HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #14641  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 6:56 AM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
...
a 50,000-square-foot building at 222 W. Hubbard, just north of the Merchandise Mart.
...
I assume that's the parking lot with the 'L' curving over it on the NE corner of Hubbard and Franklin?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14642  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 3:29 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14643  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 4:36 PM
lawfin lawfin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,697
bradley place neighbors is reporting that the city made the developer at the bradley and broadway development redesign because allegedly the city claimed the development was TOO DENSE?

If we cannot get get dense development sitting a little over 1/4 mile to two L stops where can we get it. Development in this town is just that development in a town....Chicago is no longer a city
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14644  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 5:20 PM
pyropius pyropius is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Williamsburg, VA
Posts: 273
A wish: Just as developers contribute to an affordable housing fund to compensate for their pricing out of lower income residents, these crazy NIMBYs should contribute to the city's coffers to compensate for the lost tax revenue from this project. In the end, it's not NIMBYs versus the developer; it's NIMBYs versus school teachers and cops.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14645  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 9:34 PM
BWChicago's Avatar
BWChicago BWChicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 486
NIMBYs are reducing potential property taxes. That's not lost revenue, it's a smaller increase in potential revenue. Would you fine the zoning board too?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14646  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 10:01 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWChicago View Post
NIMBYs are reducing potential property taxes. That's not lost revenue, it's a smaller increase in potential revenue. Would you fine the zoning board too?
Not to defend NIMBYism (which I loathe with a passion), but the argument that a denser building will generate more tax revenue for the city is weak because what is the difference in property taxes between a 250 unit apartment building and a 150 unit apartment building?

Keep in mind that the Cook County Tax assessor is the one determining the building's value (and, I'm sure, they are always very accurate *). And if they assess it too highly (which never happens, of course), it is the responsibility of the property owner to challenge the assessment. Rinse and repeat in 3 years.

So, in other words, the "increased taxes for the city" argument probably falls on deaf ears for this reason. What you can argue, though, is the increased number of people living in the neighborhood patronizing local businesses, which will improve the local economy. Problem is, most of the NIMBY's are people living in the neighborhood, not businesses, and those NIMBY's complaining really derive little benefit from having to wait in a longer line at their local Subway restaurant, especially given the fact that their neighborhood has already reached enough critical mass to support such businesses.


* I own a 3 flat which the Cook County Tax Assessor for some reason has listed as a 5 unit building
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14647  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 10:44 PM
pyropius pyropius is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Williamsburg, VA
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWChicago View Post
NIMBYs are reducing potential property taxes. That's not lost revenue, it's a smaller increase in potential revenue. Would you fine the zoning board too?
Opportunity costs are real. This decision foregoes both property taxes and sales taxes that would fund public services. What we see is the outcome of a bargaining process between two groups: NIMBYs and the beneficiaries of public services, where the zoning board is just the mediator. Because the public benefits to the project are so diffuse over the beneficiaries and the public harm is so localized in the NIMBYs, the NIMBYs were vastly (exclusively) over-represented in the process. As a result, the NIMBYs win and the rest of us lose.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14648  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 10:49 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyropius View Post
Opportunity costs are real. This decision foregoes both property taxes and sales taxes that would fund public services. What we see is the outcome of a bargaining process between two groups: NIMBYs and the beneficiaries of public services, where the zoning board is just the mediator. Because the public benefits to the project are so diffuse over the beneficiaries and the public harm is so localized in the NIMBYs, the NIMBYs were vastly (exclusively) over-represented in the process. As a result, the NIMBYs win and the rest of us lose.
^ What were you guys expecting? The redesign didn't lower density one bit. This developer will certainly have to throw a bone at the NIMBY's to get this approved, and that bone will be a less dense building.

Either way, a somewhat less dense building will allow rents to stay higher, which is good for property owners in this rather expensive city in which to conduct one's business.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14649  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 11:11 PM
pyropius pyropius is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Williamsburg, VA
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Either way, a somewhat less dense building will allow rents to stay higher, which is good for property owners in this rather expensive city in which to conduct one's business.
Kind of a tangent, but that's like saying "blocking the construction of the new grocery store is good for Jewel because it will allow them to keep their prices higher." Which is good for Jewel, no doubt, but they're not the only ones that will feel the impact of the decision. (P.S. I rent in the neighborhood in question.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14650  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2012, 2:07 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWChicago View Post
NIMBYs are reducing potential property taxes. That's not lost revenue, it's a smaller increase in potential revenue. Would you fine the zoning board too?
Has anyone ever used a SLAPP before in Illinois against NIMBYS. Theoretically developers can't win, but the financial hardship of legal costs is enough to censor public opinion
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14651  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2012, 3:55 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
2/12

Morgan Station


La Casa


Affordable Housing Rehab


Burberry


Retail building on Walton

Last edited by Rizzo; Feb 13, 2012 at 5:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14652  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2012, 4:38 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ Great update, Hayward. Where is that affordable housing rehab taking place?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14653  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2012, 4:43 AM
untitledreality untitledreality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Great update, Hayward. Where is that affordable housing rehab taking place?
1500 block West Warren... between Ogden and Ashland just south of Union Park


Here is a curbed post on it http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...t-to-begin.php
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14654  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2012, 5:36 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Oh, man... Morgan is on track to be the sexiest L station in Chicago, by far.



It looks like they scrapped the idea to etch 'CTA' into the metal screen panels. That's probably good in the long run, since CTA can upgrade their signage if the logo ever changes. Unfortunately, that also means future generations can screw it up royally.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14655  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2012, 4:25 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Monterey CA
Posts: 4,204
A blueprint for a new American dream
Will Jeanne Gang's inventive ideas for Cicero work in the real world?


Blair Kamin

February 13, 2012
Cicero, infamous for its history of corruption, and Jeanne Gang, famous for her futuristic buildings, would seem an unlikely pair. But something unexpected has brought them together: America's foreclosure crisis.

On a recent morning, Gang drove her gray Toyota Prius past the town's sturdy but overcrowded brick bungalows and envisioned something different: a high-rise resembling a Rubik's Cube, its profile constantly shifting as affordable units for living and working are plugged into its superstructure, each tailored to the needs of residents.

A concept rather than a blueprint, her plan will be prominently featured in an exhibition, "Foreclosed: Rehousing the American Dream," that opens Wednesday at New York's Museum of Modern Art and is sure to be provocative.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3287005.story

__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14656  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2012, 6:13 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
The environmental characteristics of Gang's plan are highly realistic. When I lived in Michigan alot of General Motors plants were building wetlands to treat all of foundry waste on site as well as develop a completely new habitat for vegetation and wild life. When a few of the plants closed because of consolidation or construction of new facilities, city's and counties were left with land that had gone almost completely back to a natural state.....possibly even better than the agricultural land the preceded industrial growth.

It's also possible to dismantle and recondition steel from some of these factories. Often times more modern facilities have been overbuilt or designed to be decommissioned, dismantled, and reassembled elsewhere.

I think this should be adapted to Chicago. It's creative, and even realistic. But visionary enough that it could put Chicago on the map for rethinking underutilized industrial areas that are found in almost every rustbelt city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14657  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2012, 8:56 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
2/12
Morgan Station
Retail building on Walton

Burberry
The new Morgan station looks amazing. And the BHLDN building on Walton turned out pretty well, although I wish they didn't completely sterilize the block.

Updated Burberry rendering:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14658  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2012, 9:57 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Oh wow it is actually taller. This great!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14659  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2012, 10:29 PM
Baronvonellis Baronvonellis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 880
What materials is the facade of Burberry? It's hard to tell what it will be like.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14660  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2012, 11:22 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
I believe it's back painted glass which will give it a reflective, but solid look. Either that or a very glossy metal panel.
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 6:00 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.