A community meeting has been held for the revised plans of ‘Old Town Canvas’ at 1610 N LaSalle Drive in Old Town. The upcoming skyscraper has been the center of controversy lately with surrounding neighbors even forming a lobbying community group against the project. The efforts for the structure are being led by local developer Fern Hill who recently proposed another project in Motor Row.
Previous (left) – updated (right) rendering of Old Town Canvas by GREC Architects
Designed by GREC Architects, the structure is set to rise 44 stories and 480 feet in height. The slender tower will contain 500 residential units most likely made up of studios, one-, two-bedroom layouts. Of these, 100 will be considered affordable. Bringing much needed density to an area whose new construction has lagged behind others and has seen a continuous increase in rent prices.
Height increase diagram of Old Town Canvas by GREC Architects
Rendering of increase setback of Old Town Canvas by GREC Architects
Although the developer has slimmed the mass down from the original proposal and centered it on the podium, which will avoid obscuring the views of surrounding high-rises, many of the complaints leading up to the meeting have come from those in surrounding towers. Like many other meetings, the comments focused on density, increased traffic, height, and blocking views.
Clipping of 1968 story on opposition to Americana Towers via Chicago Tribune
However the residents of these towers who oppose the development live in structures that faced the same scrutiny that’s being perpetuated. Above you can see a 1968 clipping from the Chicago Tribune on the opposition of 1638 N Wells Street (now known as the Americana Towers) just next door. The tower was eventually built in 1971, rising 34 stories tall with 419 units.
Images of 1660 N LaSalle (Left) and Americana Tower (Right)
Self-made rendering of Old Town Canvas by Old Town Friends For Responsible Development
Local community organization ‘Old Town Friends For Responsible Development’ has been one of the most vocal opponents of the building, sharing altered self-made renderings to skew public opinion (seen above). The group was formed as a lobbying organization earlier this year in part by the president of 1660 N LaSalle HOA, a 42-story and 426-foot-tall tower containing 492 units built in 1972, just one year after the Americana.
Updated podium of Old Town Canvas by GREC Architects
The group is also demanding the new Old Town Canvas development be no higher than 10 stories, which they claim is more in line with the area. If built, Old Town Canvas will bring an additional $2.5 million in taxes annually according to Block Club. It will also bring the first affordable units in the area in over eight years according to Crain’s.
Ground floor plan of Old Town Canvas by GREC Architects
Ultimately the decision will now come to the alderman who made various points in favor of the development, focusing on the need for more housing and for Chicago to remain competitive and affordable. This was also reiterated by the many supporters in the crowd. However, fears of re-election may play a role in the decision.
Updated rendering of Old Town Canvas by GREC Architects
Fern Hill is working on a traffic study for the project which will include ground-floor retail with space for the existing Walgreens, as well as a 450-vehicle parking garage split between 300 for Moody Church and 150 for the building’s residents. The $200 to $300 million project will need alderman approval as well as city council prior to groundbreaking.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
Unless the neighbors own the property in question, please proceed with construction as proposed. If the NIMBYs in Chicago had their way, this place would look like Dowagiac Michigan.
LOL. Dowagiac, Michigan!
This whole “your high rise blocks my high rise” is laughable. I hope its not swinging anyone’s views. Plus, there is no building today that has the simulated blocked view that is shown in that rendering. Is this the bird lobby complaining?
There is no legitimate reason why this planned skyscraper project cannot proceed. These opponents are narcissists who need to get a life and get out of the way of progress. They need to be reminded that they live in a huge major city. As for traffic, ditch the automobile and use public transportation. Parking should not even be a relevant issue.
Facts. I can never take people complaining about traffic seriously when they could all replace 75-100% of their regular trips with public transit/walking/biking.
Exactly. We live in one of the most walkable cities in the US. Why would someone live here so that they can have a car-based existence? There are so many nearby suburbs where one can drive their hearts out.
Why, then, are they building a 450-space parking garage? The traffic is horrible now.
You are the traffic Mark. The claims of traffic is a constant refrain from NIMBY’S such as yourself and it’s bogus.
I assume because the city has minimum parking requirements plus they needed to provide 300 to Moody Church for the deal to get done. But provided easy and parking never leads to less traffic. It induces more people to drive.
While I agree with you Robert, of course the residents are going to argue their position which is of course based on their own selfish self-interests. That doesnt make them any different from anyone else. Funny how people get so angry over this. Let’s just hear both sides out and see what happens.
-Shelley
My property tax bill this year amounts to more than two/thirds of what I paid for my property 40 years ago. Lets broaden our tax base so we’re not taxed out of our homes! We live downtown…screw the cars!
Can’t understate this enough…
F*CK every single ENTITLED NIMBY that thinks their place on this earth is more valuable than the potential of hundreds of new residents that could call this city home.
Lincoln Park’s population peaked in 1950 around 102,000. Today, we’re at just under 70,000. An additional 30,000 people are needed to even consider being “full.” Other global cities will continue to prove that notion is ludicrous.
So for every retiree that’s probably gonna kick the bucket in the next 15 years that’s fighting with all their might against this project, move along. This city was not built solely for you, no matter how much you try.
This is how a democracy works. Let the better side win. It really doesn’t depend on what Drew wants.
how can you live in the birthplace of skyscrapers, live in a skyscraper yourself, and then be opposed to more skyscrapers? give me a break
You truly don’t understand their position?
To sum these comments:
1. Get on a bike, boomer.
2. I deserve a place in the neighborhood for cheap.
3. Move if you don’t like it or die sooner.
Ah, Chicago, the welcoming city.
Nothing screams welcome like the denial of 1000’s of residences.
It’s the greedy homeless that are the issue. They keep hogging all the sidewalk space. Curses!
NIMBYS are the epitome of unwelcoming. But your comment history already proves your side.
Sure…or it’s just healthy and needed venting out of frustration. Better here than screaming at each other at an in-person town hall.
We need new laws that allow only people with higher degrees or certain income level to even have a say in this or any infrastructure projects, otherwise we’ll become a clown run nothing getting done society
I don’t believe that it’s so much the people as the default procedures, laws and incentives in place around development in Chicago and the larger US. If the default were more pro-building by default and people against something had a steeper hill to climb to completely stop something, then a small group of people wouldn’t have a disproportionate level.
the the anti-growth, anti-abundance, bunker mentality crowd is all bark, ignore them. this is my ward and i will 100% oppose my alderman’s reelect if he caves to people who prefer parking lots and stagnation to progress.
The issue, these groups do have very real consequences. After a certain point, the developer will only be able to hold on so long. This is an issue of get exhausted by years long battles that loses their interest or simply the financials simply no longer make sense. Every day added is an additional amount of rising interest.
“Advocate” groups have killed dozens of towers across SF and LA. Bringing this culture to the Midwest won’t spell prosperity to a region that needs more wins to remain relevant.
the UES in New York, LP in Chicago….
the self-made rendering by the opposed group is hilariously mis-scaled. They either just spent 5 minutes on it and called it a day or if they’re purposely misrepresenting the impact the building will have on the corner (more likely)
A gold start to Chicagoyimby for pointing out that the community opposition is looking down on this plot of land from their high rise condos.
“‘The proposed high rise will ruin the neighborhood,’ says high rise resident” is a perfect headline for The Onion.
NOT IN MY BACKYARD! DO YOU HEAR?? NOT. ONE. SINGLE. BRICK. OF. THIS. BUILDING. IN. MY. BACK. YARD! EVER!!!
It’s really disgusting to see a dishonest local community group that are also hypocrites. The “Old Town Friends of Responsible Development” argument is tainted and should be ignored by the alderman. The proposed project should be approved. It is import to have honest and pragmatic discussions about projects, not lies and hypocritical accusations that do not help the community as a whole.
everybody is a hypocrite somehow
everybody will look to protect their own interest
it doesnt make their position a good one – but it doesnt discredit it either
My interest is regarding the 20% affordable unit set aside. As a 38 year resident and housing advocate, I am eager to learn what developers consider affordable. I also question the use of the acronym NIMBY when historical use of this term meant opposition to any service serving poor, vulnerable individuals, not simply housing density. Or is most if this resident opposition to the meager 20%? A more equitable distribution would be 30% low income, 30% moderate & 30% market rate.
Proud of the comment section
Great article by this author. I really love how he points out the hypocrisy of not allowing this to be approved while also showing the tax dollars lost. It’s just so annoying to let one person decide if 500 apartments can be built or not. Anything that is a huge benefit for the city should be built.
I’m just here for the comment’s I LOVE CHICAGOYIMBY my view is if they built it they come and the local residents don’t want anybody to come into their neighborhood