HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #421  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2018, 6:53 PM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
^ What do you mean, old TIF and new TIF? As I understand it, the land around Lincoln Yards has not previously been in a TIF. There are two existing TIF districts along the river south of North Ave... Emanuel just got greenlighted by Springfield to extend the life of those TIFs, but my understanding is that those TIFs will be used for projects unrelated to Lincoln Yards, like new bridges at Division and Chicago, new pedestrian bridges at Blackhawk and Ogden, and various streetscaping/intersection projects, as well as streets and parks for River District.
That's the Goose Island TIF. There are two existing TIFs that cover this area. The North Branch South that covers up to Cortland and the North Branch North that covers beyond that. Although the actual Finkl site was cut out but that is only 15 of the 54.5 acres of the site. Both sunset in a few years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #422  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2018, 8:14 PM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
And the owners of said private property can use it under the existing zoning.

But, investors overpay for private property with the hopes of changing the zoning and thus making a crap ton of money. Which is fine. But that does not make the neighbors idots for wanting to have a say in the process.
If they’re “overpaying” for private property on the expectation of a zoning increase, how do they make a crap ton of money from the zoning increase? That suggests instead that the market price of property reflects expected—rather than current—zoning. So they’ll actually lose money if the property isn’t upzoned.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #423  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2018, 1:48 AM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
If they’re “overpaying” for private property on the expectation of a zoning increase, how do they make a crap ton of money from the zoning increase? That suggests instead that the market price of property reflects expected—rather than current—zoning. So they’ll actually lose money if the property isn’t upzoned.
You’re right. They want the zoning change to insure they didn’t overpay for property with a manufacturing zoning classification. They did buy with the expectation of future value, not present.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #424  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2018, 2:47 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
New Armitage bridge? Please tell me they aren't going to trash the Cortland bridge like Division and Chicago...
No, the Cortland bridge is actually a City Landmark so CDOT can't touch it without a whole de-landmarking ordeal. The Armitage bridge would be in addition to the Cortland bridge.

In theory you could drive the Armitage bridge to avoid the weird dogleg on Elston down to Cortland. The Armitage bridge would either take you to Southport to head north, or Dominick/Throop to go south (crossing back over the river) to Home Depot. It would also connect to Kingsbury so you could go southeast to Trader Joe's and other Clybourn shops.

Potentially the Cortland bridge could be closed to traffic and used purely as a bus/pedestrian bridge to get transitway buses (or streetcars) quickly over to the Clybourn Metra stop and into Bucktown towards a Blue Line connection.

Quote:
Whatever SB builds here, the streets and parks need to be fully and completely public from day 1.
The streets will be dedicated and constructed to CDOT standard. The parks and riverwalk will be privately owned. Some people are pushing for truly public space, but then SB would probably have to dumb down the design, the Park District doesn't want to maintain a fancy James Corner-designed park, at least not outside of downtown.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #425  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2018, 10:38 PM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
No, the Cortland bridge is actually a City Landmark so CDOT can't touch it without a whole de-landmarking ordeal. The Armitage bridge would be in addition to the Cortland bridge.

In theory you could drive the Armitage bridge to avoid the weird dogleg on Elston down to Cortland. The Armitage bridge would either take you to Southport to head north, or Dominick/Throop to go south (crossing back over the river) to Home Depot. It would also connect to Kingsbury so you could go southeast to Trader Joe's and other Clybourn shops.

Potentially the Cortland bridge could be closed to traffic and used purely as a bus/pedestrian bridge to get transitway buses (or streetcars) quickly over to the Clybourn Metra stop and into Bucktown towards a Blue Line connection.
Actually Sterling Bay is asking around about moving the Cortland bridge and building a replacement. Plans also include widening Cortland, although I am not sure why anyone would think that would be a good idea. I would just bottle neck back down at both ends creating even more congestion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #426  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2018, 2:09 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,440
The only logical plan is to ram Armitage through and fix the issue once and for all...

Take out paws and everything to the corner and build a traffic circle. That would be appropriate and would also cut a block or more from the walk to the Brown line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #427  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2018, 2:15 AM
tjp tjp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
The only logical plan is to ram Armitage through and fix the issue once and for all...

Take out paws and everything to the corner and build a traffic circle. That would be appropriate and would also cut a block or more from the walk to the Brown line.
ban him.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #428  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2018, 3:15 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,440
Paws can be the anchor tenant in the base of the largest tower. Make the yuppies pass directly by the puppies all day long so they adopt more of them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #429  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2018, 3:20 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKDickman View Post
Actually Sterling Bay is asking around about moving the Cortland bridge and building a replacement. Plans also include widening Cortland, although I am not sure why anyone would think that would be a good idea. I would just bottle neck back down at both ends creating even more congestion.
So this would be instead of an Armitage bridge? I see that bridge appearing on certain SB or city documents, but not on others.

And yes, terrible idea. Leave Cortland where it is, build a new Armitage bridge with that huge TIF pot. That's the first thing they should do, along with sorting out the mess at Ashland/Armitage/Elston.

Are they just trying to save money by repurposing the Cortland bridge down at the Concord Place/Wisconsin St location?
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #430  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2018, 4:54 AM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
So this would be instead of an Armitage bridge? I see that bridge appearing on certain SB or city documents, but not on others.

And yes, terrible idea. Leave Cortland where it is, build a new Armitage bridge with that huge TIF pot. That's the first thing they should do, along with sorting out the mess at Ashland/Armitage/Elston.

Are they just trying to save money by repurposing the Cortland bridge down at the Concord Place/Wisconsin St location?
That's in addition to Armitage, as well as replacing Webster. But frankly, Armitage, Concord ped bridges aren't gonna happen for decades both require eminent domain to land on the other side of the river.

In reality, doing anything with the Cortland and Webster bridges is a waste of money. Neither is the problem. They are both 2 comfortable lanes capable of supporting 20k vehicles a day. but traffic cant get much above 10k becaus the clusterfuck of intersections won't let any more through. Hell Cortland has another 800 feet for queueing and it's still a mess. Widening it only make it worse.

Getting Elston out of the equation is the only solution.
According the SB the plan for improving it involves turning Elston up Mendell.
This is even stupider than widening Cortland.

The obvious place to cut Elston is S of the Bloomingdale line bridge. Turn it through the Sipi metal site, under Metra with the 606 and into Ashland where they show their skateboard park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #431  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2018, 2:16 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 965
City council today is moving to acquire some of the rail rights for the proposed new transit line through Lincoln Yards.

And I will take back my complaint about building a new transit way when we have unused land next to transit on the south and west sides. Looking at a 5 mile radius to the downtown core (picking Palmer House Hilton as a random center point), any large area of vacant land is already spoken for or has pretty decent usage today.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...nt=oft02a-1li3
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #432  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2018, 1:43 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKDickman View Post
Bullshit.
In the entire meeting only two people mentioned height or density.
One was Alan Mellis who simply mentioned that they lowered some heights but kept the density the same. The other was some nitwit who spoke in support, admonishing the crowd for complaining about height and density.
There were a lot of people advocating for the north branch park, others wanting clarification on the privately owned publicly accessible space, concerns about traffic and schools, a large contingent opposed to Live Nation and the soccer stadium, and an even larger contingent who wondered why all the benefits that SB said they were going to build all seem to be paid for by the proposed TIF.
Wasn't bullshit at all... Yes, one or two people spoke on mic, but in the crowd there was mumbling and grumbling. I was sitting next to a guy who was cursing the development team under his breath the entire presentation.

Quote:
The other was some nitwit who spoke in support, admonishing the crowd for complaining about height and density.
Not really sure what you mean from this part, but that may have been me... I spoke in favor of the project and told the crowd there were lucky they're getting 20 acres of open space/green/park as its more that LSE and The 78. And I mentioned that people needed to check they're history when stating how the area would be flooded with 30,000 new people by stating the historical population of the area vs now,

The developers mentioned numerous times what they owned and didn't own. Yes. they were advocating for a North Branch Park... ON LAND THEY DON'T OWN... And it was stated that the park district and city don't have the coin to purchase the land.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #433  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2018, 10:22 PM
closedspace closedspace is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockerzzz View Post
Thanks for going to the development meetings and advocating for density. We appreciate it.
Motion Seconded.

Hopefully everyone will indulge a newbie on a little rant on this topic:

These constant appeals to "open space" are such a mystery to me.

If you think about the places that people seem to really like to congregate (Clark in Andersonville, Division in Wicker, Armitage in Lincoln Park, Bucktown and Belmont Cragin, Augusta in West Town, 53rd in Hyde Park, Wentworth in Chinatown) or some of the most enjoyable streets to just take a walk (Lawrence, Armitage, Kimball, Foster), the thing they all have in common is that they are human scaled and there is no forced "open space" between the structures. Things are close by and the re-enforcement of street activity and lots of people leads to a variety of businesses in a small area, which is enjoyable to walk through and fun to experience.

But we have examples of the opposite of this kind of development right here in Chicago too--the Prairie Shores complex. Tall buildings spaced far apart with nothing but open space and yet it feels oppressive and barren. Everyone drives in and out of it with good reason! It's crazy pedestrian hostile, and the streets around it are dead.

Obviously these are two extremes but what it demonstrates is that human scale development with easy access to buildings makes existing in that environment enjoyable and fun! Building it is perhaps more chaotic but the what we end up with is just a much nicer place to be.

I read an interesting masters thesis on this topic recently, which attempted to define the proportion of open space that maximizes individual urban property values. The author found that 1-5% of total land as open space ended up maximizing property value, but subjectively people want a lot more--so much so that nearly every city surveyed were heavily oversupplied with it. Chicago was one of the worst offenders. This disconnect deserves a lot more research.

Given the choice of building something new, I can't fathom why anyone would push for fewer tall buildings further apart over more shorter buildings closer together. I'd much rather have a 6-8 story absolute height limit with no open space requirement than dedicating tons of land to gaps in the urban fabric.

For me, the most tangible impact of "density" is making long walks feel short. Towers in the park Le Corbusier style are the antithesis of this type of design. Unfortunately the renderings of Lincoln Yards resemble this kind of thing a bit too closely.

Last edited by closedspace; Dec 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #434  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2018, 10:45 PM
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,657
^You must really enjoy the SoHo area in NYC.

Nice first post. Welcome to the forum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #435  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2018, 11:09 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
The only logical plan is to ram Armitage through and fix the issue once and for all...

Take out paws and everything to the corner and build a traffic circle. That would be appropriate and would also cut a block or more from the walk to the Brown line.
I hope you’re being facetious. Sometimes I can’t tell on ssp. There’s only demand for pedestrian connections, not vehicular. Doing so only validates auto-oriented development. It doesn’t benefit density, just outbound trips to the type of development this forum feverishly opposes.

And file traffic circles under the adding more lanes argument. They’re best suited to semi-rural environments. They don’t function well in multimodal urban environments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #436  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2018, 2:09 AM
HowardL's Avatar
HowardL HowardL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: East Lakeview, Chicago
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by closedspace View Post
Hopefully everyone will indulge a newbie on a little rant on this topic:
Excellent post. Don't stop ranting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #437  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2018, 3:33 AM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
i generally agree with the above but the issue is this is against the river, what we hope to create as a public natural asset moving forward into the future. this is the one and only chance to secure that. imagine if the city had said "why not build denisty all the way directly against the lakeshore!". we wouldnt have a continuous lakefront park system the way we do today. chicago is still badly represented when it comes to park space per capita, and needs all it can get, especially in former industrial areas that are turning residential.

the real issue here is with master developers who come in with one grand plan (and preferred corporate partnerships with entertainment partners) to create their own little Disneyfied approximation of an urban neighborhood. instead of what used to happen organically, which is smaller plots of land which are bought up by independent buyers, which then allows for a mix of uses and architecture and incomes to procreate. this type of development model is everything thats wrong with cities in the 21st century and whats very much making them less interesting places to be. just using it as an example, but this model could never allow for the creation of something like the Hideout, a place responsible for actually creating culture rather than just regurgitating some Wall Street Approved market tested approximation of it.

Last edited by Via Chicago; Dec 13, 2018 at 3:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #438  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2018, 1:17 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
imagine if the city had said "why not build denisty all the way directly against the lakeshore!". we wouldnt have a continuous lakefront park system the way we do today. chicago is still badly represented when it comes to park space per capita, and needs all it can get, especially in former industrial areas that are turning residential.
Uh my, possibly flawed, recollection is that's what happened in a lot of places and much of the current lakefront park north of the river is fill.

How the open space is scaled here has probably been one of my larger worries. I'd favor shrinking height and tightening up the development to avoid building what could end up feel like a suburban office park. Just adding more space like the neighbors seem to be demanding could be counterproductive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #439  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2018, 2:23 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 Via Chicago View Post
i generally agree with the above but the issue is this is against the river, what we hope to create as a public natural asset moving forward into the future. this is the one and only chance to secure that. imagine if the city had said "why not build denisty all the way directly against the lakeshore!". we wouldnt have a continuous lakefront park system the way we do today. chicago is still badly represented when it comes to park space per capita, and needs all it can get, especially in former industrial areas that are turning residential.

the real issue here is with master developers who come in with one grand plan (and preferred corporate partnerships with entertainment partners) to create their own little Disneyfied approximation of an urban neighborhood. instead of what used to happen organically, which is smaller plots of land which are bought up by independent buyers, which then allows for a mix of uses and architecture and incomes to procreate. this type of development model is everything thats wrong with cities in the 21st century and whats very much making them less interesting places to be. just using it as an example, but this model could never allow for the creation of something like the Hideout, a place responsible for actually creating culture rather than just regurgitating some Wall Street Approved market tested approximation of it.
Absolutely! I’ve been complaining about this for years.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #440  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2018, 3:50 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
Uh my, possibly flawed, recollection is that's what happened in a lot of places and much of the current lakefront park north of the river is fill.
that may be true but it sure seems easier to me to just set the land aside upfront, seeing as our views on public space in proximity to nature and its value in urban areas has evolved over the past 100+ years
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 6:12 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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