CHICAGO | General Developments

[Chicago3rd]

I want it...but I want it with lot less cars. Only want parking for the average amount of people staying at the hotel. Addison cannot handle anymore traffic most days of the week let alone on game day. But I want this and much more density around all CTA El stops. We should be taxing people more who don't allow for the city to maximize the EL yet get the benifit of it right next door.

[EarlyBuyer]

I received this from Magellan:

Dear Lakeshore East Residents:


As the Lakeshore East Community Relations Director I'd like to provide a Village Market update. The Village Market, which will offer a host of retail amenities, will be situated on the southwestern edge of the community just north of 340 on The Park. There has been a lot of anticipation by the residents as well as Magellan Development for the official ground breaking. The recent delays are due to some architectural changes that we feel will benefit the Village Market and our community. Once the new plans are approved by the City Council and Planning Department we expect an immediate ground breaking. We are very confident of a spring 2008 ground breaking with an expected 12 month build out.

We are delighted that a Treasure Island Grocery Store and a well known ice cream chain are confirmed retailers and are excited to report that a nationally respected day care center is also very interested in the space. The Village Market will span over 100,000 square feet and will be a place for residents and neighbors to shop, dine, relax and socialize. An underground parking garage and potential for drive up services are also in the plans.

The spectacular Lakeshore East scale model including the addition of the Village Market has been moved to the new Sales and Design Gallery located in the retail space of The Regatta at 430 E. Waterside Drive. I encourage you to stop in, meet with me and take a look at the design and lay out of the Village Market.

[the urban politician]

Have any of you read the big article today in the Tribune regarding spot zoning in the city, Aldermanic prerogative, and campaign donations from developers? Pretty interesting:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6181305.story

I particularly cracked up when I saw this picture. I could certainly be mistaken here, but I believe I read an article a few years ago in Chicago Mag about a controversial project on the NW side. On an otherwise Single-Family-Home lined street, a wealthy Hip-Hop producer got a zoning change to build a big castle. Neighbors were furious when they found out what he was building. This pic, from the Tribune, looks like it could be the very same project:



Those neighbors must be cursing this damn thing every day.

[honte]

^ Yes, I think that's the one. Did you see the front (from the Kennedy). OMG. He actually put the front of his "castle" facing the highway instead of the street. Unreal.

Originally Posted by Marcu

Disagree. Not everything in the city needs a glass curtain. Clean looking brick is a lot more appropriate for the area. Especially if done well.

And does anything about that render or design indicate to you that it will? Get ready for more schlock. They can go ahead and use whatever materials they want, but it should be well done.

My reaction is not so much about the change in designs, but the fact that the design clearly went from "I want to do something a bit bold" to yet more compromised, boring infill that looks like anywhere else.

IMO insertions of good, contemporary materials can do a lot to jazz up a streetscape and breathe in new life. For instance, although it's too flashy and "Miami Vice" for me, the new Army Surplus on Belmont has had this effect.

[the urban politician]

^ You know, on another note I actually think that schlock jazzes up streetscapes as well. I know you're one of shlock's biggest critics, but I actually am one of the few people who doesn't agree much with that Tribune article. I like "the French embassy", and other than that somewhat entertaining hip-hop castle, I like every development pictured (perhaps also with the exception of that blob that replaced the Artful Dodger).

While I certainly think that accepting campaign contributions from developers in return for allowing zoning changes is an unacceptable practice, I also don't agree with the notion that neighborhoods should be kept at a certain density and that rooflines should all match up.

I don't at all have a problem with the 3-4 story monstrosities that tower over single family homes. This is a city, and it's a sign that people want to live in these neighborhhoods. Let more of these get built, I say. What's wrong with neighborhoods transforming?

What we're seeing here is just the typical city-wide reaction against new development, the usual whining that never stops, and the Tribune appears to have sided with NIMBY's. I agree with its criticism of Aldermanic prerogative, but for a different reason. They criticize Aldermanic prerogative because Alderman are cozy with developers; I criticize it because it allows small numbers of outspoken individuals to overpower the people who should be overseeing development: the Planning Dept.

[Abner]

The Tribune article comes with a very interesting database with a search function that allows you to look up all zoning changes in a given ward for the past five years or so.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

What we're seeing here is just the typical city-wide reaction against new development, the usual whining that never stops, and the Tribune appears to have sided with NIMBY's. I agree with its criticism of Aldermanic prerogative, but for a different reason. They criticize Aldermanic prerogative because Alderman are cozy with developers; I criticize it because it allows small numbers of outspoken individuals to overpower the people who should be overseeing development: the Planning Dept.

First, much of the upzoning discussed in the article leads to a DECREASE in density--multiple lots or three-flats being replaced with a single gargantuan single-family home. Moreover, lots that never used to have parking suddenly have to have eight-car garages that alone are the size of the houses they replaced. This practice does not promote density.

Second, there is no shortage of vacant land and underutilized lots in this city. If developers were encouraged to build on those, we might start seeing development spread outside the extremely narrow northern corridor to which it is confined.

Third, the planners themselves often recommend against zoning changes because they create unpredictable density levels and blocks with no defined character. People don't want to live in a place like that.

Fourth, well, people don't want to live in places like that. Note the story about the family on N. Sacramento that has to deal with a developer building condos on either side of their house--despite the fact that the already-completed condo building on one side has had no buyers!

Fifth, the city had the option of promoting new development in areas that have plenty of transit capacity, like around Lake Street. It elected to allow aldermen to promote it instead in areas with already crushing density of transit trips, taxing the existing infrastructure.

The city could have stuck with a pretty tried-and-true zoning system. Arterial streets with high density and a mixture of uses, residential streets for those with a little more to spend who value quietness and light. Instead it has allowed this zoning anarchy, which only encourages people to invest little in their communities, since they have no way of knowing whether they will have any interest in living in them in the future.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Abner

First, much of the upzoning discussed in the article leads to a DECREASE in density--multiple lots or three-flats being replaced with a single gargantuan single-family home.

^ I'm not denying that this is taking place as well. But which process is dominating? (ie SFH being replaced with a condo building, or a 3 flat replaced with a mansion?)

Moreover, lots that never used to have parking suddenly have to have eight-car garages that alone are the size of the houses they replaced. This practice does not promote density.

^ I hear you, but come on. 8 car garages? That is definitely the exception. Most of the parking is simply filling space in the rear of buildings along the alleys anyhow.

Second, there is no shortage of vacant land and underutilized lots in this city. If developers were encouraged to build on those, we might start seeing development spread outside the extremely narrow northern corridor to which it is confined.

^ Right, but what does this have to do with zoning? People want to live in these north side neighborhoods.

Third, the planners themselves often recommend against zoning changes because they create unpredictable density levels and blocks with no defined character. People don't want to live in a place like that.

My problem is with this notion of 'defined character'. Since when is that set in stone? Can't a neighborhood's character change? Can a neighborhood full of worker's 2 flats gradually evolve into a neighborhood of large mansions? I agree that the current process (or lack thereof) is horrible, but we need to be open to change. Instead of spot zoning, perhaps we should be looking at development patterns and rezone whole blocks accordingly?

Fourth, well, people don't want to live in places like that. Note the story about the family on N. Sacramento that has to deal with a developer building condos on either side of their house--despite the fact that the already-completed condo building on one side has had no buyers!

^ Perhaps they should move, then. When the lots around you get larger and larger structures, are they the ones out of character or are you?

Fifth, the city had the option of promoting new development in areas that have plenty of transit capacity, like around Lake Street. It elected to allow aldermen to promote it instead in areas with already crushing density of transit trips, taxing the existing infrastructure.

I agree with TOD as well. And there are a lot of transit stops in the city where publically they are trying to attract development. But how much can the city do? People want to be on the north side, and that's not gonna change no matter how many RFP's the Planning Dept submits.

The city could have stuck with a pretty tried-and-true zoning system. Arterial streets with high density and a mixture of uses, residential streets for those with a little more to spend who value quietness and light. Instead it has allowed this zoning anarchy, which only encourages people to invest little in their communities, since they have no way of knowing whether they will have any interest in living in them in the future.

^ Agree 100%. But lets remember that the issue isn't Chicago's lack of a zoning system, it's corrupt spot-zoning that's the root of this problem. It's Aldermanic privilege. Smart planning can't occur as long as some hack can pull the rug out under (or give the thumbs up on) any project because of a donation or because of the taste of a few individuals.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You know, on another note I actually think that schlock jazzes up streetscapes as well. I know you're one of shlock's biggest critics, but I actually am one of the few people who doesn't agree much with that Tribune article. I like "the French embassy", and other than that somewhat entertaining hip-hop castle, I like every development pictured (perhaps also with the exception of that blob that replaced the Artful Dodger).

My opinions are the opposite. I hate the French embassy, but I don't have a problem with the castle, which I see every time I drive in on the Kennedy.

Along most of the Kennedy, the highway is an ugly slash through neighborhoods, where the existing older buildings jut up against the highway at odd angles. You can tell that the old neighborhood and the highway don't match; there's a ragged edge where they meet. I like the trend of architecture giving respect to the highway in terms of the shape of buildings. The highway isn't going anywhere; it's about time architects stopped turning their backs on it.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Have any of you read the big article today in the Tribune regarding spot zoning in the city, Aldermanic prerogative, and campaign donations from developers? Pretty interesting:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6181305.story

I particularly cracked up when I saw this picture. I could certainly be mistaken here, but I believe I read an article a few years ago in Chicago Mag about a controversial project on the NW side. On an otherwise Single-Family-Home lined street, a wealthy Hip-Hop producer got a zoning change to build a big castle. Neighbors were furious when they found out what he was building. This pic, from the Tribune, looks like it could be the very same project:



Those neighbors must be cursing this damn thing every day.

It's hard to tell from this angle if this is that development or not. All I know is that you can see it while driving NB on the Kennedy Expy. I saw it today actually. It's kind of gaudy.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by trvlr70

I agree. Huge expanses of glass would look terrible in that vicinity.

depends how it's executed. There's little reason to believe that a certain area needs a certain type of material to coexist properly. perhaps this idea of trying to fit into a certain context is the the wrong approach (strictly within the context of style and not scale).

with all things, some architects are much better at using brick (FLW was amazing with it), some are amazing with the use of concreate (Louis Kahn) and others treat glass in spectacular ways.

but I regress, I'm more concerned about fundamental urban design with this project. The area isn't all that attractive to begin with. Therefore I don't see an architectural blight as damaging as an urban planning mistake (500 spaces).

as many of you know, I'm a big fan of the NIMBY at times. They have the power to foster better design, preserve the parts that are worth preserving and and kill the undesirable (strip malls). Jane Jacobs was a NIMBY at the expense of better solutions for a better environment. At the same time, killing density for killing density sake isn't smart either.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by alex1

depends how it's executed. There's little reason to believe that a certain area needs a certain type of material to coexist properly. perhaps this idea of trying to fit into a certain context is the the wrong approach (strictly within the context of style and not scale).

with all things, some architects are much better at using brick (FLW was amazing with it), some are amazing with the use of concreate (Louis Kahn) and others treat glass in spectacular ways.

but I regress, I'm more concerned about fundamental urban design with this project. The area isn't all that attractive to begin with. Therefore I don't see an architectural blight as damaging as an urban planning mistake (500 spaces).

as many of you know, I'm a big fan of the NIMBY at times. They have the power to foster better design, preserve the parts that are worth preserving and and kill the undesirable (strip malls). Jane Jacobs was a NIMBY at the expense of better solutions for a better environment. At the same time, killing density for killing density sake isn't smart either.

I agree, I imagine the powers that be trying to enforce a certain aesthetic that "goes along with Wrigley" somehow. What exactly that would be I am not sure but I fear that the worst that developers try or are forced to be beholden to such a mirage the worst off all the development that will go up will be.

Style and architecture can be done well and look descent no matter the reference or genre but the most important thing is that whatever is built coordinates and juxtapose while complementing well with its surroundings (which doesn't necessarily require similar heights or styles to do it).

If anyone hasn't reaed the comments post on the news article I suggest reading some .....
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/ch...65FDE6QTMCPPEU

[wrab]

Another Trib photo of the castle:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...0.photogallery

[honte]

^ Ok, thanks, so I forgot there was a street between the Kennedy and the "Castle". Still, the elevations to the east and north are unacceptable....

[the urban politician]

One last point:

I am happy that this issue made headlines in the Tribune, for the simple fact that it highlights the problems with Aldermanic prerogative. Perhaps this is the very beginning of a discussion about the inherent flaws with this long-standing tradition.

[ardecila]

I'm not sure of my opinion on this issue. On the one hand, aldermanic prerogative is allowing neighborhoods like Wicker Park, Bucktown, Lakeview, Lincoln Park, et al. to get taller and recapture some of the density they lost when gentrification reduced household sizes, thereby supporting further retail and creating transit ridership. If planners had their say, the neighborhoods would remain more or less untouched, save for rehabs and the occasional empty parcels.

On the other hand, aldermanic prerogative also fosters idiotic moves like the attempted blocking of X/O and the downzoning of Gold Coast.

It's a really tough call on my part, especially since I can't decide whether I prefer a planned approach or laissez-faire (which produced most of historic Chicago). Pay-to-play is basically just a form of laissez-faire, since many aldermen don't care about what development occurs so long as they get their little "fee".

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

It's kind of gaudy.

Kind of?

[wrab]

Originally Posted by ardecila

.....It's a really tough call on my part, especially since I can't decide whether I prefer a planned approach or laissez-faire (which produced most of historic Chicago). Pay-to-play is basically just a form of laissez-faire, since many aldermen don't care about what development occurs so long as they get their little "fee".

Ultimate (penultimate?) laissez-faire city would be Houston - very little zoning there.

[EarlyBuyer]

Photo's taken by EarlyBuyer 1/27/08

[honte]

^ Earlybuyer, I appreciate all of your photo posts.

Originally Posted by wrabbit

Ultimate (penultimate?) laissez-faire city would be Houston - very little zoning there.

I lived in Houston for a spell. The funny thing is, however, that they really don't have the same kind of problem Chicago does. The neighborhoods are surprisingly consistent, even though people bash the lack of zoning all the time, and they didn't have a huge teardown trend like Chicago. (At least, when I lived there, they didn't.) I did have an ice cream factory down the block from my house, though.

I am not sure if you are using Houston as a good example or a bad one, but the point I am trying to make is that I think Houston residents would be equally upset if they were experiencing something similar to many north side neighborhoods.

[JV_325i]

Originally Posted by EarlyBuyer

...and potential for drive up services are also in the plans.

So what exactly does this mean? Drive up as in drive-through banking because residents can't possibly fathom walking 500 feet to get to their desired destination? If that is the case then that is really pathetic.