my time finding market data to back up something that I know to be correct since I've experienced it first hand, but frankly you are just flat out wrong on that point.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

What transit?

The 84 peterson and the 49B western are both only 9-12 to the redline and brownline respectively I used to take them nearly everyday for 20+ years.

Additionally, there is serious discussion of putting a new Metra station at peterson / ridge which would be only about 6 minutes or less away.

[Rizzo]

October 2012 for Burberry. I believe that includes streetscaping and tree installation done by then as well

[ardecila]

The frequency of either bus isn't terribly confidence-inspiring for its ability to promote dense development. A sensible residential program for those sites is 4-5 story apartments, the same as the other stuff that's gone up in first-ring suburbs like Park Ridge or Elmwood Park. That is, just as high as the building can go while keeping parking (at 1.2 spots/unit) on the ground floor under or behind the building. If you want retail spaces, that detracts from the available parking and thus the density.

[i_am_hydrogen]

According to this article, it's 2013:
http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...chigan-avenue/

From what I’ve heard, Burberry wants to have the new flagship store open by 2013. That’s either wishful thinking, or an indication that a lot of work has already been done behind the scenes.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The frequency of either bus isn't terribly confidence-inspiring for its ability to promote dense development. A sensible residential program for those sites is 4-5 story apartments, the same as the other stuff that's gone up in first-ring suburbs like Park Ridge or Elmwood Park. That is, just as high as the building can go while keeping parking (at 1.2 spots/unit) on the ground floor under or behind the building. If you want retail spaces, that detracts from the available parking and thus the density.

Yeah service cuts...non owl.. etc.... have not helped either. I am unclear on the proposed high speed western BRT but that might be helpful in this regard.

I would be perfectly happy with 4-5 stories on these sites and on the former Nortown site and Crawford's site on Devon......that would beat stuff like the Walgreen's like a drum.

But I would like to see smaller retail parcels in say 4-5 story type development that could be marketed to leaders in the various ethnic communities that make up western RP and WR.....I mean the area bleeds retail to the suburbs....and has ethnic diversity like few parts of the city....Western with a tie into Devon could work if the right leadership and vision incubated it. Instead of just taking the lazy way out and coddling bib box style national chains.

My brother who works with the democratic party in the city has been pushing a walmart ......lets just say that we don't agree at all on things like this

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Yeah service cuts...non owl.. etc.... have not helped either. I am unclear on the proposed high speed western BRT but that might be helpful in this regard.

I would be perfectly happy with 4-5 stories on these sites and on the former Nortown site and Crawford's site on Devon......that would beat stuff like the Walgreen's like a drum.

But I would like to see smaller retail parcels in say 4-5 story type development that could be marketed to leaders in the various ethnic communities that make up western RP and WR.....I mean the area bleeds retail to the suburbs....and has ethnic diversity like few parts of the city....Western with a tie into Devon could work if the right leadership and vision incubated it. Instead of just taking the lazy way out and coddling bib box style national chains.

My brother who works with the democratic party in the city has been pushing a walmart ......lets just say that we don't agree at all on things like this

^ Clearly you must have forgotten about a well known ethnic retail strip known as Devon St. If there were such a huge market for small scale ethnic retail, why are there so many vacancies on that strip?

Builders aren't going to build small scale street retail until some semblance of demand returns. Until then, expect more vacant lots and branch banks, with your occasional Walgreens expansion thrown into the mix.

Also, if you are so concerned about city shoppers "bleeding" into the suburbs, then you wouldn't have such a problem with a Walmart being built in the area within city limits. The far NW side already has plenty of large big box retail districts, it probably wouldn't hurt to throw a Walmart in the mix while you are at it just to collect that sales tax revenue.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

According to this article, it's 2013:
http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...chigan-avenue/

The Alderman and Burberry folks report an October 2012 completion date. I'm guessing the store will open in 2013 then. ChicagoArchitecture Blog is a great site, but alot of that article was speculation and rumor.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Clearly you must have forgotten about a well known ethnic retail strip known as Devon St. If there were such a huge market for small scale ethnic retail, why are there so many vacancies on that strip?

Builders aren't going to build small scale street retail until some semblance of demand returns. Until then, expect more vacant lots and branch banks, with your occasional Walgreens expansion thrown into the mix.

Also, if you are so concerned about city shoppers "bleeding" into the suburbs, then you wouldn't have such a problem with a Walmart being built in the area within city limits. The far NW side already has plenty of large big box retail districts, it probably wouldn't hurt to throw a Walmart in the mix while you are at it just to collect that sales tax revenue.

That neighborhood already has a Target. I wish the sidewalks along Peterson were a nicer place to walk. The cemeteries aren't going anywhere, so we should focus on removing the strip malls and putting in wider, landscaped sidewalks.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Peterson would be a very handsome street (a la Pratt where it faces the park) if the buildings and streetscaping didn't say "fuck you" to everything for most of the way along that road.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Clearly you must have forgotten about a well known ethnic retail strip known as Devon St. If there were such a huge market for small scale ethnic retail, why are there so many vacancies on that strip?

Builders aren't going to build small scale street retail until some semblance of demand returns. Until then, expect more vacant lots and branch banks, with your occasional Walgreens expansion thrown into the mix.

Also, if you are so concerned about city shoppers "bleeding" into the suburbs, then you wouldn't have such a problem with a Walmart being built in the area within city limits. The far NW side already has plenty of large big box retail districts, it probably wouldn't hurt to throw a Walmart in the mix while you are at it just to collect that sales tax revenue.

Clearly you have misconstrued what I said or you don't know what you are talking about or a toxic combination of both. So in a demand crunch ....which I agree has occurred...but that is not the only factor influencing vacancies on Devon.....a Walgreens can get built from scratch with expanded parking lot, a branch bank can get built according to you but nothing else can? Curious?

Oh, and by the way I have it on authority that there is a proposal for a Starbuck's ...drive thru style on the parcel just south of the brand spanking new parko-Walgreens. Funny how these national chains can get developed when there is no demand.

The parcels on western have been vacant since the long term tenants ...the auto dealerships....essentially suddenly closed up shop after literally decades of that style of commerce dominating the strip...hell my mother worked for Z Frank...still does....

It takes time after a shock like that for a system to re-calibrate; add in the real estate collapse and the general small depression and it is no wonder nothing has been built along western....add in inept planning and a general philosophy of catering to large national chains & an older demographic in parts of WR that focuses on parking lots and voila...you get Walgreens at granville and western with an expanded parking lot...more than they had before.

Oh and since when is WR the far NW side? Or perhaps I misunderstood your commentary. My point re Western was that with the proper intersection of local leadership and various ethnic communities...not just the Pakistanis and Indians as is prevalent though not exclusive to Devon from Hermitage to california that WR could leverage those assets to its advantage by creating a unique mix of retail where maybe just maybe people would like to spend time and experience different cultures etc.....novel I know.

You know you can disagree with someone with out being outright snide. What was is it you said "Clearly you must have forgotten about a well known ethnic retail strip known as Devon St."

Yeah I forgot about Devon Avenue. I grew up 3 blocks south of it and my parents still live in the same house. I live 4 blocks north of it. I eat on Devon Ave. regularly. I give a rats ass of how the neighborhood in which I live gets developed because I see it everyday; not on some urban safari sojourn from the Wisconsin hinterland. Oh and I clearly know enough that it is Devon Avenue not Devon St. As clearly you must have forgotten in all your wisdom.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Peterson would be a very handsome street (a la Pratt where it faces the park) if the buildings and streetscaping didn't say "fuck you" to everything for most of the way along that road.

I agree and we rarely do....planning / design / architecture can simply be transformative.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Clearly you have misconstrued what I said or you don't know what you are talking about or a toxic combination of both. So in a demand crunch ....which I agree has occurred...but that is not the only factor influencing vacancies on Devon.....a Walgreens can get built from scratch with expanded parking lot, a branch bank can get built according to you but nothing else can? Curious?

Oh, and by the way I have it on authority that there is a proposal for a Starbuck's ...drive thru style on the parcel just south of the brand spanking new parko-Walgreens. Funny how these national chains can get developed when there is no demand.

^ If a developer could build a retail center and fill it with small local businesses, be confident that he or she will make enough rental income to pay off his loan, pay utility bills and property taxes, and still generate an income that gets a good return on the investment, then that would be wonderful.

That is the dynamic that determines whether things get built or not, not some passionate pleas of a die hard urbanist.

I became less of an idealist very recently, when reality spanked me in the eye and I realized just how much building & construction costs as well as property taxes EAT the hell out of your profits in this city, from my personal experience. I have to pay some douche bag $200 just to submit the city a letter (which he doesn't even have to write) that he will be involved with my rehab project (which he won't), because the city requires a licensed concrete worker with a license to work with brick (which my project won't require)--union rules, I'm sure.

In this shitty economy, only large companies like Walgreens and Bank of America can put up with this bullshit and expand all over town. In a better economy, maybe Habib's Hookah Lounge and Kabob eatery can do the same, but right now that's GOTTA BE a bit hard! If you really want to see more small, interesting businesses in this city proliferate, then tell your Alderman and your Mayor to make it less expensive to build, renovate, and/or operate a business in this city.

Despite this argument, yes I continue to bitch and moan about strip malls at North/Clybourn but that is different--you've got a highly trafficked area, a renovated subway stop, tons of investment, and tons of national chains--the city can easily require some basic design standards here, but it chooses not to. But Peterson and Richmond? Different story..

[lawfin]

You are ignoring the influence of local policies or preferences of the alderman. I wholeheartedly agree that the current environment is very tough; but why say a "developer" has to build a "retail center". While you are right to think of this paradigm because it has been dominant; really most successful retail streets in Chicago were not developed as "retail centers'. They instead grew organically often one little building at a time. There are zoning code changes that have been proposed that would encourage or even just allow local business owners to live and work in the same space. To save our neighborhood retail street we should not look to "developers" to come in a mass develop large parcels. But instead should make sure the local policies / zoning etc work to encourage local owners to live work in or near the same space; and make sure there are policies in place that they can access the capital necessary to say build a 3 or 4 story unit...retail / commercial 1st floor rental above.

By following the path of least resistance and allowing the big national chains in like this will only further erode so much of what makes Chicago worth living in.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by lawfin

You are ignoring the influence of local policies or preferences of the alderman. I wholeheartedly agree that the current environment is very tough; but why say a "developer" has to build a "retail center". While you are right to think of this paradigm because it has been dominant; really most successful retail streets in Chicago were not developed as "retail centers'. They instead grew organically often one little building at a time. There are zoning code changes that have been proposed that would encourage or even just allow local business owners to live and work in the same space. To save our neighborhood retail street we should not look to "developers" to come in a mass develop large parcels. But instead should make sure the local policies / zoning etc work to encourage local owners to live work in or near the same space; and make sure there are policies in place that they can access the capital necessary to say build a 3 or 4 story unit...retail / commercial 1st floor rental above.

By following the path of least resistance and allowing the big national chains in like this will only further erode so much of what makes Chicago worth living in.

^ Most of Chicago was built by speculative developers. That was not different 120 years ago.

Also, what makes it hard in the current zoning code for owners to live and work in the same building? Not only are there tons of mixed use buildings in the city, the current zoning code continues to allow for such buildings to be built. In the boom of 1999-2008, many such buildings were built in the city. A lot of those retail spaces have yet to be filled.