HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #37721  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 1:44 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
This building received its permits yesterday. Who thought it was a good idea to make this a single family home?
It's almost identical to the SFH over the Starbucks a block north that one of the owners of Booth Hansen lived in for a long time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37722  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 2:32 PM
moorhosj moorhosj is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree View Post
They don't want to move into the city! They would rather have the slow, unchanging life of the suburbs instead of the fast life of the city. They would rather have a good school system than one in disrepair. They would rather have a home than rent. They would rather have a yard, and a car, than be stuck on some L train.
Current economic reality dictates that both parents in a family work. With this in mind, the time each one spends commuting becomes more and more valuable.

Living in the city may allow you to walk your child to school and still save 30 minutes a day commuting. You can now spend that time with your child (and not paying a nanny or daycare). If this causes more parents to stay in the city, the schools will naturally improve.

All of the other things you mention exist and are attainable in the city. To say otherwise is a misunderstanding of the size and diversity of Chicago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37723  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 2:45 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
Who thought it was a good idea to make [777 S Dearborn] a single family home?
The property owner.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37724  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 2:48 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
This building received its permits yesterday. Who thought it was a good idea to make this a single family home?
For simple impress-your-friends impact, a Single family home at this location is quite the trump card.
__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37725  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 3:08 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 Mr Downtown View Post
The property owner.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37726  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 3:15 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 LouisVanDerWright View Post
You don't think Walgreens leaving Deerfield taking a million plus SF and dragging another million SF of vendors with them isn't an economic crisis for a city of that size? I mean if 2-3 million SF of office in Deerfield goes dark, there's gonna be more than "a minor tax bump" and that's not even getting into the economic consequences of losing that kind of commercial activity.

This isn't going to happen overnight, but it will happen overnight by historical standards. Over the course of two to three decades things are going to get much much worse for the burbs. And what will happen to a suburb once the tax base collapses or entrenched poverty sets in? It won't have the resources to service these kinds of issues once they arise. It's not like Chicago which limped along for decades (and still does) with stronger neighborhoods subsidizing and carrying the costs of addressing the issues of poorer parts of town. Once a suburb the size of Austin or Englewood fails like Austin or Englewood, it's over. They don't have the resources of a big city. I suspect Chicago will begin annexing suburbs again in the not too distant future when these problems truly begin to manifest themselves.
Nothing in such absolutist terms like you prescribe will ever happen. The resilience of suburbia is such that they can revert to being bedroom communities if the major companies leave. Although it's silly to assume that every job should be downtown; any healthy region should have regional employment centers.

Sounds like you have spent practically zero time in Chicago's burbs and you just assume they are all just like Schaumburg and Rosemont. If the suburbs were all destroyed, Chicagoland would lose a vast, vast proportion of its prewar and urban/walkable TOD (and non-TOD) built environment. It's frankly preposterous that you take issue with whether or not such built environments are within a separate municipality than Chicago itself. It's meaningless tit for tat that I have more important things to do than care much about.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37727  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 3:20 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
The property owner.
Touché
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37728  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 3:30 PM
Bonsai Tree's Avatar
Bonsai Tree Bonsai Tree is offline
Small but Mighty
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj View Post
Current economic reality dictates that both parents in a family work. With this in mind, the time each one spends commuting becomes more and more valuable.

Living in the city may allow you to walk your child to school and still save 30 minutes a day commuting. You can now spend that time with your child (and not paying a nanny or daycare). If this causes more parents to stay in the city, the schools will naturally improve.

All of the other things you mention exist and are attainable in the city. To say otherwise is a misunderstanding of the size and diversity of Chicago.
I agree with you, but my ideas in general still stand. Ask nearly anyone in the suburbs and they will give you at least one of the things I mentioned as a reason for leaving (including work) the city. Commutes are a serious issue for many families, and I understand where you are coming from, but I think for many the preceding issues matter more than their commute. Chicago has a bad reputation for many people currently, which explains why people are leaving the city. People in the suburbs hear these terrible stories of violence and think "oh that must mean the whole city is violent", or they hear stories of CPS, and think, "I don't want to have my kid go there". Of course these are generalizations, but I think they hold true to the current sentiment in the suburbs. I know for a fact that some families would rather move to say Texas, than move into the city. It does't matter what Chicago can do for a family, if the family has no desire to move there.

Also, I think I know more about suburban sentiment than most people here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37729  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 4:58 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj View Post
Current economic reality dictates that both parents in a family work. With this in mind, the time each one spends commuting becomes more and more valuable.

Living in the city may allow you to walk your child to school and still save 30 minutes a day commuting. You can now spend that time with your child (and not paying a nanny or daycare). If this causes more parents to stay in the city, the schools will naturally improve.

All of the other things you mention exist and are attainable in the city. To say otherwise is a misunderstanding of the size and diversity of Chicago.
I live in Lincoln Square, we own a single family home, two cars with a garage, have a cedar fence (not white), a back yard, our kids walk to school, and I'm downtown to work in 30-40 minutes by CTA.

Sounds awful, right?

Oh, and my kids elementary school is better than most suburban schools and my RE taxes are no where near as terrible as in the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37730  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 5:37 PM
moorhosj moorhosj is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree View Post
Also, I think I know more about suburban sentiment than most people here
I grew up in a suburb and have seen some friends move back after starting families, certainly many things you say are true. However, the city is mostly treading water on population while the suburbs are seeing actual population declines. The family already living in the suburbs would rather leave the state (for Arizona, Atlanta or Texas or other states where the suburbs are thriving like they were here in the 90s) than move into the city.

What I am talking about are the scores of younger couples (26-40 years old) who currently live in the city and are deciding between raising families in the city or the suburbs. These people care about commute times, day care and opportunity costs. It is these couples who take a neighborhood like Wicker Park from up-and-coming to stroller-central (with great public schools) in 5-10 years. This is happening even quicker in Logan Square, where I live.

I think you may have a misunderstanding of the demographic shifts happening in the city right now. It is getting more white, Hispanic and Asian. Meanwhile, waves of black residents are leaving which causes the overall population to stay mostly level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37731  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 5:44 PM
davytudope davytudope is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 13
I just moved from Chicago to Tinley Park. I love Chicago and hope to return someday, but their were many reasons to move there. My wife is pregnant and a one bedroom apartment won't do anymore. She wanted a house. The cheapest one in Edgewater, where I just moved from, thats on Redfin currently costs $90k more than my new house. It's a "REHAB SPECIAL". It's smaller. Including property taxes, it costs $600/month more. My new house is in great condition and about 70 years newer. My commute to work downtown is only a few minutes longer. I wake up at the same time and get there a few minutes later. My wife works and goes to school in the suburbs, so her commute is shorter then it used to be. We will probably wake up less often to gunshots and screaming neighbors now. We will be closer to our friends and family, almost all of which live in the suburbs. Most are thinking of moving, but further away from Chicago.

Last edited by davytudope; Jul 19, 2017 at 5:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37732  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 5:56 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj View Post
I grew up in a suburb and have seen some friends move back after starting families, certainly many things you say are true. However, the city is mostly treading water on population while the suburbs are seeing actual population declines. The family already living in the suburbs would rather leave the state (for Arizona, Atlanta or Texas or other states where the suburbs are thriving like they were here in the 90s) than move into the city.

What I am talking about are the scores of younger couples (26-40 years old) who currently live in the city and are deciding between raising families in the city or the suburbs. These people care about commute times, day care and opportunity costs. It is these couples who take a neighborhood like Wicker Park from up-and-coming to stroller-central (with great public schools) in 5-10 years. This is happening even quicker in Logan Square, where I live.

I think you may have a misunderstanding of the demographic shifts happening in the city right now. It is getting more white, Hispanic and Asian. Meanwhile, waves of black residents are leaving which causes the overall population to stay mostly level.
Yep, homes in my hood that go on the market are almost entirely old retirees downsizing or even estate sales and the replacements are young families with kids.

Last edited by Vlajos; Jul 19, 2017 at 7:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37733  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 7:30 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,092
The suburbs vs city calculus will dramatically change as the post-war infrastructure wears and requires replacement. Suddenly you'll be paying a magnitude more in taxes than someone in the city and receiving less in services. People and businesses will vote with their feet, further reducing the tax base and increasing the burden on those that remain. It's a vicious cycle that can only be broken by either more subsidies or collapse of the local government and annexation by the city.

It's been decades in the making and will take at least a few more to play out. The wealthier suburbs with good transit connections will weather the storm but many more will not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37734  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 7:30 PM
moorhosj moorhosj is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by davytudope View Post
I just moved from Chicago to Tinley Park.
Tinley Park is served by a convenient Metra station making your commute nearly the same. Towns like Oak Brook, Elk Grove Village and Schaumburg are either unserved or under-served by Metra. I think this was kind of LVDW's point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37735  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 8:04 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,989
An interesting statement from some developers proposing a new tower in Oak Park. The METRA station has always been a big draw for this location (Forest/Lake), but now the Green Line is becoming even more important, with the growth of Fulton Market and the Morgan Station.
__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37736  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 9:42 PM
chrisvfr800i chrisvfr800i is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
No one is proposing sending all jobs in the suburbs out of state. What I am saying is good-riddance. There is no reason for communities like Algonquin or Schaumburg to exist beyond sheer government subsidy of the automobile. These areas are highly inefficient and a drag on the metro. All uses in these areas that can efficiently move downtown should move there, it benefits the user and it benefits the metro. Am I proposing that we level all suburbs? Obviously not.

The suburbs will not cease to exist, but the fairy tale of the good ole day small towne that is actually a horrendous suburban mess consisting of Walmarts and tract housing is dead. There will be a handful of premium suburbs that survive, just as there was a handful of premium urban neighborhoods that survived. The rest are destined for the trash heap as the depreciation cycle leaves whole sections of the suburbs in disrepair just as it did with entire sections of the city. Except the housing stock and basic reason for existence of these places simply is not as resilient as the inner city neighborhoods. Places like Lawndale continue to stand strong despite decades of abuse. Subject a 70's kitschville like Bloomingdale to the same abuse and watch how quickly the paper mache turns to sludge.

And yes, this is good for Chicagoland. I'm not saying kick the businesses in such places out, I'm saying watch as the market continues to transplant them to the charred grounds of the industrial wastelands of the city which lie fertile a prairie after a wildfire. Takeda isn't shifting jobs to Boston because the suburbs are collapsing as you admit, but because our government sucks. One of the big reasons it sucks it total decentralization of government and redundant governing bodies. How do we reduce this? Bring the suburbs to their knees and force them to annex to Chicago.

The suburban economy will adapt as well. There is no shortage of industrial demand in the suburbs right now. If residents move into the city or office parks go vacant great, there apparently wasn't lasting demand for garbage office buildings and shitty ranch homes. Raze them and build high cube distribution space.

Oh and in response to Mr. DT. I couldn't give less of a shit about "the ordinary taxpayers of Deerfield". I mean really? I couldn't find a group of people who I pity less. Take all of the office users in the entirety of Deerfield which is wildly inefficient and probably a detrimental to those users and move them downtown. When the Deerfield taxpayers suffer, then they can move into the city themselves where they don't have to pay for a bunch of spread out infrastructure that will only get exponentially more expensive to maintain as it ages to 50, 60, or 70 years. It makes no sense, period. There does not need to be one 300,000 SF building every quarter mile with huge swaths of parking surrounding them. That is not a rational or efficient development model. If Walgreens goes downtown, then the exact same thing will happen to that campus as happened to the South Barrington Allstate campus: here comes the wrecking ball. Then they can rezone it for biomedical research facilities or something like that which actually needs to have huge open spaces to be efficient. Maybe reasonable land use in the surrounding areas will keep Takeda from moving out...
Jesus, your clarifying comments are a thousand times worse than the original!! "..No reason to exist.." "..bring to their knees.." "..force them to annex.." REALLY? scratch an Urbanist...find a Stalinist!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37737  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2017, 12:09 AM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
Demolition permit was issued yesterday for the 3 story building at 1968 N Milwaukee Ave (Milwaukee and Armitage, basically). This is the site where Clayco is going to develop an 8 story TOD building with 132 units. It's near the Western Blue Line stop. Currently it's mostly surface lot so this is going to be a big improvement for the area regardless (https://www.google.com/maps/place/19...!4d-87.6881927)

Interestingly enough, that building that got the demo permit was supposed to be saved with renderings showing it. Not sure if this is just some partial demolition or if they are now saying screw it to the building.

Source: https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/us/1968-n-milwaukee-avenue
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37738  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2017, 12:42 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,443
Lol, yes saying the suburbs will collapse when forced to stand on their own without government subsidy = Stalinism. Great deduction!

Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Demolition permit was issued yesterday for the 3 story building at 1968 N Milwaukee Ave (Milwaukee and Armitage, basically). This is the site where Clayco is going to develop an 8 story TOD building with 132 units. It's near the Western Blue Line stop. Currently it's mostly surface lot so this is going to be a big improvement for the area regardless (https://www.google.com/maps/place/19...!4d-87.6881927)

Interestingly enough, that building that got the demo permit was supposed to be saved with renderings showing it. Not sure if this is just some partial demolition or if they are now saying screw it to the building.

Source: https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/us/1968-n-milwaukee-avenue
They are already gearing up on site. Looks like a facadectomy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37739  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2017, 1:05 AM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 2,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
They are already gearing up on site. Looks like a facadectomy.
Very glad to hear. With all the new infill going up in Wicker/Bucktown/Logan Sq, it would be a shame to lose a lot of the built environment that made these neighborhoods popular to begin with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37740  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2017, 1:09 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
I always love it when construction companies serve as developers. Seems like it would be a natural fit, but surprisingly not enough firms apparently do it.
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 11:41 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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