HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2521  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 2:48 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
^Adaptive reuse?

Yeah, and Trump Int'l is just an adaptive reuse of the Sun-Times Building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2522  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 3:20 PM
EarlyBuyer's Avatar
EarlyBuyer EarlyBuyer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
That geodesic dome... is awesome.
Ch.G: The pool under that dome recently re-opened after a 6-8 month closure for rebuilding. While under renovation, 400 East Randolph installed theatric uplighting with frequent (about every 20 seconds), color changes and the occassional rapid fire color change sequence. It puts on a rockin' show for the neighborhood outside.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2523  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 3:36 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
^ Sounds amazingly tacky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2524  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 4:00 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
Are you serious? Almost the whole northside pre-war housing stock in the "hot" neighborhoods is non-conforming under the new zoning code, in terms of off-street parking requirement, minimum average unit size, maximum units per lot area, etc. Under the new zoning R3 zones can generally have only a single family house unless the lot is unusually large, and R4 can at best have a 3-flat. With the exception of a narrow sliver along the lake of R5 and R6 (the latter being the only true high-density zoning left), most of the northside is R3 and R4. In a very select few locations of R4 zoning, the areas could be fully redeveloped for a modest increase in unit density, but these are few and far between as R4 zones typically already have pretty high density.

Nothing resembling the current unit density of Wicker Park, Bucktown, Lincoln Park, Lakeview could be built under current zoning (I'll be nice and won't even bring up Pilsen with its 2-buildings-per-standard-lot). These neighborhoods are full of non-conforming uses, and if every lot were developed to their maximum allowable density, at least on the residential streets, the unit density would decrease. Before the new zoning went into effect in 2004, I would have mostly agreed with you, but definitely not now. And of course, Chicago housing/buildings/land out in the neighborhoods was much more affordable even as recently as 2002-2003...because now the price of building to market demand has to include the legal and political costs of an upzoning, or the opportunity cost of building fewer units than the market could otherwise absorb, and the problem is then further compounded now that any upzoning has to include an abusrdly high payment to the "affordable housing" slush fund.

The problem is also compounded by our incredible oversupply of business/commercial zoning, mandating first-floor retail spaces even where they aren't economically viable, so of course this further distorts the supply/demand equation for housing as the wasted retail space must be paid for through residential costs. Definitely there is room for increased residential density on our business/commercially zoned streets, but until the zoning eases up on use restrictions then the cost of developing these lots will be artificially inflated.

Well put
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2525  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 7:09 PM
Thundertubs's Avatar
Thundertubs Thundertubs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Jersey City, NJ
Posts: 2,921
^^^
Most of Pilsen is overzoned. The 1890's workman's cottages don't come close to the FAR allowed for thier blocks. That's why the area is so vulnerable to teardowns. Lots of money can be made by purchasing a cottage, razing it, and putting up a 3-flat. The Pilsen Alliance was pushing a downzoning referendum in 2006, With alderman Solis very much against it. But I've been out of that loop for some time, I don't know what ever happened with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2526  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 7:52 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
^Adaptive reuse?

Yeah, and Trump Int'l is just an adaptive reuse of the Sun-Times Building.
Adaptive reuse of the site maybe
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2527  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 9:20 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 4,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
^ Sounds amazingly tacky.
No, it's pretty subtle. You don't really notice it change colors unless you're looking at it. It was purple, and changed to green as I was lining up the shot.
Never seen the rapid fire sequence though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2528  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 10:03 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundertubs View Post
^^^
Most of Pilsen is overzoned. The 1890's workman's cottages don't come close to the FAR allowed for thier blocks. That's why the area is so vulnerable to teardowns. Lots of money can be made by purchasing a cottage, razing it, and putting up a 3-flat. The Pilsen Alliance was pushing a downzoning referendum in 2006, With alderman Solis very much against it. But I've been out of that loop for some time, I don't know what ever happened with it.
R4 zoning, on a standard city lot, can fit a 3-flat.
Most of Pilsen (east of Damen, certainly) is already non-conforming to R4 zoning for a variety of reasons, particularly because most lots are small: inadequate private open space (almost universal), too many units per lot area (e.g. less than the required 1000sq ft of lot area per dwelling unit), etc. At most Pilsen, if completely redeveloped, would be a mixture of 2- and 3-flats on the residential streets, with commercial streets having at most 1 retail space with 2 apartments overhead (rare larger lots could perhaps allow up to 4 apartments above the retail). This would represent a decrease in unit density, certainly for the eastern half of the neighborhood where two buildings on one lot (each with 2-3 units) are commonplace.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2529  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 11:21 PM
EarlyBuyer's Avatar
EarlyBuyer EarlyBuyer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 885


Nice shot aaron38. Yeah, the rapid fire thing is fairly infrequent (I've only seen it three times and I live near 400 East Randolph). Not sure if it's on a schedule or it is random. From the outside, the flashing lights remind me of the sidewalk view of Hard Drive at HRC.

I'm guessing the lighting is an effort on the buildings part to overcome the geriatric stigma associated with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2530  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2008, 11:56 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
^ They should realize that this kind of architecture is becoming hip again. No need to rebrand - just clean it up and market it the right way.

In any case, I am glad to hear that it isn't too overblown, although I maintain that changing-color LEDs are the Lava Lamp of the year 2000.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2531  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2008, 4:08 AM
Abner Abner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 577
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
R4 zoning, on a standard city lot, can fit a 3-flat.
Most of Pilsen (east of Damen, certainly) is already non-conforming to R4 zoning for a variety of reasons, particularly because most lots are small: inadequate private open space (almost universal), too many units per lot area (e.g. less than the required 1000sq ft of lot area per dwelling unit), etc. At most Pilsen, if completely redeveloped, would be a mixture of 2- and 3-flats on the residential streets, with commercial streets having at most 1 retail space with 2 apartments overhead (rare larger lots could perhaps allow up to 4 apartments above the retail). This would represent a decrease in unit density, certainly for the eastern half of the neighborhood where two buildings on one lot (each with 2-3 units) are commonplace.
Or one building with units in the front and rear; and since many of the buildings are half-sunken, many buildings that appear to have two or three floors actually have three or four. Of course, the "real" density in Pilsen is even higher than the built environment suggests, since multiple families often share apartments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2532  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2008, 4:52 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
This post is from SSC. This one really bugs me. I have been holding a lot of hope for the South Works site to be a mixed-use community instead of some faux-urban all-residential village adjacent to a big-box shithole. Does anybody know how final these designs are? Where in God's name is the Planning Dept on this one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I found a site plan for one of the first phases of South Works, a retail center. I'm extremely unimpressed - it belongs in the suburbs, not along Chicago's lakefront.

On top of that, it doesn't allow 80th or 81st Streets to continue unbroken into the residential section to the east of this site. The streets in that section are supposed to be aligned with the old streets, precisely so that they can be connected seamlessly.



__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2533  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2008, 4:55 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
As a follow up to the above, this is the site plan of the entire site, with the shit-box center shown in the previous post at top left:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Spyguy posted this image last spring. Near the top of the site, you can see some random towers and short buildings surrounded by asphalt - that's this site.
Chicago Shawn and others: what's the scoop on this one?
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2534  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2008, 5:21 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Well, where do you want them to buy their groceries? I am just glad to see a few towers and some other urban things. I was expecting "Bridgeport Village" or one of these...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2535  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2008, 7:03 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
^^ That's quite the defeatist attitude. Why should we settle on this one?

If freaking LEMONT can commit to the elimination of surface parking in their downtown, then surely South Works can. I'd be fine with the retail center if 81st Street is connected to the retail boulevard (instead of the red "Large Retail" building), and parking is shifted into 2 or 3 garages. This opens more land to development, and improves the pedestrian environment.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2536  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2008, 3:00 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
Well, where do you want them to buy their groceries? I am just glad to see a few towers and some other urban things. I was expecting "Bridgeport Village" or one of these...
^ I'll take Bridgeport Village over this. Are you telling me that retail can't be incorporated into an urban community wiithout being designed in such an ugly, suburban format such as above? Shame on you!

I think some of us are getting so hung up with advocating 'the finest architecture' downtown that we're forgetting about the importance of promoting sound, pedestrian-friendly urban design in the neighborhoods. Lets not get lazy

In the event that some of you remember that I vouched for loosening urban design standards on the city's south/west sides, I'd like to remind you that I've always stated that lakefront neighborhoods such as this one should not be included in that category.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2537  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2008, 3:40 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
This same article also discusses the Theatre District tower project:

Jan. 30, 2008

Aragon owner a partner in Uptown movie theater project
By Eddie Baeb

Excerpt:

James Gouskos, owner of Lawrence Properties LLC, joined with Aragon owner Luis Rossi to buy a vacant site at 1063 W. Lawrence Ave. for a building that would house a nine- or 10-screen movie theater, a 500-car parking garage and 85,000 square feet of retail space. Messrs. Gouskos and Rossi paid $4.6 million for the property earlier this month.
http://chicagorealestatedaily.com/cg...ws.pl?id=27968
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2538  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2008, 3:49 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ I'll take Bridgeport Village over this. Are you telling me that retail can't be incorporated into an urban community wiithout being designed in such an ugly, suburban format such as above? Shame on you!

I think some of us are getting so hung up with advocating 'the finest architecture' downtown that we're forgetting about the importance of promoting sound, pedestrian-friendly urban design in the neighborhoods. Lets not get lazy

In the event that some of you remember that I vouched for loosening urban design standards on the city's south/west sides, I'd like to remind you that I've always stated that lakefront neighborhoods such as this one should not be included in that category.
Chill on the hyperbole But I do generally agree with you (aside from preferring Bridgeport Village, worthy of its Bubbly Creek location), the plan is underwhelming if only because of the large fields of parking. That said, it looks like the new Route 41 will be a pretty cool stretch, with the lakefront park on one side and a row of highrises on the other. Furthermore, I think the site is challenging because while establishing adequate pedestrian connections for new South Works residents to the retail is vital, this retail also needs to serve the surrounding community, which will generally be arriving by car. Best case would be more use of garages, but obviously these can get expensive and also provide the potential for traffic bottlenecks if there aren't enough access points.

Are there any higher-res images so we know what those dark grey strips in the bottom and left margins are? Are they rows of townhouses?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2539  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2008, 3:59 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ We may see another example of both sidewalk and parking entrances, with signs on the sidewalk saying "please use rear entrance"

Can retail not serve the community while still being integrated into the neighborhood? Why cant something that bears resemblance to the New City Y project, Bridgeport Village, 47th/Cottage Grove, State/Pershing, Wilson Yard, or even that planned Booth/Hansen retail center at around 59th/Halsted be proposed here? There are a lot of better options than this glorified strip center.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2540  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2008, 4:47 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Are you telling me that retail can't be incorporated into an urban community wiithout being designed in such an ugly, suburban format such as above? Shame on you!
Give me a break. Of course that's not what I'm saying.

My point is that there needs to be big box retail somewhere. I don't care where they put it or how it's integrated. If they can be pressured into doing something more urban, all the better.

The other point is, with idiot aldermen, bad planning, cheap developers, and no vision in this city, I am surprised we're even getting this much.

You call me an elitist when I advocate for good architecture, but you're expecting something like Skybridge on 80th Street? When's the last time you were down there? Good luck!

The primary goal of this development is surely to generate tax dollars and to enhance the desirability of the overall neighborhood for existing residents and those who would actually want to live in this area.
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 1:39 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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