Wednesday, November 21, 2012

First Look At JDL's Maryville Plans

From Ald. Cappleman's newsletter today:

"It was great to see many of you among the packed audience at Clarendon Park Fieldhouse last week. I heard really good feedback during the discussion of the development proposal at the Maryville property site located at the corner of Montrose & Clarendon. Click here to view the current proposal.

The next steps for this proposal include a second public meeting on December 13 (Thursday) at 7pm at Clarendon Park Fieldhouse.  The Zoning & Development Committee will begin meeting in January to provide further input into this development.  These meetings will be open to the public.  The 46th Ward website will always publish the latest draft of the proposal a week before the committee meets."

Note:  These are not renderings.  Exterior images show building height and size, NOT architectural plan.


  1. Pretty good looking orientation and massing.. Can't wait to see what the architecture turns out.. Hopefully something of interest and not any sort of box.

    JDL has been on a roll lately! Here’s ANOTHER project they have coming up:

    Let's hope this stays another one of JDL’s high-quality projects, Uptown deserves it.. especially after being ripped off by what Wilson Yards could have been!

  2. half the girth and twice the height would be much better but without seeing architectural details there isn't much else to say.

  3. Less height would make me happier.

  4. I'm generally pleased. I look forward to seeing/hearing more. (What's the structure in the upper left corner?)

  5. More height would be better. A single rectangular tower instead of the L-shaped plan would seem less bulky.
    I applaud them for trying to work in set backs so that it fits in better with the surroundings.
    I look forward to seeing how this develops.

  6. @ brett...totally. A single and taller tower would not only be a serious architectural improvement but decrease light impacts as well.

  7. I see NO building at the northeast corner of montrose/clarendon. This ia a really good sign...

  8. 776 new units with only 557 parking spots - that leaves 219 units without parking? I don't think the neighborhood can 200 some more cars competing for parking on the street. Obviously not everyone will have a car, but I think any new building should have MORE parking than units, considering unit owner guests and retail space that will need parking spots to survive.

  9. I'd like to see more information about the northern building because it looks like both buildings will throw long shadows over future sun- and daylight on the whole eastern side of Clarendon Park. That facility and the adjacent play/sport spaces will lose a lot of their year-round appeal (sun makes the playground useable for long hours in both winter & summer, for ex., minimizing lighting costs in summer and allowing for winter warmth). 4343 N. Clarendon creates a significant wind effect, so something like that is also to be avoided.

    But especially problematic given that bringing the field house up to code will be so expensive is that the facility's current solar suitability could significantly reduce future heating, cooling, and lighting costs. I don't like the idea of using TIF money on a new privately held building that essentially shifts its shadow burden to existing public facilities while retaining all future suncatching benefits itself.

  10. I agree that there should be more height. This is one of the last few remaining prime lots near the lake and on the northside. This building should make an impact for Uptown AND Chicago by extending our beautiful skyline along the lake. As a resident of Park Place Towers for almost 10 years, I would love to look out my window and see another stunning high rise north of me. Chicago is the founder of the first steel frame high rise. We have a history to uphold.

  11. I love how the Alderman wants to get rid of crime in Uptown but he is letting them bring more by allowing more affordable units being built into the new proposal for the Marryville location. So much for his stance on no more affordable housing when he was seeking our vote for election.

    Could you imagine how much worse Claredone park will get bringing more affordable housing right across the street. Agatite street will become just as bad as Sunnyside because all the peaceful people from Agatite will sail ship.

    Not all low income citizens are criminals but that's how they slip through into buildings and then the building becomes a haven for gangs and drugs because as soon as the rest of the tenants find out the crime living in the building the leave and the whole building becomes crap.

    We got plenty of affordable housing! Can we please, please, please just stop putting more if we want this neighborhood to ever get better.

    And for all you that are complaining about sun light because of the height proposal, get real! Let them build any size building they want as long as it doesn't contain affordable housing. Crime prevention is what you should be concerned with, especially since everyone complaining isn't moving into the building.

  12. Uptown Appalled, you might be less appalled if you stopped making up "facts" and paid attention to real facts.

    The alderman is not "letting" them put affordable housing into Maryville. It is required by law! Any building receiving TIF funding must, by law, make a very large contribution to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit funds or put 20% affordable housing into the building. There's no "letting" them do it, it's required. NO CHOICE.

    Think back. Who insisted, despite community opposition, that Uptown needed yet another TIF? Alderman Shiller.

    If you had read up on Maryville, you would know that the developers are weighing making a multi-million-dollar contribution to the LIHTC in lieu of putting in 20% affordable housing, but it is their prerogative, whatever makes a profit for them. It's THEIR decision, not the alderman's.

    Any less appalled now?

  13. No because this building when built will be another outlet for thugs to sneak through the cracks and place residence there. So I'm still appalled but thanks for the informative response.

  14. Might as well just let the site fester instead of tapping into the TIF. It's a pretty weak excuse for Cappleman apologists to say Shiller did it so we might as well go along. Really weak. Time to sack up or be a one termer.

  15. Alek, Maryville does not need to be a TIF.

    Shiller, John Wyman, Clarendon Park Neighbors, and Sedgwick made it a TIF.

    A TIF means that 20% of the housing MUST be affordable or a whole lotta money has to go into the LIHTC.

    And somehow that's Cappleman's fault? Yeah, that makes sense.