HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #801  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2019, 5:29 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,019
Would the City not force affordable housing here without TIF? No park land? What about kind of density would be allowed? Again, I'm not a lover of TIF, but I don't want to see this prime real estate vacant.

And what about the folks like Rosa who want to sell a city owned parcel worth millions for a $1 to his cronies at Bickerdike (which has a bad reputation in the affordable housing industry) and fund $8Million in TIF plus other Federal Funds the City receives in order to build 100 units of affordable housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #802  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2019, 7:26 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 16,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
PKD, thanks for that analysis.

GIG,

1. Considering that we are not a booming metro area or even a booming city, wouldn't we be better served trying to focus development using existing infrastructure that is operating far below capacity and only needs to be maintained rather than expanded/built from scratch?
This is a common argument I hear and I really challenge the validity of it.

Real estate is really about drawing circles and telling stories about what happens within that circle. Period.

So even if Chicagoland is overall losing population, you don’t need to see metro growth to see growth, tremendous growth even, if you are in the right place.

Right now the central area of Chicago is a story of growth—tremendous growth, some of the highest in the nation. Population, wealth, companies—and that growth needs infrastructure. You either keep the fire burning or you let it die.

If you only look at metro data you are a lazy real estate developer—you miss game changing opportunities—not too different from being a stock investor who merely puts his money in the S&P 500.
__________________
I drink, therefore I am
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #803  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2019, 8:02 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
This is a common argument I hear and I really challenge the validity of it.

Real estate is really about drawing circles and telling stories about what happens within that circle. Period.

So even if Chicagoland is overall losing population, you don’t need to see metro growth to see growth, tremendous growth even, if you are in the right place.

Right now the central area of Chicago is a story of growth—tremendous growth, some of the highest in the nation. Population, wealth, companies—and that growth needs infrastructure. You either keep the fire burning or you let it die.

If you only look at metro data you are a lazy real estate developer—you miss game changing opportunities—not too different from being a stock investor who merely puts his money in the S&P 500.
I get the idea of growing the pie, but there are numerous urban core locations that already have significant excess transportation capacity that also happen to be much more accessible from the parts of the city that everyone claims to want to help. Which will help property values on the south side more: development at Lincoln Yards, or at the 78, Michael Reese, Central Station, or whatever? The best way to juice demand, raise values, and thus increase investment in those areas is to increase the amount of desirable stuff they're easily accessible to. Lincoln Yards doesn't help with that since it's a PITA to get to from anywhere other than neighborhoods that are already very expensive and not hurting for investment. I likewise challenge the notion that a single person or company would decide not to exist in Chicago but for the presence of Lincoln Yards looking a certain way.

I'm as anti-commie-BS as anyone here, but the best asset the collapsing south and west neighborhoods and suburbs have is accessibility to the central area; why shift that center of gravity further north and punish them further? How is that in anyone's best interest?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #804  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2019, 8:52 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,872
^ Completely agree with Viva here. The city will by far be getting the biggest bang for its buck, the most transformative positive economic development, the least negative externalities, focusing its resources on projects like the 78 and Michael Reese. The utilization of existing under capacity infrastructure....the growth potential to a more widespread area and population is much greater for these projects in these types of locations.

The Lincoln Yards plan just makes a lot less sense. Particularly office components. The notion that another suburban company is going to decide to relocate to the city only because they will have the option of Lincoln Yards is downright silly. Unfortunately a lot of gullible people fall for that stuff. Same type of logic that gets people to believe that Salesforce won’t expand to a 500,000+ sq ft office footprint in Chicago unless the river-facing signage ordinance is changed....sounds goofy - but yet people fall for it all day long.
Lincoln Yards should really be just a medium to medium-high density residential development....nothing more really, as that’s what the location, infrastructure and associated sound planning principles would call for (I know, I know - planning really isn’t Chixago’s thing).
__________________
I lightly engaged in espionage - but it was all very cool and very legal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #805  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2019, 8:57 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
^ Completely agree with Viva here. The city will by far be getting the biggest bang for its buck, the most transformative positive economic development, the least negative externalities, focusing its resources on projects like the 78 and Michael Reese. The utilization of existing under capacity infrastructure....the growth potential to a more widespread area and population is much greater for these projects in these types of locations.

The Lincoln Yards plan just makes a lot less sense. Particularly office components. The notion that another suburban company is going to decide to relocate to the city only because they will have the option of Lincoln Yards is downright silly. Unfortunately a lot of gullible people fall for that stuff. Same type of logic that gets people to believe that Salesforce won’t expand to a 500,000+ sq ft office footprint in Chicago unless the river-facing signage ordinance is changed....sounds goofy - but yet people fall for it all day long.
Lincoln Yards should really be just a medium to medium-high density residential development....nothing more really, as that’s what the location, infrastructure and associated sound planning principles would call for (I know, I know - planning really isn’t Chixago’s thing).
Can it even be that without the City investing in infrastructure though? And what about all the NIMBYs demanding parks? And the socialists demanding more and more affordable housing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #806  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2019, 9:24 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 16,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
I get the idea of growing the pie, but there are numerous urban core locations that already have significant excess transportation capacity that also happen to be much more accessible from the parts of the city that everyone claims to want to help. Which will help property values on the south side more: development at Lincoln Yards, or at the 78, Michael Reese, Central Station, or whatever? The best way to juice demand, raise values, and thus increase investment in those areas is to increase the amount of desirable stuff they're easily accessible to. Lincoln Yards doesn't help with that since it's a PITA to get to from anywhere other than neighborhoods that are already very expensive and not hurting for investment. I likewise challenge the notion that a single person or company would decide not to exist in Chicago but for the presence of Lincoln Yards looking a certain way.

I'm as anti-commie-BS as anyone here, but the best asset the collapsing south and west neighborhoods and suburbs have is accessibility to the central area; why shift that center of gravity further north and punish them further? How is that in anyone's best interest?
Couldn't disagree more.

We already have L stops, Metra stops, roads, bus routes, water, gas, but private investment isn't happening.

But in this site if you bring in roads, busses, water, sewer, gas, and possible Metra, investment will come. And tons and tons of economic activity will follow.

Simple as that
__________________
I drink, therefore I am
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #807  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2019, 9:56 PM
Goose Island Guru Goose Island Guru is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
^ Completely agree with Viva here. The city will by far be getting the biggest bang for its buck, the most transformative positive economic development, the least negative externalities, focusing its resources on projects like the 78 and Michael Reese. The utilization of existing under capacity infrastructure....the growth potential to a more widespread area and population is much greater for these projects in these types of locations.

The Lincoln Yards plan just makes a lot less sense. Particularly office components. The notion that another suburban company is going to decide to relocate to the city only because they will have the option of Lincoln Yards is downright silly. Unfortunately a lot of gullible people fall for that stuff. Same type of logic that gets people to believe that Salesforce won’t expand to a 500,000+ sq ft office footprint in Chicago unless the river-facing signage ordinance is changed....sounds goofy - but yet people fall for it all day long.
Lincoln Yards should really be just a medium to medium-high density residential development....nothing more really, as that’s what the location, infrastructure and associated sound planning principles would call for (I know, I know - planning really isn’t Chixago’s thing).
There's one reason the river-facing signage ordinance exists and we all know why. Take that one building and that one sign out of the conversation and the Salesforce sign is a non-issue.

There's no reason a Salesforce shouldn't be able to get their sign and with a lease that large, it can and should be a major deal point.

Vlajos hit it on the head - nothing is happening at LY without infrastructure improvements, even medium to medium-high density residential. I have to think you haven't actually driven through the area in question, because if you have, like I do daily, you'd know there is serious work needed there to get anything to happen. You'd also understand it's really not that hard to get to and if you do think that, then imagine how much easier it will be once the infrastructure changes are in place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #808  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2019, 10:11 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Couldn't disagree more.

We already have L stops, Metra stops, roads, bus routes, water, gas, but private investment isn't happening.

But in this site if you bring in roads, busses, water, sewer, gas, and possible Metra, investment will come. And tons and tons of economic activity will follow.

Simple as that
Well, the 78 was a rail yard so it doesn't have roads, sewers, or electricity, and the Rock Island tracks kill the possibility of developing along the Clark Street frontage, so... no, it probably won't develop without at least some new infrastructure. The Lincolns Yards site has all of these things and was until very recently fully developed and in active use until someone decided they could convince the public to dramatically increase the value of their land. You're making arguments like a developer, which is fine (we need developers and I am firmly in the gentrification-is-mostly-good camp)... except that things like TIF districts and office development have citywide impacts and should be justified on citywide benefit, and the case for that at Lincoln Yards is incredibly unconvincing to say the least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goose Island Guru View Post
Vlajos hit it on the head - nothing is happening at LY without infrastructure improvements, even medium to medium-high density residential. I have to think you haven't actually driven through the area in question, because if you have, like I do daily, you'd know there is serious work needed there to get anything to happen. You'd also understand it's really not that hard to get to and if you do think that, then imagine how much easier it will be once the infrastructure changes are in place.
Huh? Perhaps nothing as profitable as a very dense mixed use major activity center is happening, but the basic infrastructure of streets, sidewalks, lights, sewer etc. is plainly there and until the land-banking started, the land was actually all in active use! Of course I'd rather it be vibrant mixed-use blah blah, but even if we can agree that public subsidy for development is warranted this is just a terrible priority. Further, even if we can agree that we should subsidize mega development along the river on the north side, at least start with the Freedom Center complex/something closer to the downtown core.

Also, try living on the south side and getting to Lincoln Yards and get back to us on how quick and easy it is to get there - even if they build a few bus lanes to Ogilvie station or connect to the 606 or whatever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #809  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2019, 10:26 PM
Goose Island Guru Goose Island Guru is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
Well, the 78 was a rail yard so it doesn't have roads, sewers, or electricity, and the Rock Island tracks kill the possibility of developing along the Clark Street frontage, so... no, it probably won't develop without at least some new infrastructure. The Lincolns Yards site has all of these things and was until very recently fully developed and in active use until someone decided they could convince the public to dramatically increase the value of their land. You're making arguments like a developer, which is fine (we need developers and I am firmly in the gentrification-is-mostly-good camp)... except that things like TIF districts and office development have citywide impacts and should be justified on citywide benefit, and the case for that at Lincoln Yards is incredibly unconvincing to say the least.



Huh? Perhaps nothing as profitable as a very dense mixed use major activity center is happening, but the basic infrastructure of streets, sidewalks, lights, sewer etc. is plainly there and until the land-banking started, the land was actually all in active use! Of course I'd rather it be vibrant mixed-use blah blah, but even if we can agree that public subsidy for development is warranted this is just a terrible priority. Further, even if we can agree that we should subsidize mega development along the river on the north side, at least start with the Freedom Center complex/something closer to the downtown core.

Also, try living on the south side and getting to Lincoln Yards and get back to us on how quick and easy it is to get there - even if they build a few bus lanes to Ogilvie station or connect to the 606 or whatever.
If I had to put my position on the issue into words, it would be that I am for whatever we need to keep new development moving. As a taxpayer in the City, I'd rather not see a TIF, but if that's what we have to do in order to maximize future tax revenue, it's what we have to do.

Freedom Center, yes, should be encouraged to develop as largely and quickly as possible. I don't think you'll see TIF here because it will probably be allowed to be more dense than LY and the developer won't require other funds to make the numbers work.

If LY were allowed to develop as originally intended, I don't think SB would have needed (or wanted, honestly) the TIF. If I personally had the choice of the two I'd take a development without a TIF in a heartbeat.

Part of the issue at hand is probably the long-term land banking then subsequent disappointment in allowed density and an ultimatum of TIF or no development. I really think SB would prefer not to have a TIF involved, but that was the only way to get it done as restricted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #810  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2019, 10:35 PM
galleyfox galleyfox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
This is a common argument I hear and I really challenge the validity of it.

Real estate is really about drawing circles and telling stories about what happens within that circle. Period.

So even if Chicagoland is overall losing population, you don’t need to see metro growth to see growth, tremendous growth even, if you are in the right place.

Right now the central area of Chicago is a story of growth—tremendous growth, some of the highest in the nation. Population, wealth, companies—and that growth needs infrastructure. You either keep the fire burning or you let it die.

If you only look at metro data you are a lazy real estate developer—you miss game changing opportunities—not too different from being a stock investor who merely puts his money in the S&P 500.
One thing that never gets mentioned is that the type of growth is far more important than the amount of growth. Very few people are investing in Lagos over Los Angeles. Growth of the skilled, educated population with capital is priceless; most other growth is a ball and chain on the ankle for a city.

I was looking at the population health data for Chicago, and some of the population drops are happening for reasons that are absolutely fantastic. Between 2000 and 2017, Fertility rates dropped across the board in most neighborhoods to between 1-2 children. The mean age of first-time mothers rose from 23 to 27. (For blacks and Hispanics, it's at 24 when it was originally 20.)

So fewer children born in the city, but more children born to mature adults prepared to provide for and supervise them. In about 5-7 years, Chicago is going to enjoy some of the demographic dividends of this trend.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #811  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2019, 3:06 PM
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 Goose Island Guru View Post
Freedom Center, yes, should be encouraged to develop as largely and quickly as possible. I don't think you'll see TIF here because it will probably be allowed to be more dense than LY and the developer won't require other funds to make the numbers work.
Freedom Center doesn't have the infrastructure needs. It's a reasonable walk to the Blue Line at Grand or Chicago, the only infrastructure it will have is some new streets winding through. No bridges, overpasses, etc. The city is already committed to rebuilding the Chicago/Halsted viaduct through the traditional process (not TIF) whenever funding becomes available. IMO the Freedom Center plan should include a new pedestrian bridge at Erie, but apparently that idea was rejected for reasons that aren't clear...

Of course, the North Branch Transitway will cut through the Freedom Center site, but that's basically another street, just restricted to buses only. The North Branch TIF will possibly be used to fund this, since it's essential for Lincoln Yards further upriver.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #812  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2019, 3:35 PM
Hourstrooper's Avatar
Hourstrooper Hourstrooper is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 142
Heres the actual lawsuit

Looks like they wont even begin hearing on this til August

Here's the Lawsuit that is basically saying Lincoln yards is a racist gentrifier. Lol total waste of time/

https://www.docdroid.net/jA1dX3E/gra...ed-4172019.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #813  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2019, 9:13 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goose Island Guru View Post
There's one reason the river-facing signage ordinance exists and we all know why. Take that one building and that one sign out of the conversation and the Salesforce sign is a non-issue.

There's no reason a Salesforce shouldn't be able to get their sign and with a lease that large, it can and should be a major deal point.

Vlajos hit it on the head - nothing is happening at LY without infrastructure improvements, even medium to medium-high density residential. I have to think you haven't actually driven through the area in question, because if you have, like I do daily, you'd know there is serious work needed there to get anything to happen. You'd also understand it's really not that hard to get to and if you do think that, then imagine how much easier it will be once the infrastructure changes are in place.

While true, the signage ordinance is common sense, and a strict one should have existed prior to the building that shall not be named. It’s in the public interest to minimize that visual pollution on the riverfront. My point stands - Salesforce would be expanding to a 500-600k sq ft office in Chicago regardless of whether they get a particular sign at this specific project. It’s not the city’s role to play favorites and give a gift like this to Hines with the carve-out/change in ordinance for this project at this particular location. Full disclosure - I’m a huge fan of the WPS project as designed....but my principled stand is what it is...

Again, the LY plan is an absolute mess, and a relatively poor use of precious city resources. I’m well-acquainted with the area. Horrible location for an office concentration, first and foremost. LY might make more sense if Chicago had supply-side constraints. Far from it, we do not lack at all for home run sites for very large scale developments. There are many more options than we currently have demand for....the demand side is where Chicago’s economic and development challges reside.
__________________
I lightly engaged in espionage - but it was all very cool and very legal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #814  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2019, 9:26 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 16,884
^ I don't think we will see much office at LY anyhow.
__________________
I drink, therefore I am
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #815  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2019, 10:30 PM
Stockerzzz Stockerzzz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
If you only look at metro data you are a lazy real estate developer—you miss game changing opportunities—not too different from being a stock investor who merely puts his money in the S&P 500.
I get your point, but index investing is one of the greatest inventions for common investors. The ability to own the performance of the equities market for 3 bps is incredible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #816  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2019, 8:17 PM
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 SamInTheLoop View Post
While true, the signage ordinance is common sense, and a strict one should have existed prior to the building that shall not be named. It’s in the public interest to minimize that visual pollution on the riverfront.
Maybe true, but Salesforce has been pretty clear than their video wall is primarily an art installation.

It's an unfair double standard when the Merchandise Mart is allowed to project across their entire facade, while a video wall on the property next door is prohibited at 5% of the size.

Thankfully the revisions to the signage ordinance (done at Salesforce's request) provide more flexibility to all building owners to add artwork and other elements that will keep our riverfront dynamic while still limiting commercial speech and advertising.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #817  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2019, 2:50 PM
takascar takascar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 129
Have they started working on the park yet or do you think they are going to hold off until the lawsuit is dismissed?

I haven't seen any reports of progress since the TIF was approved. No building permits issued either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #818  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2019, 3:07 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,030
Park? What park?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #819  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2019, 6:58 PM
takascar takascar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Park? What park?
The park along the river was supposed to be the first thing they started.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #820  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2019, 10:48 PM
BonoboZill4's Avatar
BonoboZill4 BonoboZill4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: PingPong
Posts: 1,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Park? What park?
This project has two parks and riverwalk. Or is this a comment in jest?
__________________
I'm here for a long time, not a good time
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 8:32 PM.

     

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